### United States Environmental Protection Agency Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171



### TN RE: ENDANGERMENT AND CAUSE OR CONTRIBUTE FINDINGS FOR GREENHOUSE GASES UNDER SECTION 202(a) OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT; FINAL RULE, 74 FR 66 ,495 (DEC. 15 , 2009)



### Petition For Reconsideration of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, the Science and Environmental Policy Project,

February 12 , 2010 

### and the Competitive Enterprise Institute
S. Fred Singer, Co-Founder Nongovernmental International Pane l on Climate Change 1600 S. Eads St.# 712-S Arlington, VA 22202 singer@nipcc.org Kenneth A. 

### Haapala , Exec. Vice President Science and Environmental Policy Project 9634 Boyett Court Fairfax, VA 22032 (703) 978-6025 Ken@Haapala.com Sam Kazman, General Counsel* Competitive Enterprise Institute 1899 L 

### Street, NW, l2 1h 

### Floor Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 331-2265 skazman@cei.org *contactpersonfor petitioners

### Petition for Reconsideration To the Environmental Protection Agency Regarding Its Final Rule Concerning Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act Office of the Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Room 3000, Ariel Rios Building , 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Wa s hington, DC 20004 Jeremy Martinich, Climate Change Division , Office of Atmospheric Program s (MC-62071), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington , DC 20460 Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), Environmental Protection Agency , 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW. , Washington , DC 20004 

### SUMMARY On December 7, 2009, EPA issued its final determination that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases threaten public health and welfare. In our view, this Endangerment F inding was unjustifiably based on un scientific reports by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and scientifically indefensible global temperature datasets. For the reason s set forth below, that failing has become even clearer in light of di sclosures and other events which occurred in the last three months, and which continue to occ ur. During the period for public comment, which closed on June 23, 2009, the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) and the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) , and the Competitive Enterprise Instit ute (CEI) requested , in oral testimony and written submissions, that EPA withdraw its proposed Endangerment Finding because it was not based upon the best science available. Rather, the proposed finding was based on scientifica lly flawed studies. As we and numerous others pointed out, EPA's proposed finding and its Technical Support Document (TSD) relied almost exclusively on the reports of the IPCC , particularly the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) published in 2007. But both the IPCC report and EPA's proposal and TSD suffered from major flaw s: 

### 1) they omitted critical temperature data ; 2) they were inconsistent with principles of science and violated EPA's Inf ormation

1Quality Guidelines 1 ; 3) they lacked tested theory; 4) they were based on invalid methodology; and 5) they relied upon invalid model s that fail basic tests and had no predictive power. As s hown below, those flaws have become even more evident in light of new development s, to the point that EPA's failure to take those developments into account would rob its decision of any semblance of validity whatsoever. I 

### THE NEW DEVELOPMENTS DESCRIBED IN THIS PETITION OCCURRED AFTER THE END OF EPA'S COMMENT PERIOD, AND IN LARGE PART AFTER EPA ISS UED ITS FINAL RULE. GIVEN THEIR IMPORTANCE, THEY CLEARLY MEET THE LEGAL STANDARD FOR RECONSIDERATION. Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(7)(B), states: "If the person raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it wa s impracticable to raise such an objection within [the period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule, the Admini strator shall convene a proceeding for reconsideration of the rule and provide the same procedural rights as would have been afforded had the information been available at the time the rule was proposed." EPA 's comment period closed on June 23, 2009. Since that time , a series of disclosures and reports have revealed the scientifically improper and highly questionable procedures and practices used by the IPCC and by the organizations upon which it relies
. Of special note i s the improper treatment of dataset s relied upon by the EPA, which renders any conclusions ba se d on them scientifically indefensible. For these reasons, a proceeding for reconsideration is clearly warranted. II 

### IT IS CLEARER THAN EVER THAT EPA'S CLAIM OF UNEQU IVOCAL WARMING IS SCIENTIFICALLY INDEFENSIBLE EPA justifies its claim of unequivocal warming in the la st few decades by stating: "The global surface temperature record relies on three major global temperature datasets , developed by NOAA, NASA, and the United Kingdom' s Hadley Center. All three show an unambiguous warming trend over the last 100 years, with the greatest warming occurring over the past 30 years." 74 FR 66,517. But recent reports demonstrate highly improper treatment of these dataset s, making EPA's claim of warming trends scientifically indefensible:

1 EPA Information Quality Gui4elines. EPA.(accessed Feb 12, 2010) <http :/ / www .epa.gov/ 0 UALITY /informationguidelines/ >
2• In mid-August the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia a nnounced that it no longer holds the original raw data to its datasets , but onl y the modified data which CRU terms as "value-added. " 2 This data dumping was confirmed by the Sunday Times (London) on November 29, which noted that th e CRU had received repeated requests fo r this data under the British Freedom of Information Act. The CRU action renders independent review and veri fication of the 150-plus year temperature trends published by the Hadley Center-CRU impos sib le

- a clear violation of basic principles of science and was found by the British Information Commi ss ioner's Office to be a violation of the British Freedom of Inform atio n Act. 3 4

• On December 15, 2009, the Russian Institute of Economic Analysis (lEA) reported that the Hadley Center-CRU probably tampered with Russian climate d ata and that the Ru ss ian meteorological s tation data do not support human -caused global warming. It was well established that Hadley Center-CRU had dropped many s tations in the colder region s of Rus s ia presumably because the se s tations were no longe r mainta ined. The Russian lEA sta ted that the stations still report temperatures , but that the reports are ignored by Hadley Center-CRU. Only 25% of the reporting stations are used and they are in population centers that are influenced by the urban heat island effect. Rural areas were also ignored, giving the data yet anoth er warming bias. " l EA believes that Russian meteorological- station data did not s ub stantiate th e anthropogenic global-warming theory." "T he scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world's land ma ss. The lEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such ex aggeration. " Consequently , the Hadley Center-CRU dataset has been highly compromised; reporting global s urface temperature trends that are unreliable and likely have a s trong warming bias of an unknown magnitude. 5

• On January 14, 2010, meteorologist Joe D' Aleo and computer expert E. Michael Smith reported that NOAA's National Climatic Data Center (NOAA-NCDC) and the NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (NASA-GISS) had dropped many meteorological stations from their data bases in recent years. The dropped station s,

2 CRU Data Availability
. Cl imatic Research Un i t. ( accessed Feb 12, 2010) <http :/j www .cru. uca .ac. uk!cru/da ta/aya ilabilit y /> 3 Leake , Jonathan. Climate Change Data Dumped
. November 29,2009. Times Online
. (accessed Feb 12 , 2010) <http: // www.timcsonline.co.u k/tol/news / environment/article6936328.ece>
4 Bale , David
. New Twis t in UEA Climate Change Row
. Jan 28, 2010. Norwich Ev e ning News 24. (access ed Feb 12, 201 0) <http: //www .eve ni ngnews24. co. uk!content /e veningnews24/no rwi c h

**news story.aspx?b**  **and=ENOnline&catego**

**ry =News&tBra** 

**nd =EN**  **Onl ine&**  **tCateg ory=xNews&itemid=NOED2~,** 

**;i 20**  J an % 202010 % 20 10 % 3A05 %3A43%3A370> 5 What th e Russian Pape rs Say. D ec 16, 2009. Rianovosti. (accessed Feb 12, 2010) <http: /ien . rian.ru/paper s/200912 16 /157260660.html> 

### 3many of which continue to function properly , are generally in colder climate s. The actions by NOAA -NCDC and NASA-GISS compromise their datas ets , making their reported temperature trends unreliable and likely to have strong warming biases of unknown magnitude. 6

• On January 29 1h , a major new study by meteorologists Joe D ' Aleo and Anthon y Watt s was is sued, Surface Temperature Records: Policy Driven Deception 

### ? 7 Its basi c conclusion is that "global data bases are seriously flawed and can no longer be trusted to as sess climate trends or rankings or validate model forecasts. And , consequently , such s urface data should be ignored for decision making. " See fn.7 at p.5. Among it s s pecific findings are the following:
• "Instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850

- 1980) have b een so widely , systematically , and unidirectionally tampered with that it canno t be credibly asserted there has been any significant ' global warming ' in th e 2 0th century. " • "All terrestrial surface-temperature databases exhibit very serious problems that render them useless for determining accurate long-term temperature trends
. " • " Global terrestrial temperature data are gravely compromised because more than three-quarters of the 6,000 stations that once existed are no longer reporting. " • " There has been a sev ere bias towards removing higher-altitude, higher

latitude , and rural stations , leading to a further serious over s tatement of warming. " • "Contamination by urbanization, changes in land use, improper citing , and inadequately-calibrated instrument upgrades further overstate s warming ." • " Numerou s peer-reviewed papers in recent years have shown the overstatement of observed longer term warming is 30-50 % from heat-i s land contamination alone. " • " Satellite temperature monitoring has provided an alternative to terrestrial stations in compiling the global lower-troposphere temperature record. Their findings are increasingly diverging from the station-based con s truction s in a manner consistent with evidence of a warm bia s in the surface temperature record." • " Change s have been made to alter the historical record to mas k c y clical change s that could be readily explained by natural factors like multidecadal ocean and solar changes." • " An inclusive external assessment is essential of the surface temperature record of CRU, GISS and NCDC ' chaired and paneled by mutually agreed to

c. G loba l Warmin g: Th e Other Sid e - segment 4 , KUSI News. ( acce ssed Feb 1 2, 20 10) <http:Uv.' vvw.kus i.co m/weather /c o le manscorn e r /8 1 5 83352.html>
7 D ' Ai e o , Joseph and Anthony Watt s . Surface T e

mperature R eco rds : Policy Driven Deception ?
. Jan 2 9 , 2010
. S c ie nce and Pub li c Pol ic y In s titute. ( accessed Fe b 1 2, 2010) <http: // scienceandpub lic p o lic y.o rg/o ri g i nals/ po li cy driven dece pti o n.html > 4climate scientists who do not have a vested interest in the outcome of the evaluation s. "' See fn.7 at p.4. The report gives specific case studies of data manipulation, s uch as the fact t hat NASA modified 20% of the historical record 16 times in two an one-half years ending in 2007. This manipulation was not random. To the contrary, every instanc e of manipulation re sulted in temperature trend s that appear ed to increase fas t e r than they did in reality.

• In late January 2010, the findings of D'Aleo, Watts, and Smith were confirmed by investigative journalists. They found, for example, that in the 19 80s 600 Canadian monitoring s tation s were used in the NOAA dataset. Now only 35 are used, with on ly one above the Arctic Circle. Yet, Environment Canada reports that the government maintains 1400 stations with over 100 above the Arctic Circle. 8 The Hadley Ce nter- CRU, NOAA-NCDC and NASA-GISS are the three organizations that report globa l surface temperatures and whose temperature trends were specifica lly cited by the EPA in its Endangerment Finding. Yet, as shown above, these organizations have dropped many reporting stations, generally in colder climates (that is, at higher latitudes or high er elevation s). None of these organizations have given any scie ntific explanation for selec tivel y dropping stations. The global surface temperatures and temperature trends an nounced by these organization s have thus been highly compromised and are likely to have s trong warming biases. As a result, EPA's reliance on them is not scientifically defensible. By con trast , EPA's Enda ngerment Finding ignores satellite datasets which, unlike s urfac e datasets, provide comprehensive coverage of the globe. The satellite dataset produced by th e University of Alabama, Huntsville is freely available for independent review and verification. This dataset meets th e critical principle of science of repeated, independent verification. These data show modest thirty yea r warming trends in the middle to upper latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, little warming of the tropics and the Southern Hemi sphere , and distinc t cooling of the Antarctic region

- hardly the endangering global warming proclaimed by EPA. On October 5 , 2009, CEI filed a petition to reop en the comment period in light ofCRU's admission that it de stroyed the original data. On December 15 , 2009, EPA dismissed this petition by sta ting: "T he Hadley Centre/Climate Research Unit (CRU) temperature record (referred to as HadCRUT) is just one of three global surface temperature record s that EPA and the assessment literature refer to and cite. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) also produce temperature records, and all three temperature records have been extensively peer reviewed. Analyses of the three global temperature records produce essentially the sa me long-term trend s as noted in the Climate Change Science

8 Foot , Richard. Scientist s using selective temperature data, skeptics say. Jan 20, 2010. National Post. (accessed F eb 12 , 201 0) <http :// \l\l-ww.nationalpost.com/news /story.html?id=2465231 > 

### 5Program (CCSP) (2006) report " Temperature Trend s in the Lower Atmo s phere ;· IPCC (2007), and NOAA ' s study 5 " State ofthe Climate in 2008". ;; 7 4 FR 66,5 04
. But as de monstrated above, all three datasets have been extensively compromised. In the words ofthe D'Aleo-Watts study:

" NOAA 's NCDC, in Asheville , NC, is the source ofthe G lobal Historical C limate Network (GHCN) and of the US Historical Climate Network (USHCN). The se tw o datasets are reli e d upon by NASA ' s GISS in New York City and by Hadley /CRU in E ngland. Since all three use the same data, all three have experienced the s ame d egradation in data quality in recent years. In the following email , CR U's Director at the time , Phil Jone s, acknowledge s that CRU mirrors the NOAA data : ' Almos t all th e data we have in the CRU archive is exactly the same as in the GHCN ar chive used b y th e NOAA National Climatic Data Center
. '" D ' Aleo

-Watts at 9 (italic s added). 

### III THERE IS NEW EVIDENCE THAT SCIENTIFIC STUDIES THAT UNDERCUT GLOBAL WARMING CLAIMS WERE SUPPRESSED S t arting o n Nov ember 19 , 2009 , email s from the CRU were leaked to the public
. These e mails reveal coordinated efforts in both Britain and the US to suppress independent studies that are c o ntrary to IPCC conclusions of human

-cau s ed glob al warming. Thus, the lPCC s cie ntifi c r ev iew pro cess has a sy s tematic bias of an unknowable magnitude in favor of human-induced warming
. Cons equently , the EPA Endangerment Finding is s everely undermined by a s y s te mat ic bi as of a n unknowable magnitude in favor of human

- induced warming. 9 10 

### IV RECENT DISCLOSURES MAKE IT CLEAR THAT UNSCIENTIFIC CLAIMS AND REPORTS WERE UTILIZED BY THE IPCC Recent reports re veal the IPCC AR4 includes many claims without a scientific basis: 

### A) Tree Ring Data, Melting Glaciers and Injured Rainforests
• At th e Octob e r, 2009 annual meeting of the Geological Society of Am erica , Profes so r Don E asterbrook demonstrated how tree ring data from Russia , which s how a coolin g after 1961, were artfully truncated in graph s presented in IPCC publication s. ( S ee attac hment at p.12.) This truncation gave the fal s e impression that the tree ring data agree with reported late 20 1h Century surface temperature data , when in fact th e y did

9 Jo hnson , Keith and Gautam Naik. Lawmaker s Probe Climate £mails. Nov 24, 2009
. The Wall Str ee t Journal. ( access ed F eb 1 2 , 201 0) <http :// onlin e. wsj. com/ articl e/SB125 902685 3729 6160 9. html> 10 Monckto n, Chri s t o pher. Climategate: Caught Green

-Handed!. Nov 30 , 2009. Science & Publi c Po licy In s titute. (access ed on Feb 1 2 , 2010 ) < http ://scie nceand p ubli c po li cy . o rg/o rigin a ls / c limatega te.html > 6not. T hi s artfu l deceit, now exposed, indicates that the IPCC A ssess m ent Rep o rt 4 (AR4) is scientif icall y que s tionable
. The CRU emails leaked in November confirmed that this deception was de liberate.
• In Nove mber , 2009 an int ern ationally r ecognized expert on Him alayan g laci e rs, V.K. Raina, produced a comprehensiv e st ud y that totally contradicted the IPCC reports on Himalayan glacier melts , s howing those reports to be flim s il y documented exagger ation s. Even though this report had been independently documented 11
, the C hairm an of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, di s missed it as "voodoo science. " But in J anuary, 2010, Dr. Murari Lal, the coordinating lead author of the AR4 chapte r on Asia, admitted that AR4 had deliberately exaggerated the possible melt o f th e Himalayan glaciers. "We thought that if we can highlight it, it will imp ac t p o li cymakers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action." This admi ssion demonstrates that the AR4 i s a political document and not a scie nti fic one. 12

• In late January, 2010 , additional reports revealed that IPCC claims that warming would cause ex ten sive adverse effects in the Amazon rainforests and on coral reefs came not from peer revi ewed sc ience but from publications by environmental groups s uc h as the World Wildlif e Fund and Greenpeace. Further, claim s of g l ac ier me lts in the Andes and the Alp s came from anecdotal comments in a magazine article and a master thesis. Thus, the IPCC claim that the findings in AR4 are based on pee r reviewed science is false. 1 3 14 15
• On February 3, 2010, Jairam Rame s h , the Environment M ini ster Government of India , one of the nations mo s t impacted by the politicized IPCC claim of di sa ppearin g g l ac iers , announced that India i s forming its own ind epende nt climate c h ange review panel that will not depend on IPCC repo rts. "T here is a fine line between clim ate

11 It was reviewed by Professor Cliff Oilier, School of Earth and Environment, University of West Australia for th e Government of India. Dr. Oilier provide d his review to S EPP. (accessed Feb 12 , 20 10) < http : //

www.sepp.org/Archive/weekwas/2010frWfW%20January%2023.%2020JO.pdf>
12 Rose , David. Glacier Scientist: I knew data hadn 't been verified Jan 24 , 20 10. Daily Mail. (accessed Feb 12, 201 0) <http: // www.dai I ymail .co. uk/news/article-1245 636/G lac ier-scie nti sts-says-knew

- data-verifi ed. htm I> 1

· ' Bo o k er, Chri sto phe r. Ama zongate : n ew evidence of the IP CC'sfa ilures
. Jan 30 ,20 10. Telegraph. (accessed Feb 12 , 201 0)

**<http www.tclegraph.co.uk/commcnt/columnists**  **christopherbookerD l358'>**  **Arnaz n~:.atc**  e vidc ncc -of-the- IPCCs- failure s. html> 14 Laframboise , Donna
. Greenpeace and the Nobel- Winning Clima te Report. Jan 28 , 2010. Nofrakkingcon s cnsus. (access ed Feb 12, 201 0) <http://nofrakking conse ns us.b logspo t.com/20 10/0 llg recnp cace-an cl-no h !! l-winni Ob:- climatc 28.h tml>
15 Editorial.· Climat e debate needs fa cts, not anecdotes. Feb 3, 2010. NZ He rald. (accessed Feb 12 , 2010) <http :/Niww.n z herald .co .nzj world / news / article
.cfm ?c id=2&ob jecti d=l0623715> 7science and climate ev ang e li s m. I am all for climate science but not f or climate ev ange lism
. I think people misused the IPCC report , 11 Ramesh said. 16 

### B) Harm to 

### African Agriculture
• On February 7 , 2010 the Sunday Times reported on the extent to w hich fa lse claims that warming will destroy rain based agriculture in Africa permeate IPCC findings and UN pronouncements. These claims were made in the IPC C's Synthe sis Report : "Th is is the IPCC's mo st politically sens itive publication, di s tilling its most important science into a fo rm accessible to politicians and po li cy makers. Its lead authors include Pac hauri himself. In it he wrote: 'By 2020 , in some countries , yields from rain -fed ag riculture co uld be reduced by up to 50 %. Agricultural production , including ac ce ss to food, in many African countries is projected to be severel y co mp rom ised .' T h e same claims have s ince bee n cited in speeches to world leader s b y Pachauri and Ban [Ki -moon , the UN se cretary-general]. Speaking at the 2008 global climate talks in Poznan, Poland, Pach a uri said: 'In some countries of Africa, yields from rain

- fed agriculture could be redu ced by 5 0 % b y 2020.' In a s peech l ast July, Ban said: 'Yields from rain -fed agricu ltur e could fa ll by half in s ome African countries ov er the nex t 10 yea rs.' Thi s· we ekend Professor Chris Field, the new lead author of the IP CC's climate impacts team, told The Sunday Times that he could find nothing in the report to s upport the claim
.

' I was not an author on the Synthesi s Report but on reading it I cannot fin d s upport for the s tatement about African crop yield de clines. "' T he claim is in fact based on a non - peer reviewed 2003 policy paper written for a Canad i an think tank. 17 EPA repea ts the se un s ubstantiated claim s about the possible destruction of rain

- based African agriculture in its TSD: "Agricultural production , including access to food, in many countries and reg ion s is pr

ojec ted to b e severely compromised by climate variability and change. The area su itable for agriculture , the length of growing seasons, and yield potential ,
•r• India to have own panel on climate change: Jairam Ramesh. Feb 4, 20 10. Hindustan T imes. (accessed Feb 12, 201 0) <http ://www .h induslanlimes.com/India -to- hav c-o wn-p a nel-on-climate-changc-Jairam-Raml.!sh / H 1-Artidt: l

505242.aspx> 1 7 Leake , J onathan
. Africagate: top British scientist says UN panel is losing credibility. Feb 7 , 2010. Times Onl i ne. (accessed F eb 12 , 201 0) <http ://www .ti meson! ine .c o.u kltol/ new s/e nvi ronment/article7017907.ece> 

### 8particularly along the margin s of semi-arid and arid area s, are expected to d ecrea se. This wo uld further adversely affect food security and exacerbate malnutrition in the continent. In some countries, yi elds from rain-fed agriculture could be redu c ed by up to 50 % by 2020." 18 Thi s is yet another exa mple of how EPA 's finding is ba se d on political re ports rathe r strictly scientific ones. 

### C) More Destructive Storms EPA claims that global warming will lead to storms that are more inten se and theref ore more destru c tive: "The evidence co ncerning how human induced climate change may alter ex tre me weather eve nts also clearly supports a finding of endangerment, given the serious adv e rs e impacts that can result from such events and the increase in ri s k, even if small , of th e occurrence and intensity of eve nts such as hurricane s and flood s . Additionally , public h

ea lth is ex pect ed to be adversely affected by an incr e ase in the severity of coastal storm eve nts du e to rising sea lev els
. " 74 FR 66,497-98. The claim of increase d storm severity is bas ed on a si milar contention by the IPCC in AR4. However:
• On January 24, 2010, the Sunday Times (London) reported that the AR4 wron gly linked natural di sas ters to global warmi ng. AR4 claimed that global warming is cau si ng increases in property losse s. Yet the Sunday Times di scovered the published report up o n which this claim was based actually stated: " We find insu fficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperatur e increase and catastrophic losse s." 19 Thi s revelation is particularly devastating becau se it goes not only to EPA's failure to ad equatel y review the false science of th e IPCC, but also the failure of USGRCP and NRC to pe rf o rm indepe nden t r eview. All three organizations accepted the IPCC findings as physical fact a nd the be s t available sc ience , when it clearly was not either. For example , the NRC repo rt "Pote ntial Impacts of C limate Cha nge o n U. S. Transportation " starts by assuming that the worst o f the IPCC findings are correct, especially the false link betw een warming and natural disasters. Th e n it exace rbate s its incorrec t approach by using IPCC models that have never been indepen dently verified and therefore have no predictive pow er. From this it derives estimates of future damage to the US tran s portati o n sys tem from g lobal warming
. This is not science, but wild s peculation. The s imilar reports by the CCSP , which are incorporated by the USGRCP, are equally inva lid.

1 " TSD Table 16 .1, p. 162. (accessed Feb 12, 2010) < http : 1/ v.n.w.• .t!pa.gov / cl imatechange /e nd ange rment/downloads/E ndang er

ment TSD .pdf#page = 17 4 > 1 9 Leake , Jonathan
. UN wrongly linked g lobal warming t o natural disasters
. Jan 2 4 , 2010. Times Online. (accessed Feb 1 2, 201 0) <http: //www.timesonline.co.uk/to l /news/envi ronment/article7000063.ece> 

### 9In short, the scientific assessments of the USGRCP and the NRC, used by EPA to buttress its Endangerment Finding accepted the IPCC reports as definitive. Thus, these assessments are actually exte nsions of the IPCC findings, incorporating its faults and errors. Contrary to EPA claims, they do not provide any independent scientific support whatsoever. 

## v CONTRARY TO EPA'S HIGH PRAISE FOR IT, THE IPCC REPORT HAS BEEN REVEALED TO BE A POLITICAL DOCUMENT, NOT A SCIENTIFIC ONE In its fina l decision EPA described the IPCC report in glowing terms. In the agency ' s words, it was one of the three assessments that formed the Administrator's "primary scientific and technical basis of her endangerment decision
... " 74 FR 66,510. These assessments supposedly " represent the current state of knowledge on the key elements for the endangerment analysis " and "convey the consensus conclusions on what the body of scien ti fic literature tells us." 74 FR 66,511. They "undergo a rigorous and exacting standard of peer review by the ex pe rt community, as well as rigo rou s levels of U.S. government review and acceptance. " /d. EPA concluded its paean with this laudatory langu age: "It is EPA's view that the scientific assessments of the IPCC, USGRCP , and the NRC rep r esen t the best r efer ence materials for de termining the general state of knowledge on the scientific and technical issues before the agency in making an endangerme nt decision. No other source of inf ormation provides such a comprehensive and in-depth analysis across such a large body of scientific studies, adheres to such a high and exacting standard of peer review , and synthesiz es the resulting consensus view of a large body of scientific experts across the world. For these reasons, the Administrator is placing primary and significant weight on these assessment reports in making her decision o n enda ng erment." /d. The di sclosures and events de scri bed above make it clear that EPA's characterization of the IPC C report is flatl y wrong. Moreover, other disclosures demonstrate that, at heart, the report is a political document:
• Among the CRU documents disclosed in November, 2009, is an email from Dr. Keith Briffa, CRU Deputy Director and an IPCC lead author: "I tried hard to balance th e ne eds of the science and the IPCC , which were not always the same ... " (Apri l 29, 2007)(italic s added) 20 ;
• Another email, from Dr. Tom Wigley, an IPCC contributing author, states: "In my (perhaps too harsh) view, there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by !PCC." (Oct. 14, 2009)(italics added) 21 ; 20 Briffa, Keith. Email. Apr 24, 2007. (accessed Feb 12 , 2009) <http: //www .castangliacmails.com / cmails.php ?eid= 794&filenamc= 1177890796. tx t> 2 1 Wigley , Tom. Email. Oct 14,2009. (accessed Feb 12 , 2010) <http: /! v.,ww.eastangliaemails.com /emails.php ?ei d=l057&filename=1 25555 3034
. txt> 

### 10• At a conference during the week of February 8, 2010, organized by the UK new sp ap er Guardian, the paper pose d this question to experts: "How to reform the IPCC?' ' The article on the conference stated that " Perhaps unknown to many people , the proce ss is started and finished not by scientists but by political officials, who steer the way the information is pre sented in so-called summary for policymakers (SPM] chapte rs. Is th at right , the Guardian asked ?" Anton Imeson , a former IPCC lead author from Ne the rlan ds , re sponded: " The Nobel prize was for peace not science
... governme nt employees will use it to negotiate changes and a redistribution of resource s. It is not a scientific anal ys is of climate change. " "F or the media, the IPCC assessments have become an ic o n for so m ething they are not. T o m ake s ure that it doe s not happen again, the IPCC s ho uld change its name and become part of something else
. The IPCC should have never allowed itself to be branded as a scientific o rganisa tion
. It pr ov ide s a revi ew of publi she d s ci e ntific papers but none of this is much controlled by independent sc ienti sts ." (Italics added). 22 EPA continues to insist that IPCC is a scientific or gani za tion but people in the organization realize it is n ot. Rather , it is political policy organization that review s a nd reports sc ienc e th at s upport its goals. 

# v CONCLUSION New disclo s ures and studies, some as recent as las t week, demonstrate that EPA' s Endanger m ent Finding re sts on un scientific and politicized documents that have no credibility. Because these revel ations occurred after EPA's public comment period, and becaus e they severe! y und e rmin e the IPCC report and other studies reli ed up on by EPA, the agency's reconsideration of its final rule is not only warranted , but required. Respe c tfully submitted, S. Fred Singer, Co-Founder Nongo vernmental International Panel o n C limate Change Kenneth A. Haapala, Executive Vice Pre side nt Science and Environmental Policy Project
<-"--..__..



# ~?."**t. ..Ct**  **'.~ --**  ...

### ___ Sam Kazman, General ounsel Competitive Enterprise In s titut e On behalf of all petitioners February 12, 2010

22 Adam , David a nd Suza nn e Goldenberg. H ow to reform the IPCC. Feb 10 , 2 010. Guardian. (accessed Feb 12 , 2010) <http: // www.gu ardian.eo.uk/environment/2010 / f

e b/1 0/ipcc- re form>

11

### ATTACHMENT
An Explanation ofHow lvfichael tdann Hid the Decline Graphs Presented by Professor Don Easterbro ok

O.l"C - ---

SOURCE : don
. easterbrook@wwu

. edu. 2009 Portland GSAAnnual Meeting (18-21 October 2009)



### 12

### United States Environmental Protection Agency Docket EPA -HQ-OAR-2009-0171

INRE: ENDANGERMENT AND CAUSE OR CONTRIBUTE FINDINGS FOR GREENHOUSE GASES UNDER SECTION 202(a) OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT; FINAL RULE, 74 FR 66,495 (DEC. 15, 2009)


### Supplement to Petition For Reconsideration of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, the Science and Environmental Policy Project,

February 16, 2010 

### and the Competitive Enterprise Institute
S. Fred Singer, Co-Founder Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change 1600 S. Eads St.# 712-S Arlington, VA 22202 singer@nipcc.org Kenneth A. Haapala, Exec. Vice President Science and Environmental Policy Project 9634 Boyett Court Fairfax, VA 22032 (703) 978-6025 Ken@Haapala.com Sam Kazman, General Counsel* Competitive Enterprise Institute 1899 L Street, NW, 12th Floor Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 331-2265 skazman@cei.org *contact person for petitioners

### Supplement to Petition for Reconsideration To the Environmental Protection Agency Regarding Its Final Rule Concerning Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act
Office of the Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Room 3000, Arie l Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20004 Jeremy Martinich, Climate Change Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs (MC-6207J), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW ., Washington, DC 20460 Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004

Petitioners hereby supplement their Petit i on for Reconsideration (filed February 12, 2010) with the following points: I 

### DR. PHIL JONES' LATEST STATEMENTS UNDERCUT EPA'S ENDANGERMENT FINDING On February 13th, a BBC interview with Dr. Phi l Jones, head of the British Climate Research Unit (CRU), was posted, which revealed some major disagreements with EPA's Endangerment Finding and reversals of his prior views. For example, EPA states in its fmal rule that warming has continued in recent years, declaring that "eight of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 2001." 74 FR 66,517
. But in answer to the BBC interviewer's question, "Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant g lobal warming?", Dr. Jones replies "yes" (explaining that there has been warming, but that it was not statistically significant). 1

1 

### BBC News, Q&A: Professor Phil Jones, Feb. 13,2010, http: /inews.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/ science /nature/85 J 

### 1670.stm; see also Dai ly Mail, Climategate U-turn 1Dr. Jones goes on to state that from
. January 2002, there has been actual coo ling, though it was not statistically significant. This appears to contradict his past statements on how the period 200 1 -07 was wanner than the previous decade? Dr. Jones' comments on the recent lack ofwanning are consistent with the views stated by at le ast three other scientists in the Climategate emails.

• Dr. Kevin Trenberth , IPCC coordinating author and head of the C limate Analysis Section at the National Center

**fo~** Atmospheric Research (Oct. 14 , 2009): " The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." 3

• Dr. Thomas Wigley, IPCC contributing author (later in the above thread): "
. . .here are some notes of mine on the recent lack ofwanning."
• Dr. Stephen H Schneider, editor of the journal Climate Change (October 11, 2009), referring to ''the past 10 years of global mean temperature trend stasis
.... " 4 EPA states that "the greatest warming occur [ ed] over the l ast 30 years." 74 FR 66 ,5 17. But according to Dr. Jones, for the periods 1860-1880, 1 910-1940, 1975-1998, and 1975-2009, the warming rates did not show any accelerating trends. In h i s words, "the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly d ifferent from each other." 5 If there has been no change in warming rates , this contradicts one of EPA's basic contentions. During this same period , atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases leve ls dramatically increased-according to EPA, to " essentially unprecedented levels". 74 FR 66,517. Yet if increasing levels ofthese gases did not produce a clear acceleration of warming, then the ro le of these gases as a major driver of temperature becomes even more dubious.

as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995, Feb. 14, 2010, http: //www .dailymai I. co. uk/news/ article-1250872/ Cl imategate- U-tum-Aston ishment-scientistcentre-global

-warm ing-emai 1-row

- adm its-data-organ ised.htm l?ITO= 1490 2 New24.com, Earth still warming, Jan. 11, 2008, http:/ /www .news24.com/C ontent/ Sc i Tech/News/ I 132 / I249c?74c6df42cca 1302d82e4236ef6 / I 1 - 01-2008

- 06

- 57/ Earth still warmi n g# 3 1255532032.txt, http: //www .eastangl iaemai ls.com /emails.php?eid= I054&fi iename= 1255532032.txt 4 125531833l.txt, http ://www .eastangliaemails.com /emails.php?eid= 1 047&filenam e= 125531833 l.txt 5 See 

### fn.l. 2

### As one appellate court has noted, a situation such as this "on its face , raises questions about the reliability of the EPA's projections. While courts routinely defer to agency modeling of complex phenomena, model assumptions must have a 'rational relationship' to the real world. 

### See, e.g., Chemical Mfrs. Ass'n v. EPA, 

### 28 F.3d 1259, 1265 (D.C.Cir.l994)." Appalachian Power Co
. v . EPA, 

### 249 F.3d 1032, 1053 (D.C. Cir. 2001). II



### THE IPCC'S CLAIMS REGARDING HURRICANES, ADOPTED BY EPA , ARE NOW IN EVEN MORE SERIOUS DOUBT A new report on hurricanes, independently reviewed and released only today, finds no increase in storm or hurricane frequency over the last 60 years. The report, 1999-2009: Has the Intensity and Frequency of Hurricanes Increased?, 

### by Dr. Les Hatton, Kinston University, London, concludes: "Over the periods 1999-2007 or 1999-2009 , it can be concluded that there is no evidence to support that the average number of tropical storms, hurricanes , major hurricanes or proportion of hurricanes which mature into major hurricanes has changed in the last 60 years". 6 ld 

### at 11 (emphasis in orginal). The report goes on to note that "the match between the data and the IPCC 2007 analysis is poor at best." ld 

### at 15. This not only undercuts EPA's increasingly questionable reliance on the IPCC report7
, 

### it also undermines EPA's own claims regarding the supposedly increased risk of storms and hurricanes. See 74 FR 66,498. Ill 

### EPA's HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE USE OF THE ABSURDITY CANON IN ITS PROPOSED TAILORING RULE REQUIRES THAT THE AGENCY RECONSIDER ITS ENDANGERMENT FINDING In comments filed with EPA on December 28 and 30, 2009, the National Association of Homebuilders (NAHB) pointed out that EPA's proposed Tailoring Rule 8 

### involved an unprecedented use by the agency ofthe "absurdity canon" of statutory construction
. In 

### NAHB's words: "Apparent ly for the first time in its 40-year history , EPA proposes in the Ta iloring Rule

6 

### http :// www .leshatton.org / Documents/H urricanes-are-not-getting-stronger.pdf; see also http: //www.leshatton.org/ Hurricanes 20 I 

### O.html

7 

### The Register (UK) , Now IPCC hurricane data is questioned, 

### Feb. 15 , 2010 , http: //www .theregi s ter.co . uk/20 l 

### 0/0'> I 

### 15/hatton on hurricanes/
8 

### EPA , 

### Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule, 74 FR 55,292 (Oct. 27, 2009). 3to invoke the absurdity canon of construction in interpreting a law it administers. " NAHB , Legal Comments on EPA ' s Tailoring Rule and Interrelated Agency Actions , at 1. 9 The Tailoring Rule proposal was issued on October 27, four months after the close of the public comment period in EPA's Endangerment proceeding. The agency's discussion of the absurdity canon in its proposal makes it seems as ifthe agency is doing little out of the ordinary. See 74 FR 55,306-07. However, as the NAHB comments point out, EPA's approach here is anything but ordinary. And it is doubly extraordinary, given that EPA provided no real warning about the inevitability of these problems to the Supreme Court when , Mas sachusetts v. EPA , 549 U.S. 497 (2007), it considered the agency ' s authority to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act. In fact, the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program is not mentioned in that decision, and the National Ambient Air Quality Standards program to which PSD applies is mentioned only in the dissent. Jd. at 559 (Scalia , J. , dissenting). As NAHB points out , in Massachusetts the parties advocating regulation actually contended that a ruling in their favor would have no implications at all for the PSD program : "The Supreme Court briefs filed by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the other petitioners in Massachusetts clearly took the position that resolving the Massachusetts case did not require a resolution of questions about the applicability to greenhouse gases of the Clean Air Act's stationary source control provisions. Indeed, the petitioners in Massachusetts went farther and insisted that the Court could decide the case in their favor , possibly paving the way for regulation ofGHGs under Title II ofthe Act, without any consequences for National Ambient Air Quality Standards program at all." NAHB comments , Attachment Bat 7. As for EPA , NAHB states that " while the Solicitor General 's brief in Massachusetts did note that the NAAQS program could not be coherently applied to GHG emissions, that brief also importantly noted (immediately after making that observation) that '[t]he petition for rulemaking in this case did not request that EPA promulgate NAAQS for greenhouse gases, but instead sought regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles.'" /d. NAHB concludes , in short, that, given "
... that the Massachusetts petitioners argued that the NAAQS issue was not before the Court ; and that the So licitor General's briefing did not contest that point; that neither the petitioners , nor Solicitor General, nor the Massachusetts Court mentioned the PSD and Title V programs ; and that neither side nor the court mentioned the absurdity canon, all arguments relating to the Title V, PSD and NAAQS programs clear l y remain unresolved in the wake of Massachusetts." /d
. But in our view, the implications of this omission are even more serious. If EPA had forthrightly admitted to the Supreme Court that construing the Clean Air Act to cover carbon dioxide would end

9 NAHB's comments , Document ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171-11690.1 , were filed in both the Tailoring Rule proceeding and in several other related proceedings. They can be found at http : //www.regulation s. gov/ search /Regs/home
.html # documentDetaii ? R = 0900006480a75f96 4up forcing EPA to resort to the absurdity canon to deal with that construction, the outcome in Massachusetts might well have been totally different. EPA created this dilemma thro ugh both its briefing in Massachusetts and its wholly discretionary decision to issue its Endangerment Finding. Like the Supreme Court's decision , that finding contains no mention of any need to resort to the absurdity canon. EPA 's dubious resort to that canon for the purpose ofre-writing, by administrative means, the clear and unambiguous numerical thresholds in the Clean Air Act is a de fac to admission of error. When an agency's own actions create absurd results , it shou ld not be able to evade those results through ad hoc means. EPA's need to paper over the statutory contradictions that it itself created constitute a powerful , independent ground for reconsidering the action that ha s brought the agency to this poin t-the Endangerment Finding itself
. IV CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons , in addition to those previously set forth in Petitioners ' Petition for Reconsideration (filed February 12, 2010) , EPA should reconsider its Endangerment Finding. Respectfully submitted, S. Fred Singer, Co-Founder Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change Kenneth A. Haapala, Executive Vice President Science and Environmental Policy Project



# -~ **/2; -~**  **~** Sam Kazman, General Counsel Competitive Enterprise Institute 

### Counsel for Petitioners February 16,2010

5