This comment letter response contains two parts:

(1) The original submittal from the commenter.

(2) A data base printout of EPA’s response to each point raised by the commenter.

Notes about the response letters:

• The response letters were generated by a data base used to track the content of all public

comment submittals and ensure that the Agency responds to each. Each comment letter

was assigned a Letter ID that corresponds to the last four digits of the docket number of the

original comment (as posted on www.regulations.gov).

• Each response letter includes: comment text; an EPA

‐ assigned comment code; and an

individual response. These are described and explained below.

• The data base contains Comment text from the letters submitted by commenters.

Many hard copy letters were scanned into electronic format for inclusion in the data

base. As a result, there may be some typographical errors attributable to optical

character recognition issues. However, all original submittals were reviewed in the

process of drafting responses to ensure that the comment content was understood and

appropriately addressed.

• The content of each comment letter was divided into topic areas and assigned a unique

Comment ID. Additionally, one or more Comment Codes (i.e., unique topic area ID) was

assigned to each discrete point raised by a commenter. This information was added to

the data base. To inform final rulemaking decisions, all comments and information

received on a given topic were reviewed by technical experts in each rule area (e.g., on

construction requirements).

• Following decisions on the final rule requirements, Individual responses were drafted

by topic area to ensure completeness and consistency of the responses with the final

rule and other responses to similar comments. Each discrete point made by a

commenter was given a unique response.

• Upon completion of comment responses, all information was entered into the data base.

Each letter response is a compilation of each comment and its individual response,

compiled in the order of the original comment letter. As a result of this process, there is

repetition in the response text. The Agency believes this approach ensures completeness

and attention to each comment letter that was submitted.

• All comments in a topic area were reviewed, evaluated, and responded to concurrently.

Responses on each topic area are compiled and are also available in the rulemaking docket.

### Global Warming Blues

By Norman Rogers

I spent my working life as a computer engineer and entrepreneur. I have a long history of tilting

at windmills having been involved in numerous causes and crusades during my life. So when my

retirement started it was natural for me to look for something to get i nvolved with. I picked

global warming. Since I had completed the course wo rk for a Ph.D. in physics I felt that I could

deal with the technical side of global warming theory. As a computer expert I though that I

would have insight to the giant co mputer models of the earth's c limate that are central to global

warming science.

I smelled a rat right from the beginning. As a 20-so mething activist I had a j ob as the Director of

Operations for Zero Population Growth, Inc. ZP G was a 70's environmental organization that at

one time had 25,000 members. I knew that professiona l environmentalism has an ethics problem.

Exaggeration promotes contributions.

In my quest to investigate and understand globa l warming I joined the American Geophysical

Union and the American Meteorological Society. At scientific meetings , like an anthropologist,

I cultivated native informants.

I learned that most scientists don't have a good gras p of the big picture because they are narrowly

specialized and don't think about much outside of th eir immediate interests. The scientists that do

have a grasp of the big picture can be divided into global warm ing advocates, skeptics and the

majority of passive observers who play it safe by not taking a pos ition. The global warming

advocates have the upper hand and the most power. The skeptics, including quite a few excellent

scientists, are marginalized and frankly persecuted. They are whistle blowers. A lot of skeptics

are retired. The warmers can't cancel pensions, at least not yet. The most famous promoter of

global warming, James Hansen, wants to put hi s opponents on trial for crimes against humanity.

Global warming scare stories are good for globa l warming science because the scare stories

promote research funding. If it weren't for the s cary predictions these scientists would be toiling

in a poorly funded and obscure branch of academ ic science. As the distinguished climate

scientist Richard Lindzen noted in an article, fe ar is more effective than gratitude for inducing

financial support.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or IPCC is a branch of the United Nations and

is very much under the control of climate doom sters. If climate doom were not impending the

IPCC would not be necessary, thus it is a bureauc ratic imperative that the IPCC predicts climate

doom. The IPCC and Al Gore were jointly given the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. The peace prize is

given by politicians for political reasons and the 2007 recipients have shown themselves to be

accomplished politicians. The history of the N obel Peace Prize does not inspire confidence.

Some of the recipients have been crackpots (Li nus Pauling) and others fraudsters (Rigoberta

Menchu). Gore seems to me to be a combination of both.

The increase in temperature predicted by the glob al warming computer models is about 3 degrees

Celsius. This isn't very scary, so the promot ers of global warming alarmism come up with

additional scare stories. For example, there will be more hurricanes, the ice caps will melt, the

polar bears will die, the oceans will become acid and kill the coral, and weather will becomemore extreme. These stories have much less scie ntific support than th e warming theories, and

each has been rebutted [i] . Scare stories attract attention and it is much more difficult to refute

scare stories than it is to create them. By the time one scare story becomes discredited a new

scare story is spread.

A red flag in the global warming debate is the le ft-right split. Generally people on the left tend to

believe in global warming and those on the right te nd to be skeptics. The New York Times thinks

global warming is settled science while the Wall Stre et Journal thinks it is greatly exaggerated. If

global warming is a science question, why should th is be so? The answer is that both the right

and the left recognize that global warming has political consequen ces. The left recognizes that

global warming presents an opportunity to increa se government revenue via carbon taxes and to

justify the taxes as si n taxes. The right recognizes the same thing.

Organized science has relinquished its traditional role as an objective advisor to policy makers

and has instead become a lobbyist for its own inte rests. The interests of big science happen to

coincide with the ideological goals of the green movement. The resulting coalition has

impressive political power.

The global warming advocates have a campaign of slander against the global warming skeptics.

Al Gore calls them people who think the earth is flat and that the moon landing was staged. The

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman declar es that skeptics are committing treason against

the planet.

The science behind the IPCC predictions and the scary claims is incredibly weak, really

bordering on fantasy. As I began to understa nd what the IPCC and the computer climate

modelers were doing it dawned on me that the entire enterprise is highly speculative and

inconsistent. Certainly great pr ogress has been made in understa nding how the climate works in

the last 40 years. But that understanding has not reached the point where we can have any faith

in future predictions of the effects of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Since vast efforts and

billions of dollars have been invested in huge computer cl imate models the scientific

organizations are forced to defend the usefulne ss of the models. The way in which the IPCC has

utilized climate models to make predictions is really quite comical, a lthough it takes a lot of

study and wading through a molasses- like report to get to the point where it starts to seem funny.

I have a 40 page article on my website if you would like to know the details.

Kevin Trenberth, no global warming skeptic, is on e of the most prominent climate scientists in

the world. He is a senior scientist and the Head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National

Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) . He said this about climate models.

... None of the models used by IPCC are initialize d to the observed state and none of the climate

states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate. In particular, the

state of the oceans, sea ice, a nd soil moisture has no relationshi p to the observed state at any

recent time in any of the IPCC models. ...

He is confessing that climate m odels leave a lot to be desired.Clouds are very important, but it is generally accepted that the treatment of clouds by the

computer models is very poor. This is neatly summarized by a few lines from the Judy Collins

song Both Sides Now.

I've looked at clouds from both sides now

From up and down and still somehow

It's cloud's illusions I recall

I really don't know clouds at all

The 20 or so climate models used by the IPCC don't agree with each other as to how much

warming would take place due to doubling CO2. Th e range is 2 to 4-1/2 degrees Celsius. There

are perfectly plausible theories , based on observations, not models , that the warming would be

far less, from scientists such as Richar d Lindzen, Stephen Schwartz and Roy Spencer.

A 3 C degree increase in global temperature is the difference between Chicago and St. Louis.

Further the models, if you believe them, predict th at the change in temperature mostly will take

place at night or in the winter when it is of ten too cold anyway. Between International Falls,

Minnesota and Key West, Florida the difference in annual average temperature is 23 degrees

Celsius, 7 times greater than the IPCC's 3 degree predicted change for doubling CO2.

The climate of the 20 th century is inconsistent with the climate models and in fact can't be

explained within the IPCC fr amework. The climate of the 20 th century is characterized by

warming from 1910 to 1940 followed by cooling between 1940 and 1970 and then more

warming from 1970 with an apparent cessation of the warming during the last decade. This is

illustrated by the graph below.The attempts to make the 20th century climate consistent with the computer models simply don't

work. Explanations that the warming is inhibited by aerosols or heat being diverted to the ocean

are very improbable.

Controlling our own carbon dioxide emissions accomplishes practically nothing if the Chinese

and Indians don't control theirs. They play along as long as it seems profitable. The Chinese and

Indians are like the natives who happily attend ch urch services as long as the missionaries are

giving out free dinners.

Green electric power from windmills and solar en ergy is impracticable. Its expensive and due to

the erratic nature of sunshine and wind, sola r and wind power must be backed up by duplicate

power plants or by energy storage systems that are as expensive as duplicate power plants. It

sometimes seems that the advocates of solar pow er don't realize that the sun does not shine at

night. The much acclaimed Kyoto Treaty for the reduction of CO2 illogically does not give CO2

reduction credit for CO2-free nuclear power plants, something put in the treaty in response to

green lobbying.

The global warming skeptics should to be given so me respect and a chance to make their case.

An appropriate solution would th e establishment of a B team financed by the government and

allowed to present the other side of the argument. If such a B team were established and given

respect, in my opinion, the global warming mo vement would collapse because its foundations

would be exposed as being weak and corrupt.The author has provided a long te chnical article on IPCC use of climate models to fit the 20 th

century: Worse Than the Hockey Stick

## This document is not availabl e in Regulations.gov since it

contains copyrighted material that may not be reproduced

without consent of the copyright holder.

Contact the EPA Docket Center, Public Read ing Room to view

or receive a copy of this docu ment. Requests for copies may be

made as follows:

In person/writing:

Environmental Protection Agency, Docket Center

1301 Constitution Ave NW, 2822T, Room 3334

Washington, DC. 20004

Telephone:

202-566-1744

Fax:

202-566- 9744

Email:

docket-customerservice@epa.gov**Non-Aerospace Research Quests of a Designer/Flight Test Engineer** **Things you probably do not know about Rutan By Burt Rutan** **• Efficiency - Home and Automotive Interest is technology, not tree-hugging.** **• Anthropogenic Global Warming – Focus is data analysis, interpretation and** **how it is used/miss-used. – Complex data from disparate sources -** **similar challenge to the engineering Experimental Test experience.** **– Not a Climatologist’s study; more from the view of a flight test guy who has** **spent a lifetime in data analysis/interpretation.** **Who are the ‘Experts’ on AGW? Bias among the debaters** **• Nearly impossible to find one without bias – 1. Climatologist; Academia or Government.** **– 2. Climatologist or spokesperson; Oil/coal/etc i ndustry.** **– 3. Politician, Mainstream Media, Lawyer, Hollywoo d** **– 4. Those who plan to profit from the crisis. – 5. Those who demand a Socialist society.** **– 6. Those who fear expansion of Government control .** **– 7. Global Governance foreigners (UN and America’s other global adversaries).** **– 8. Meteorologists Who are the ‘Experts’ on AGW?** **Bias among the debaters • Nearly impossible to find one without bias** **– 1. Climatologist; Academia or Government. – 2. Climatologist or spokesperson; Oil/coal/etc i** **ndustry. – 3. Politician, Mainstream Media, Lawyer, Hollywoo** **d*****– 4. Those who plan to profit from the crisis. – 5. Those who demand a Socialist society.** **– 6. Those who fear expansion of Government control .** **– 7. Global Governance foreigners (UN and America’s other** **global adversaries). – 8. Meteorologists** *** And other criminals**Population Bomb; starvation/crowding (1950s and 1960s)Run out of Oil; (1950 to present)Silent Spring; DDT (1960s 70s)Global Nuclear War (1950s thru 1980s)Global cooling; Ice Age/starvation (1895 to 1930 and 1956 to 1976)Hole in the Ozone layer; CFC-cause? (1980s)Acid Rain (1980s)Nuclear Winter; nuke-caused ice Age (1980s 1990s)Y2K; power/communication meltdown (1999)Global Warming; earth burns & seas rise (1929 to 1969 and 1983 to 2003)Climate Change; any change is catastrophic (2003 topresent)Scares - Two Distinct TypesThe Peoples’ “Fault”Not The Peoples’ “Fault”Flying saucer invasion (1940s)Report from Iron Mountain; peace scare (1960s)Volcano - Caused Atmospheric Pollution; crops die/ice ageSolar - Caused Climate Disaster; ice age, warming, radiationAsteroid and Comet Strikes; climate crisis/mass extinctionsMy Background - Flight Test Data AnalysisThe more complex or uncertain the data, the morejudgment is needed to interpret and the more susceptiblethe conclusions are to bias**Greenhouse Gas Warming The Alarmist’ Key Ammunition;** **Humans add CO2 to Atmosphere That ‘pollution’ drives temperatures to Catastrophe** **Global Atmospheric CO2 is now Very Low**Selection of only thecircled data points thatsupport your theoryMeasured Atmospheric CO2 %Manipulation of dataBlue line is modern, accurate dataMauna Loa Observatory, HawaiiAssessing the Blame for Warming1960 to 2000 shows good correlation of warming andCarbon emissions.Not true when you look at all the data.No Intended Deception HereOne data source; Thirty-yearTemperature historyData source mix without deceptionMany data sources; 15k yearsRoman and medieval Warming inperspective.You would never see this in a UN ReportTwo Types of Presentation FraudScale changes and data source mixing**Surface Temperature Measurement Number of surface thermometer stations and global** **temperature vs. date (1950 to 1999) When the Soviet Union rapidly collapsed in 1989/91** **they did not maintain many of their surface temperature measurin** **g stations. Thousands of the cold stations were closed.** A Note About Gore’s hero, NASA’s Chief Alarmistmedieval WarmingGore PresentationActual Temperatures,same time period**Honest Presentation? "Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't th** **ink there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropri** **ate to have an over representation of factual presentations on how dang** **erous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audi** **ence to listen to what the solutions are. ”** Al Gore, Grist Magazine, May 9, 2006**But, Gore does not ‘Manufacture’ Data He has lots of help** **• His ‘Hockey Stick’ graph is from UN/IPCC, 2001 (now discredited)** **• Cherry Picking Data – Present only data that supports ‘The Cause’** **– Focus on Katrina, but ignore thunderstorm statisti cs** **– Show only melting ice, but ignore ice growth – Quote only the highest-possible crisis predictions** **– Focus on CO2 fears; ignore its benefits – Never discuss any climate good news** **• “Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.”** **UN IPCC Data Manipulation http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/pa** **pers/reprint/markey_and_barton_l etter.pdf** **1990 to 2001; a complex, lengthy path of data manipulation, driven by non-scientific issues.** **Refer to link below and to the book “Politically I ncorrect Guide to** **Global Warming” for details UN Data Manipulation** **The Media Does Not Investigate They just listen to the Alarmists and then report t** **hat GW is “worse than the UN predictions”** **High-slope, 20-year Periods are Not Unique Opposite conclusion, same** **data, thus it might be low confidence.** **Confidence restored by four sets of separate, reliable data -** **Hadley, Goddard, U of Alabama and Remote Sensing** **Recent Global Warming has NEGATIVE correlation with CO2** **(two sources of the best data)**Atmospheric Temperature over 410,000 yearsData from the Vostok ice cores**• Total historical variance is less than today’s day -night delta.** **• Time period encompasses tens of thousands of sever e volcano events with** **greenhouse gas issues swamping any human emission c apability.** **• The ‘norm’ is lengthy ice ages; warm periods are br ief.** **• The recent warm period is the most stable; 12k yea rs at a pleasant** **temperature.**Analysis of the Vostok Ice Core Data• Encompassing sinusoid is 2 deg C cooler than present (red line).• Average real temperature is 5 deg cooler than present (green line).• Aggressive second-derivatives are at warm peaks (red circles).• The planet naturally avoids over-temp in a robust,aggressive way.• The Big Risk is too cold (the planet’s natural preference is severe ice ages withmassive extinctions).Hurricanes, floods, lightning, tornados, sea ice, glaciers, weather deaths, risingseas - Alarmists Claim Crisis Without showing Data.Pg 1Show Me the DataPg2Show Me the DataPg3Show Me the DataPg4**Why “Global Warming” is now called “Climate Change”** **• The quiet realization that the new data does**not**fit the model predictions. – No Greenhouse Gas Model predicted the recent** **cooling. No model could have predicted the medieval warming or the ‘little ice age”.** **– The branding change coincided with the end of real****“scientific consensus”*.****• ‘Climate Change’ is the world’s safest bet. It always has changed and always will change.** **To call Climate Change a Crisis is silly.*********Of course, Consensus has nothing to do with Science and Science** **has nothing to do with Consensus. The More Important Natural Global** **Warming/Cooling Controls • The important climate thermostats are too chaotic** **to model:** **– Precipitation and Cloud formation ; A <2% precipitation** **change more than offsets a**doubling**of CO2, but it cannot be predicted, even short term.** **– The Pacific heat vent ; observed and powerful, but** **cannot be modeled. It is also a stable, temperatur e** **control thermostat. • Only the trace greenhouse gas (CO2) can be blamed** **on human behavior.** **• Water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas, overwhe lming** **CO2, but even the EPA will not call water a “pollut ant”.** **Observations • Man** can**measure the past, but**cannot**code a computer model to predict future global temperatures.** **• Man has**not**demonstrated a reliable ability to himself change global temperatures.** **• Warm periods are good, not bad. It would be benef icial to** **have more warming than present. • CO2 is** not**a pollutant. • Warm periods have been brief and they are not the** **‘normal’ planet state.** **• Oil/coal are called ‘non-renewable’; but every dec ade shows** **an estimated**increase**in reserves. We will**not**run out; we will merely slowly switch when costs force a move t** **o cheaper alternatives.** **• If Man, in the future, achieves a capability to ch ange global** **temperatures, he will most certainly use that new t echnology to** warm**the planet, not to cool it. • Is the debate over?** **Recommendations • Drop CCC (Climate Change Crisis) and Cap & Trade l** **egislation. It is naive, non-scientific, irrelevant, hopeless and** **oxymoronic. Its alarmists can use it to destroy US global competiti** **veness through Cap and Trade taxes.** **– As proposed, most new jobs are for Government regu lation/oversight** **bureaucracies. The process is already ripe with fr aud (85% of permits** **would be free, 15% auctioned). – As proposed, the huge spending would result in no** **benefit to the planet.** **• If the Government really wants to protect citizens from a possible** **planet catastrophe, then fund commercial R&D on sys tems to** **defend against Asteroid Strikes - the only real exti nction threat the** **planet has ever had and the only one in which Man c an indeed use** **his intelligence and sweat to successfully defeat. – Commercial R & D jobs would grow the economy, enco** **urage science/engineering education and have other lastin** **g benefits (like Apollo).** **This PowerPoint file is posted at: http://rps3. com/** Letter ID: 0325

Commenter: G.H. Holliday

Organization: Holliday Environmental Services, Inc.

Letter ID: 0325 Comment ID: 27859 Letter Lines: 16 to 16

Comment Code: 6000 6. Other Comments that are Out of Scope for the NODA

Comment: I request these attachments beassociated with Dr. Holliday comment submited 7 Sept. 2009.

Individual Response: This comment is outside the scope of the Notice of Data Availability and the UIC

Program’s authority under the GS rulemaking.