PREFACE

EPA’s Response to the Petitions to Reconsid er the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act

This is the Response to Petitions (RTP) doc ument that accompanies the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Notice of Denial of Petitions to Reconsider the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Ga ses under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act (“Denial” or “Decision”). The Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Ac t (“Findings” or “Endangerment Finding”) were signed by the Administrator on December 7, 2009, a ppeared in the Federal Register December 15, 2009, and became effective January 14, 2010. The Administrator’s Endangerment Finding concluded that six greenhouse gases (GHGs) ta ken in combination endanger both the public health and public welfare of cu rrent and future generations. The Findings were supported by a Technical Support Document (TSD), containing the underlying GHG emissions data and climate change science, as well as an 11-volume Res ponse to Comments (RTC) document that provided EPA’s responses to all significant public co mments received during the comment period following the Administrator’s propo sed Findings, signed April 17, 2009.

Since issuing the December 2009 Findings, EPA ha s received 10 petitions requesting that EPA reconsider the Findings.

This RTP document provides additional information, often more technical information, in response to the arguments, claims an d assertions by the petitioners in their petitions to reconsider the Endangerment Finding. EPA has thoroughly revi ewed all of the petitions, the arguments presented in the petitions, and the supplemental information provided by the petitioners intended to show evidence of the petitioners’ claims. EPA also revisited the scientific record and the Administrator’s decision proce ss underlying the Endangerment Findi ng in light of the petitions. All of the petitioners’ argument s are addressed in the Denial and/or this RTP document.

Within this document, the petitioners’ argumen ts and assertions are grouped together and responded to in three volumes: 1) climate science and data issues raised by the petitioners; 2) issues raised by petiti oners on EPA’s use of information fr om the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; and 3) process i ssues raised by the petitioners.

The Administrator’s Findings and its supporting material (the TSD and RTC), as well as all ten petitions, including amendments to some of those petitions, can be found at: http://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html . All documents and materials that are

referenced in the Denial and this RTP document can be found in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA- HQ-OAR-2009-0171 at www.regulations.gov ).

Throughout the Denial and the th ree volumes of this RTP document, EPA references the conclusions of five recent inquiries and invest igations regarding the Climatic Research Unit(CRU) e-ma ils and the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Re port (AR4). These five reports have been placed in the docket for this action (D ocket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171 at www.regulations.gov ) under the document title “Recent Inquiries and Investigations of the CRU E-mails and the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report” . We provide a brief overview of the purpose of each investigation below:

1. The disclosure of climate data from the Clima tic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia UK House of Commons, Science and Technology Committee Published on March 31, 2010

Referred to in the volumes as: “the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee investigation”

This investigation assessed the accuracy a nd availability of CRU’s data, datasets and computer programming, whether CRU scientists withheld access to this information, and implications for the UK Freedom of Inform ation Act 2000. The report also included the Science and Technology Committee’s commen ts on the independent reviews that University of East Anglia announced.

2. Report of the Internatio nal Panel set up by the University of East Anglia to examine the research of the Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia, Oxburgh Panel Published on April 14, 2010

Referred to in the volumes as: “the Scientific Appraisal Panel review”

The Panel was set up by the University of Ea st Anglia in consultation with the Royal Society to assess the integrity of the research published by CRU in light of various

external assertions. The Panel was asked to address criticisms regarding whether climatic data had been dishonestly selected, manipul ated and/or presented to arrive at predetermined conclusions.

3. RA-10 Final Investigation Report In volving Dr. Michael E. Mann The Pennsylvania State University Published on June 4, 2010

Referred to in the volumes as: “the Penns ylvania State University investigation”

The University initiated an investigation to examine whether accusations that Michael Mann had manipulated data, destroyed record s and colluded to hamper the progress of scientific discourse, when placed in an academic context, could be construed as allegations of research misconduct, which would constitute a violation of Pennsylvania State University policy.

4. Assessing an IPCC assessment – An analysis of statements on projec ted regional impact in the 2007 report

2Netherlands Environm ental Assessment Agency (PBL) Published on July 5, 2010 Referred to in the volumes as: “Assessing an IPCC Assessment”

On January 28, 2010, the Dutch Parliament asked the Ministry for the Environment and

the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency for an investigation into the reliability of the regional chapters 9-16 of the IPCC Working Group II Report, and to assess the effects of any errors on the su mmary conclusions drawn by the IPCC Working Group II.

5. The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review University of East Anglia, Russell Panel Published on July 7, 2010

Referred to in the volumes as: “the I ndependent Climate Change E-mails Review”

This report examines the conduct of the scie ntists involved in th e CRU email issue and makes recommendations to the University of East Anglia. The inquiry addressed a number of important allegations that were made following the e-mail release, including: a) the behavior of the CRU scientists, such as thei r handling and release of data, their approach to peer review, and their role in the public presentation of results, b) the assertion that actions were taken to promot e a particular view of climate change by improperly influencing the process of advi sing policy makers, and c) the honesty, rigor and openness with which the CRU scientists have acted.

3Table of Contents

Volume 1: Climate Science and Data Issues Raised by Petitioners 1.1. Validity of Paleoclimate Temperature Reconstructions and Related Issues 1.1.1 The “Divergence Issue” in Paleoclimate Reconstructions 1.1.2 Background

1.1.3 Assessment of the Evidence Provi ded by Petitioners Regarding the

Climate Reconstructions

1.1.4 Assessment of the Evidence Pr ovided by the Petitioners of Intentional Data Manipulation Re garding Tree Ring Data and the

MWP 1.1.5 Assessment of Petitioners’ Argument That the MWP May Have Been Warmer Than Present Temperatures

1.1.6 Assessment of the Petitioners’ Ar gument that Questions About the MWP and Paleoclimate Reconstructions Limit Current Ability to Attribute Present Warming to Humans 1.1.7 Summary 1.2 Attribution of Recent Temper ature Trends and Models 1.2.1 The Validity of the Human “F ingerprint” in the Vertical Temperature Structure of the Atmosphere Over the Tropics 1.2.1.1 Background 1.2.1.2 Assessment of the Arguments Regarding the Vertical Temperature Structure Over the Tropics 1.2.2 Global Temperature Trends Over the Last Decade and Implications

for Attribution of These Trends to GHGs 1.2.2.1 Background 1.2.2.2 Assessment of Arguments Regarding Global Temperature Trends Over the Last Decade and Implications for Attribution of These Trends to GHGs 1.2.3 Climate Model Issues Raised by Petitions 1.2.4 Summary 1.3. Validity of the HadCRUT Temperature Record

1.3.1 Overview 1.3.2 Scientific Background on Surface Temperature Records and Underlying Datasets 1.3.3 Responses to Petitioners’ Argum ents Regarding the Validity of

CRU Data 1.3.3.1 Alleged Destruction of Raw Data 1.3.3.2 Alleged Data Manipulation 1.3.3.3 “Harry Read Me” f ile and other code

1.3.3.4 Claims of Selective Use of Data From Russian Weather

Stations 1.3.4 Claims of Flawed Approach to Correct for Urban Heat Island (UHI) Effects

41.3.5 Alleged Dependence of IPCC Conclusions on the HadCRUT

tem perature record 1.3.6 Summary 1.4 Validity of NOAA and NAS A Temperature Records

1.4.1 Overview 1.4.2 Background on the Collection and Analysis of Surface Temperature Data 1.4.3 The Petitioners’ Arguments and EPA Responses

1.4.3.1 Assessment of Issues Re lated to Alleged Station Dropout and Inappropriate Extrapolation 1.4.3.2 Issues Raised With Respect to Adjustments for the UHI

Effect 1.4.3.3 Issues Raised in Additional Literature Provided by

Petitioners 1.4.3.4 Petitioners’ Allegations Rega rding Data Adjustments at Specific Stations 1.4.3.5 Allegations Regarding th e Independence of NOAA, NASA, and HadCRUT Temperature Records 1.4.3.6 Additional Issues Regarding Allegations of Manipulation of Data 1.4.4 Summary 1.5 Implications of New Studies and Data Submitted by the Petitioners

1.5.1 Overview 1.5.2 Implications of a New Study on Stratospheric Water Vapor 1.5.3 Implications of Material Indi cating That CO2 Is Not Well Mixed in the Atmosphere and That the Airborne Fraction of CO2 Has Not Changed 1.5.4 Implications of New Tropical Cyclone Studies 1.5.5 Implications of New Studies on the Statistical Significance of

Increases in Antarctic Sea Ice 1.5.6 Implications of Recent Data on Observational Snow Cover Trends

1.5.7 Petitioners Claim That EPA Ignored a Satellite Dataset 1.5.8 Summary

References

Volume 2: Issues Raised by Petitioners on EPA’s Use of IPCC

2.1 Claims That IPCC Errors Undermin e IPCC Findings and Technical Support for Endangerment

2.1.1 Overview 2.1.2 Accuracy of Statement on Percen t of the Netherlands Below Sea

Level 2.1.3 Validity of Himalaya n Glacier Projection

2.1.4 Characterization of Climate Change and Disaster Losses 2.1.5 Validity of Alps, Andes, and African Mountain Snow Impacts 2.1.6 Validity of Amazon Rainforest Dieback Projection

52.1.7 Validity of African Rain-Fed Agriculture Projection 2.1.8 Summary 2.2 Claims That the IPCC Has a Policy Agenda and Is Not Objective and Impartial

2.2.1 Overview 2.2.2 Background 2.2.3 Responses to Arguably New Objections Raised by the Petitioners 2.2.3.1 Allegations of Inappropriate Authorship and Reviewer Roles Among IPCC Personnel 2.2.3.2 Allegations That Citing One’s Own Papers Compromises Objectivity 2.2.3.3 Allegations That IPCC Is Biased 2.2.3.4 Allegations That IPCC Lead Authors Forced Consensus and Suppressed Dissenting Views 2.2.4 Responses to Allegations Based on Information That Is Not New 2.2.4.1 Allegations of Inappropria te Collaborations Among

IPCC Authors 2.2.4.2 Allegations Regarding In sufficient Peer Review

Processes for the IPCC 2.2.4.3 Allegations That IPCC Aut hors Manipulated Deadlines

for New Literature 2.2.4.4 Allegations Regarding the IPCC’s Use of Gray

Literature 2.2.5 Summary

References

Volume 3: Process Issues Raised by Petitioners 3.1 Approaches and Processes Used to Develop the Scientific Support for the Findings

3.1.1 Overview 3.1.2 Issues Regarding Consider ation of the CRU E-mails

3.1.3 Assessment of Issues Raised in Public Comments and Re-Raised

in Petitions for Reconsideration 3.1.4 Summary 3.2 Response to Claims That the Assess ments by the USGCRP and NRC Are Not Separate and Independent Assessments

3.2.1 Overview 3.2.2 EPA’s Response to Petitioners’ Arguments 3.2.3 Summary 3.3 Issues Concerning the Integrity of Peer-Reviewed Literature

3.3.1 Overview 3.3.2 Allegations Regarding Re views of Manuscripts 3.3.3 Allegations Regarding Jour nal Publication Practices 3.3.4 Allegations Regarding Efforts to Remove Editors and Boycott

Journals

67 3.3.5 Allegations Regarding Objectivity of the Peer-Revie wed Literature 3.3.6 Allegations of Intimidating Scie ntists and Those With Dissenting

Views 3.3.7 Summary 3.4 Issues Concerning Freedom of Information Act Requests

3.4.1 Overview 3.4.2 Allegations of Withholding Key Data and Information 3.4.3 Allegations of Improper Conduct With Regard to UK FOI and U.S.

FOIA Laws 3.4.3.1 General Allegations 3.4.3.2 Specific FOI Request Regarding the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report 3.4.3.3 Allegations of Improperly In fluencing University FOIA

Officials 3.4.4 Summary

References

# EPA’s Response to the Petitions to Reconsider the Endangerment
and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean

Air Act

Volume 1: Climate Science and Data Issues Raised by

Petitioners

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Atmospheric Programs Climate Change Division Washington, D.C.

1TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1.0 Climate Science and Data Issues Raised by Petitioners ...................................................6 1.1. Validity of Paleoclimate Temperatur e Reconstructions and Related Issues ....................6

1.1.1 The “Divergence Issue” in Paleoclimate Reconstructions .....................................6 1.1.2 Background ..............................................................................................................7

1.1.3 Assessment of the Evidence Provid ed by Petitioners Regarding the

Climate Reconstructions ..........................................................................................9

1.1.4 Assessment of the Evidence Provided by the Petitioners of Intentional Data Manipulation Regarding Tree Ring Data and the MWP ..............................22

1.1.5 Assessment of Petitioners’ Argumen t That the MWP May Have Been Warmer Than Present Temperatures .....................................................................24

1.1.6 Assessment of the Petitioners’ Argume nt that Questions About the MWP

and Paleoclimate Reconstructions Lim it Current Ability to Attribute Present Warming to Humans .................................................................................26

1.1.7 Summary .............................................................................................................31 1.2 Attribution of Recent Temp erature Trends and Models.................................................32 1.2.1 The Validity of the Human “Fingerp rint” in the Vertical Temperature Structure of the Atmosp here Over the Tropics...............................................................32

1.2.1.1 Background ............................................................................................................32

1.2.1.2 Assessment of the Arguments Regar ding the Vertical Temperature Structure Over the Tropics .........................................................................33

1.2.2 Global Temperature Trends Over the Last Decade and Implications for Attribution of These Trends to GHGs ....................................................................35

1.2.2.1 Background ................................................................................................35

1.2.2.2 Assessment of Arguments Regardi ng Global Temperature Trends Over the Last Decade and Implic ations for Attribution of These

Trends to GHGs .........................................................................................36

1.2.3 Climate Model Issues Raised by Petitions .............................................................50

1.2.4 Summary ................................................................................................................58 1.3. Validity of the HadCRUT Temperature Record.............................................................59

1.3.1 Overview ................................................................................................................59

1.3.2 Scientific Background on Surface Te mperature Records and Underlying

Datasets ..................................................................................................................60

1.3.3 Responses to Petitioners’ Arguments Regarding the Validity of CRU Data .........65

1.3.3.1 Alleged Destruction of Raw Data ..............................................................66

1.3.3.2 Alleged Data Manipulation .......................................................................70 1.3.3.3 “Harry Read Me” file and o ther code .......................................................73

1.3.3.4 Claims of Selective Use of Da ta From Russian Weather Stations .............89

1.3.4 Claims of Flawed Approach to Corre ct for Urban Heat Island (UHI) Effects .....................................................................................................................90

1.3.5 Alleged Dependence of IPCC Conclu sions on the HadCRUT temperature

record .....................................................................................................................92

1.3.6 Summary ................................................................................................................96

21.4 Validity of NOAA and NASA Temperature Records ....................................................97

1.4.1 Overview ................................................................................................................97

1.4.2 Background on the Collection and Analysis of Surface Temperature Data ..........97

1.4.3 The Petitioners’ Arguments and EPA Responses ..................................................99

1.4.3.1 Assessment of Issues Related to Alleged Station Dropout and Inappropriate Extrapolation ......................................................................99

1.4.3.2 Issues Raised With Respect to Adjustments for the UHI Effect ...............106

1.4.3.3 Issues Raised in Additional L iterature Provided by Petitioners ..............116

1.4.3.4 Petitioners’ Allegations Regarding Data Adjustments at Specific

Stations .....................................................................................................118

1.4.3.5 Allegations Regarding the Inde pendence of NOAA, NASA, and HadCRUT Temperature Records .............................................................127 1.4.3.6 Additional Issues Regarding Alle gations of Manipulation of Data ........131

1.4.4 Summary ..............................................................................................................133 1.5 Implications of New Studies and Data Submitted by the Petitioners ...........................135

1.5.1 Overview ..............................................................................................................135

1.5.2 Implications of a New Study on Stratospheric Water Vapor ............................135

1.5.3 Implications of Materi al Indicating That CO 2 Is Not Well Mixed in the Atmosphere and That the Airborne Fraction of CO 2 Has Not Changed .............136

1.5.4 Implications of New Tropical Cyclone Studies ....................................................142

1.5.5 Implications of New Studies on the Sta tistical Significance of Increases in

Antarctic Sea Ice ..................................................................................................144

1.5.6 Implications of Recent Data on Observational Snow Cover Trends ...................146

1.5.7 Petitioners Claim That EPA I gnored a Satellite Dataset ....................................151

1.5.8 Summary ..............................................................................................................152

References....................................................................................................................................153

3ACRONYMS

°C degrees Celsius °F degrees Fahrenheit

AIRS Atmospheric Infrared Sounder AMS American Meteorological Society AOGCM Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models AR4 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report BOM Australian Bureau of Meteorology CCSP U.S. Climate Change Science Program

CH 4 methane

cm centimeter CDIAC Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center CMIP Coupled Model Intercomparison Project

CO 2 carbon dioxide

CRU Climatic Research Unit EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

FOIA Freedom of Information Act GHCN Global Historical Climatology Network GHG greenhouse gases GISS Goddard Institute for Space Studies (NASA)

GSL Global Snow Laborator y (Rutgers Universitry) IAC InterAcademy Council IEA Institute of Economic Analysis

IISD International Institute for Sustainable Development IJC International Journal of Climatology IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IQA Information Quality Act LIA Little Ice Age MET United Kingdom Meteorological Office

MWP Medieval Warm Period NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NCAR National Center for Atmospheric Research

NCDC National Climatic Data Center NIWA National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research NMS National Meteorological Station

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NRC National Research Council

NSIDC U.S. National and Snow and Ice Data Center ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency RTC Response to Comments RTP Response to Petitions SAB Scientific Advisory Board SALR saturated adiabatic lapse rate TSD Technical Support Document

4UAH University of Alabam a–Huntsville UCAR University Corporation for Atmospheric Research

UHI urban heat island UK United Kingdom USGCRP U.S. Global Change Research Program

USHCN United States Histor ical Climatology Network

W/m 2 watts per meter squared WMO World Meteorological Organization WWR World Weather Reports

51.0 Climate Science and Data Issues Raised by Petitioners

1.1. Validity of Paleoclimate Tempera ture Reconstructions and Related

Issues

1.1.1 The “Divergence Issue” in Paleoclimate Reconstructions

A number of petitioners (the Coalition for Responsible Regulation, Peabody Energy, the Southeastern Legal Foundation, the State of Texas, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute) challenge the validity of the paleoc limate reconstructions of the temperatures of the past 1,000 and 10,000 years, as summarized in the assessment literature. 1 Many of the issues they raise are similar to comments EPA received on the proposed Endangerment Finding, although in some cases the petitioners draw additional support

from more recent information rele ased in the media. In part icular, several petitioners use e-mails involving scientists at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom that we re made public in November 2009. Based on statements in these e-mails, along with other sources, petitioners sp ecifically raise the possibility that the Medieval Warm Peri od (MWP) or the early Holocene (about 10,000 to 8,000 years ago) may have been warmer than the present. Additionally, they claim that the e-mails demonstrate deliberate, inappropriate manipulation of the data. Petitioners claim that by showing that recent warmth may not have been “unprecedented,” that the attribution of recent warming to human causes is undermined, and therefore, the Findings are flawed.

EPA’s review of the arguments raised by the petitioners, as well as EPA’s review of the totality of the CRU e-mails and other docum ents, finds that the uncertainties about paleoclimate reconstructions highlighted by the petitioners were recognized and appropriately discussed in the Intergover nmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other assessment documents, as well as in the EPA Technical Support Document (TSD).

EPA addressed the uncertainties involved in hi storical temperature reconstructions in the Response to Comments (RTC) document, as th is was an issue raised by a number of commenters. Petitioners fail to acknowledge or engage substantively with the scope and comprehensiveness of the discussion of this issue, both in the assessment literature and by EPA. Further, they fail to recognize or discuss the other evidence relied on in assessing the conclusions drawn from the en tire body of paleoclimate evidence. As a result, the petitioners’ arguments rely on innue ndo and speculation w ith little scientific support or argumentation.

When viewed as a whole, the paleoclimate analysis contributes to our understanding of the climate system. These analyses provide supporting evidence that current warming is attributable to anthropogenic greenhouse ga ses (GHGs). The uncertainties concerning the precise temperature and climatic influen ces in the paleoclimate reconstructions are clearly recognized, acknowledged, and taken into account in the conclusions of the

1 Paleoclimatology is the study of climates of time periods prior to the widespread use of direct

measurement instruments.

6assessment literature and in EPA’s Endange rment Finding. C ontrary to petitioners’ claims, EPA has not treated this evidence as “compelling” but has instead weighed it appropriately given the uncertainties invol ved. Whether previous warm historical episodes were possibly slightly warmer globally than the present or, as the majority of the science suggests, sligh tly cooler on a global average than the present, does not materially change the understanding of the climate provided by the paleoclimate evidence.

We respond to petitioners’ arguments in the following subsections. Subsection 1.1.2 provides background on paleoclimate temperature reconstructions as context for the more technical responses that follow. Subs ection 1.1.3 addresses issues including the “divergence issue” concerning recent tree ring data. Subsectio n 1.1.4 addresses the arguments over manipulation of data includ ing tree ring data. Section 1.1.5 addresses arguments regarding the relative warmth of the MWP and the present day. Section 1.1.6 addresses arguments on the issue of the role of paleoclimate reconstructions in attribution of observed temperature changes to GHGs. Subsection 1.1.7 summarizes EPA’s conclusions on the petitioners’ arguments

1.1.2 Background

To evaluate the technical deta ils of the petitioners ’ arguments, it is useful to describe what paleoclimate temperature reconstructi ons are and how they are used to improve understanding of past and present climate change. Direct observation of surface temperature records have global coverage ove r approximately the last 130 to 150 years. To determine temperatures in time periods before the instrumental record, climate scientists need to use indirect methods (“ proxies”). These indirect methods include examining tree rings; sediment cores for polle n and plankton records; atomic isotope and chemical compound ratios in corals and othe r marine organisms; glacier extent and oxygen isotope ratios in the glacial ice; and subsurface ground temperatures. Determining temperatures from these proxi es is not always straightforward. For example, tree growth is dependent not only on temperature but also water availability,

CO 2 concentrations in the air, and pollution exposure. Mari ne organism records can be influenced by salinity changes, glacier records can be influenced by precipitation changes, and so forth. Many of these proxies (including tree rings) are calibrated against the instrumental temperature record for the pe riod where datasets ove rlap. The statistical relationship found between the proxy and region al temperatures over the past 150 years is then used to extrapolate over the hundreds or thousands of years before instrumental records. Examining more data sources and mo re proxies provides more certainty in the

reconstructions than would be achieved us ing a single proxy study with fewer data sources, even if some of the included pr oxies have only a weak relationship with
temperature.

Researchers combine a number of different proxies from around the world to develop their temperature reconstructions of the past. Different res earchers use different subsets of data—some rely on only one proxy, others use multi-proxy reconstructions. Fewer proxies are available for examination as scient ists extend their research further back in the past, and the uncertainty of conclusions about past surface temperatures becomes

7larger. These reconstructions contribute to our understandi ng of historical temperatures and variability and enable comparison of pr esent day changes to changes in the past 1,000 years, as well as allowing testing of climate m odels and our understanding of how the climate system responded to historical conditions.

The “divergence” issue refers to a certain s ubset of the tree ring records whose growth has not correlated with temperature change in recent decades. Basically, in recent years, where the regional instrument al record shows warming, so me tree ring proxies do not show a corresponding growth rate. This is not a new issue; one of the earliest papers on divergence was published by CRU res earchers in 1998 in the journal Nature (Briffa et al., 1998). More recently, reports of the IPCC (J ansen et al., 2007) and National Research Council (NRC) (2006) cite a number of studies th at have explored th is topic, assessing potential explanations ranging from ozone de pletion to specific regional changes in drought and precipitation. EPA’ s TSD discusses this issue and includes the NRC (2006) multiproxy reconstruction in Figure 4.3. As disc ussed in the TSD, and in more detail in Volume 2 in the RTC document, NRC (2006) found divergence in some trees north of 55 degrees latitude. The TSD summarizes the NRC (2006) and IPCC conclusions on paleoclimate, including important discussions of the uncertainty in the reconstructions, stating on page 32, “Considering this study and additional research, the IPCC (2007d) concluded: “Paleoclimatic information supports the interpretation that the warmth of the last half century is unusual in at least the previous 1,300 years.” However, like NRC (2006b), IPCC cautions that uncertainty is sign ificant prior to 1600 (Jansen et al., 2007).”

Some researchers are concerned about the implications of this divergence in the use of tree rings for reconstructing hi storical warm periods; other researchers note that because the divergence only applies to trees north of 55 degrees latitude, and a similar difference

in behavior between northern a nd southern trees was not seen before the last few decades, it is reasonable to conclude that the diverg ence is a unique phenomenon of the last few

decades.

Placing the paleoclimate work into the broader climate science context, the TSD cites the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USG CRP) statement that “The second line of evidence arises from indirect, historical estim ates of past climate changes that suggest that the changes in global surface temperat ure over the last seve ral decades are unusual (Karl et al, 2009).” The phrase in Karl et al. regarding “indirect historical estimates” refers to the paleoclimate reconstructions ba sed on proxies. Following Karl’s statement,

the unusual nature of the current warmi ng in the context of the past 1,000 years

contributes to one of the lines of evidence supporting the attribution of current warming

to human activities. Note that “unus ual” does not mean unprecedented, and past warming must be considered in the light of what we know a bout past climatic forcings such as solar and volcanic activity. Additi onally, in the IPCC chap ter on attribution, Hegerl et al. (2007) states that “[a]nalyses of palaeoc limate data have increased

confidence in the role of external influences on climate.” Hegerl et al. are stating that paleoclimate information improves our understa nding of the difference between how the climate responds to external changes, such as changes in solar radiation, orbital

8characteristics, GHG concentrations, or atmos pheric loadings of aerosols (such as from volcanic erup tions), compared to internal changes such as el Niño events.

1.1.3 Assessment of the Evidence Provid ed by Petitioners Regarding the

Climate Reconstructions

Comment (1-1) : Several petitioners (the Co alition for Responsible Regulation, Peabody Energy, the Southeastern Legal Foundation, the State of Te xas, and Competitive Enterprise Institute) argue that the “divergence” issue in the tree ring records “makes comparing the temperatures during the MWP [Medieval Warm Period] with recent observed temperatures virtually impossi ble” and that these concerns were suppressed in IPCC
reports.

Response (1-1) : As noted in the background on paleoclimate ab ove, the divergence issue (between certain tree rings and recent temperature changes) is not yet a fully explained phenomenon, and the e-mails quoted by the peti tioners recognize these uncerta inties. However, these

uncertainties are not new. The science comm unity has long been aware of the tree ring divergence issue, as well as other issues on the certainty of proxy reconstructions. After thorough evaluations, both the IPCC and NRC properly recognized these issues and appropriately reflected the uncertainty in thei r scientific conclusions, as did EPA. Thus, these uncertainties were fully presented in the assessment literature. In Response 2-64 and 2-67 of the RTC document, EPA addressed divergence and uncertainty in paleoclimate reconstructions, stating:

Some temperature reconstructions end in 1980 or earlier because of a well-recognized (in the assessment literature) “div ergence” problem, where some tree ring records present temperature trends that do not correlate well with the instrumental (thermometer) records. Explanations for the divergence discussed in NRC (2006b) include water (i.e., drought stress) becoming a limiting factor, increasing winter precipitation (leading to delaying snowmelt), greater ultraviolet radiation (resulting from ozone depletion) or bias in instrumental temperature. However, NRC (2006b) notes a number of tree-ring records have not been impacted by divergence, and it is primarily concentrated north of 55° latitude. The IPCC (Jansen et al., 2007) notes it is not even ubiquitous in that region.

Specifically, the NRC also found that “Elevatio nal treeline sites in Mongolia (D’Arrigo et al., 2001) and the European Alps (Büntgen et al., 2005) are not affected by “divergence.” This geographic separation was confirmed by Cook et al. (2004)” (NRC, 2006). The significance of these studies is that they dem onstrate that divergence is not an issue with all tree ring proxies, much less the many non-tree ring proxies, such as retreating glaciers, sediment cores, corals, and other data sources.

It is important to recognize that the assessmen t reports looked at al l of the proxy evidence (e.g., see Fig 4.3 in the TSD [U.S. EPA, 2009]) as well as other paleoclimate evidence, such as the clear record that warmer periods in the past coincide with periods with higher

levels of CO 2 . The assessment reports rely on this entire body of evidence to support

9their conclusions, correctly re flecting any uncer tainty expressed in the literature, while petitioners discuss only one part of this evidence—the tree ring divergence for trees in some locations—and do not contest any of the ot her parts of the entire body of evidence. Petitioners also do not attempt to show that the entire body of evidence supports a different conclusion than that drawn by th e assessment reports and by EPA.

Comment (1-2) : Peabody Energy cites papers by D’Arrigo et al. (2008), Esper and Frank (2009), and Loehle (2009) on the subject of divergence. Loehle (2009) presents an analysis on the implications of divergence be ing a result of non-linear re sponses to temperature. Peabody Energy quotes D’Arrigo’s paper as stating that the divergence issues impede “a robust comparison of recent warming during the anthropogenic period with past natural climate episodes such as the Medieval Warm Period,” and states that the Esper and Frank paper “concluded that the divergen ce problem ‘is of importance...’”

Response (1-2) : EPA has reviewed the petitioners’ submission of D’Arrigo et al. (2008), Esper and Frank (2009), and Loehle (2009) and finds that it was not impractic able to raise the objection during the public comment period and that the reasons for the objection did not arise between June 24, 2009, and February 16, 2010. Petitioners could have submitted these studies during the comment period on the proposed Endangerment Finding. Although, in most cases, the petitioners provide excerpts from the CRU e-mails in support of their assertions, EPA’s review has determined th at this evidence does not support their allegations, and that the information s ubmitted by petitioners on these topics was available before the comment period for the Endangerment Finding. Petitioners have not shown why it would have been impractical for them to have submitted these studies then. Indeed, similar points were already raised, and responded to, in the RTC. Despite the fact that these objections fa il to meet the statutory timef rame for evidence supporting a petition for reconsideration, we briefly explai n why, contrary to pe titioners’ allegation, they fail to call into question the Finding.

Though the petitioners cite D’Ar rigo et al. (2008) to suppor t their contention that the divergence problem undermines paleoclimate reconstructions, D’Arrigo et al. (2008) recognize the possibility that divergence is a uniquely modern phenomena, though they

do include caveats on that conclusion: “A lthough limited evidence suggests that the divergence may be anthropogenic in nature and restricted to the recent decades of the 20 th
century, more research is needed to conf irm these observations.” Similarly, the quote from Esper and Frank (2009) that the petiti oners select comes from a context-setting paragraph and is not a conclusi on of the paper, despite the co ntention of the petitioner. Esper and Frank also note that the divergen ce phenomena is “widely perceived” and the “potential consequences discussed (e.g., IP CC, 2007),” providing confirmation that the researchers in the field approve of the asse ssment literature conclusions. Indeed, more recent work by Esper (Esper et al., 2010) ma y have found that some analysis methods do not show the same divergence phenomena when used with high latitude Siberian trees.

10Loehle (2009) is a more theoretical study ex amining the implications for reconstructions

if the reason for “divergence” results from a non-linear response of trees to warming. He shows that if the trees respond quadratically to warming rather than linearly, then it is possible that reconstructions using these trees would not re produce some historical warm periods. However, these questions are not new: the possibility of such non-linear response was addressed in a qualitative form by the NRC (2006). Additionally, some

reconstructions have examined the effect of not including any tree rings whatsoever and still find that modern warming is slightly larg er than other events in the past millenium (Mann et al., 2008).

This is an area of ongoing research, but petitio ners present no evidence that demonstrates that the treatment of this issue by EPA faile d to address the uncertainties involved in

these reconstructions.

Comment (1-3) : Peabody Energy raises objections to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) treatment of Holocene temperature variation, to the sent ence in the TSD referring to reconstructions of this period, and to the discussion in th e RTC document on the subject. Peabody Energy

claims that certain e-mails raise doubts a bout IPCC conclusions regarding the early Holocene (about 10,000 to 8,000 years ago). P eabody Energy states that “Obviously, warmer temperatures in the early Holocene when GHG concentrations were lower than those today would seem to further undermine the conclusion that today’s temperatures are unprecedented and, therefore, must be the result of anthr opogenic GHG emissions.” Peabody Energy quotes several e-mails from IPCC authors discussing two papers (Porter, 2000 and Thompson et al., 2006) that were not included in the AR4. Peabody Energy states that these e-mails support its claims th at the IPCC omitted refe rences and skewed the discussion of this issue in the AR4, and th at the two papers demonstrate that there was simultaneous warmth in the tropics and th e Southern Hemisphere during the early Holocene, in contrast to the IPCC conclusions.

For example, a petitioner quotes the following from Olga Solomina from July 2006:

I attach here a version of glacier box and s uggestions (in red) how to include there the reference to the new Thompson et al., 2006 paper.

In this relation - I am getting more and more concern about our statement that the Early Holocene was cool in the tropics - this paper shows that it was, actually, warm - ice core evidences+glaciers were smaller than now in the tropical Andes. The glaciers in the Southern Hemisphere (Porter, 2000, review paper) were also smaller than at least in the Neoglacial. We do not cite Porter’s paper for the reason that we actually do not know how to explain this - orbital reason does not work for the SH, but if we do cite it (which is fair) we have to say that during the Early to Mid Holocene glaciers were smaller than later in both Northern, and Southern Hemisphere, incl uding the tropics, which would contradict

11to our statement in the Holocene chapter and th e bullet. It is probably too late to rise these questions, but still just to draw your attention. 2

The petitioner further quotes Valerie Masson-Delmotte on un certainties in Holocene land

reconstructions:

It seems to me that there is still a larg e uncertainty about the temperature versus precipitation effect on these tropical glacie rs. Other indications from South America are

related to lake levels with contrast ed views in the low versus highlands.

Several references suggest that there is the end of a wet period after the early Holocene in tropical south America; this is expected to induce an increase of 18O signals. One review was conducted several years ago within the PEPI project (http://wwwpaztcn.wr.usgs.gov/pc aw/ and references herein).

I think that the state of the art is that we have no reliable proxy record that is sensivite to temperature only on the tropical lands for th e Holocene; therefore the statement that was

written for the Holocene was based on areas of the tropical oceans where SST reconstructions were published.

Do we have to write more explicitely about the uncertainty? 3

The petitioner objects that “Ultimately, th e Coordinating Lead Author of Chapter 6, Eystein Jansen, decided, contrary to the contentions of Thompson et al. and Foster, that the early Holocene evidence from the tropics and Southern Hemisphere is not a reliable temperature indicator, and to just leave the te xt the way it was – that is, without including the published evidence from Thompson et al. (2006), Foster (2000), or any discussion surrounding these studies that r uns contrary to the orbital hypothesis,” including Jansen’s

e-mail:

I agree with Valerie that the ice core evidence is ambiguous. I would personally place more weight on the alkenone data, which is a reasonable well calibrated SST proxy.

Foraminifer transfer function based SSTs a nd some Mg/Ca results that are available suggest a similar picture as far as I know. Of course it is possible and plausible that the tropical oceans are behaving in a non consiste nt manner and not all areas are showing the same signal, but a sizeable portion appear to do so in order to conclude as we do in the chapter in my opinion. Some signals may be due to changes in in trade wind induced coastal upwelling strength, but there are enough cores with alkenone data outside of these areas. If we were to say more about the uncertainties it may be the fact that proxies are seasonally skewed.

My conclusion is to let the chapte r say what we say at the moment. 4

2 E-mail file 1154353922.txt, (July 31, 2006), page 1189, lines 9-19 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf

3 E-mail file 1154353922.txt, (July 31, 2006), page 1188, lines 35-45 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf

4 E-mail file 1154353922.txt, (July 31, 2006), page 1188, lines 25-34 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf

12Response (1-3) : The petitioner raises three main claims: that the e-mails demonstrate bias in writing the IPCC chapters, that the omitted references demonstrate global early Holocene warmth, and that early Holocene warmth raises doubt about attribution of current warming. On the first claim, our analysis finds that the e-mails are examples of legitimate scientific discussion between the authors trying to determ ine what is appropriate for inclusion in a chapter and that several of th e issues discussed in these e- mails were indeed included in the final chapter even if the tw o papers in question were not directly referenced. On the second claim, we note that there is uncertainty regarding early Holocene warmth, that this is still an area of ongoing research, and that EPA made no claims about Holocene warmth in the TSD or the Finding. On the third claim, early Holocene temperature

reconstructions are not centra l to arguments regarding a ttribution. Additionally, the Thompson paper in question makes statements consistent with the EPA TSD regarding

the effects of human activities.

With regard to Peabody Energy’s asserti ons about the Holocene based on glacier literature from Porter (2000) and Thompson et al (2006), the final version of the IPCC chapter (Jansen et al., 2007) di scusses early Holocene reconstr uctions without referring to either paper. Thompson et al . (2006) finds that glacier da ta suggests tropical Pacific warmth between 11,000 and 8,000 years ago, in a pparent contrast to Figure 6.9 in the IPCC chapter, which shows a cooler tropica l Pacific in that time period. The e-mail discussion between Eystein Jansen (Professor of Marine Biology, University of Bergen, Norway), Olga Solomina (Senior Scientist, Institute of Geology, Russian Academy of Sciences), and Valérie Masson-Delmotte (Lab oratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement, France) cited by the petitioners includes the reas oning of the e-mail

authors that there is more confidence in using marine sediment and shell data for determining ocean temperatures than there is using glacier oxygen isotope data relied upon in the Thompson paper, because the glacier data can also be influenced by changes in precipitation. This kind of ongoing discussion regarding which data best reflects past temperatures is appropriate for lead author s of a scientific assessment, and reflects scientific dialogue attemp ting to determine the most appropriate answer.

A very recent paper (Leduc et al., 2010) fi nds cool early Holocene tropical oceans based on alkenone data but an appare ntly contradictory result based on Mg/Ca data. A possible explanation suggested by this paper was that one proxy was capturi ng winter trends, and the other proxy summer trends, and there are orbi tal reasons to think that the trends might be different. Interestingly, this is consistent with Jansen’s statement in the quoted e-mail that the proxies may be seasonally skewed. This is clearly an ar ea of ongoing research.

Contrary to the assertion of the petitioners that there wa s no discussion included in the chapter that “runs contrary to the orb ital hypothesis,” Chapter 6 of Working Group I (Jansen et al., 2007) discusses that there ar e some Holocene results that are not fully explained by the orbital hypothesis, stating: “At high southern latitu des, the early warm period cannot be explained by a linear res ponse to local summer insolation changes (see Box 6.1), suggesting large-scale reorganization of latitudinal heat transport.” Similarly,

13Box 6.3 discusses tropical glacier re treat stating “tropics indicate short, or in places even absent, glaciers between 11 and 5 ka,” c onsistent with both Porter and Thompson.

Therefore, the quoted e-mails dem onstrate that the authors were appropriately attempting to explore this issue and use their best sc ientific reasoning to determine which proxies were most appropriate for use in their assessm ent. One of the e-mails even presciently identified a possible source of seasonal skew which was a core finding of a paper published four years later. Ev idence that “runs contrary to the orbital hypothesis” was in fact included in the final version of the chapte r, as was the issue about absent glaciers.

The Endangerment Finding does not directly address the early Holocene. The TSD

statement that “current data limitations limit th e ability to determine if there were multidecadal periods of global warmth co mpared to the last half of the 20 th century prior to about 1,000 years ago” remains accurate after considering these two papers on Holocene glaciers. The RTC document (RTC Response 3- 55) also quotes this statement from the TSD in response to a comment regarding ear ly Holocene temperatures. The TSD also stated (quoting the NRC report) that “Very little confidence ca n be assigned to statements concerning the hemispheric mean or global mean surface temperature prior to about 900 A.D. because of sparse data coverage and b ecause the uncertainties associated with proxy data and the methods used to analyze and combine them are larger than during more recent time periods.” Again, nothing that the pe titioner has provided suggests that this statement about uncertainty regarding early Ho locene data is incorr ect. Therefore, the issues raised by the petitione r do not cast doubt on or change any of the reasoning or the scientific basis for the Administrator’s Findings.

With regard to the implications of earl y Holocene temperature reconstructions to attribution of recent temperature changes to human influences, we quote the NRC again:

Surface temperature reconstructions have the potential to provide independent information about climate sensitivity and a bout the natural variability of the climate system that can be compared with estimates based on theoretical calculations and climate models, as well as other empirical data. However, large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the last 2,000 years ar e not the primary evidence for the widely accepted views that global warming is occurring, that human activities are contributing, at least in part, to this warming, and that the Earth will continue to warm over the next century. (NRC, 2006)

Just as temperature reconstruc tions of the last 2,000 years are not the primary evidence for anthropogenic climate change, neither ar e temperature reconstructions of 8,000 years ago. Because climate forcings in the early Ho locene were very different from present, whether the early Holocene was slightly warm er or cooler than today (an uncertainty recognized in the TSD and assessment lite rature) does not prove or disprove the anthropogenic nature of recent warming. Additionally, the major conclusions of Thompson et al. (2006) are consistent with thos e of the TSD on attribut ion. In fact, with regard to recent glacier retreat, the conclusion of the paper states:

14“These observations suggest that within a century human activities may have nudged global-scale climate conditions closer to those that prevailed before 5,000 yr ago, during the early Holocene. If this is the case, th en Earth’s currently retreating glaciers may signal that the climate system has exceeded a critical threshold...”

Therefore, the e-mails quoted by the petiti oners demonstrate that the authors were making deliberate and appropriate choices in writing their chapter that reflected their ongoing dialogue over the best understanding of the science. Several of the issues identified by petitioners were indeed included in the chapter. While there is continuing uncertainty in reconstructions of early Holo cene temperatures, as reflected even in the most recent papers, the EPA TSD makes no statements inconsistent with this uncertainty. Finally, early Holocene reconstruc tions are not central to the de termination of attribution.

Comment (1-4) : Referring to previous discussions about Ho locene temperatures, the petitioner states “Thus, it is clear that the IP CC AR4 is not an accurate a ssessment of the scientific literature, but instead includes only a selection of th e literature that s upports a particular viewpoint – one either held by the chapter IP CC authors, or which ha d been dictated to them by more influential IPCC authorities. This is perhaps the type of behavior that Chapter 6 Lead Author Briffa was referring to when he told a colleague ‘I tried hard to

balance the needs of the sc ience and the IPCC, which were not always the same.’”

Response (1-4) : Response 1-3 above demonstrates that the e-mail authors were engaging in a dialogue over the best understanding of the science, a nd that the chapter did include uncertainties and conclusions consistent with the omitted papers. Response 2-30 in Subsection 2.2 of this Response to Petitions (RTP) document shows how the quote on the “needs of the

science” was taken out of cont ext by the petitioners, and that the work by Briffa was complimented on how it managed to “c onvey the the science accurately”.

Comment (1-5) : The Competitive Enterprise Institute refers to a presentation by Don Easterbrook at the Geological Society of America (Easterb rook, 2009), stating Professor Easterbrook “demonstrated how tree ring data from Russi a, which show a cooling after 1961, were artfully truncated in graphs presented in IPCC publications.” The petitioner claims “This truncation gave the false impression that the tr ee ring data agree with reported late 20th Century surface temperature data, when in fact they did not. This artful deceit, now exposed, indicates that the IPCC Assessmen t Report 4 (AR4) is scientifically questionable. The CRU e-mails leaked in N ovember confirmed that this deception was

deliberate.”

Response (1-5) : EPA has reviewed the petitioner’s informa tion and has determined that the graph provided by the petitioner from Professor Ea sterbrook’s talk is not from the AR4, but rather from the Third Assessment Report, which was published in 2001 and is no longer the most recent IPCC assessment report. In the AR4, the latest data on this issue was assessed and depicted in Figure 6.10. In this figure, three out of the 12 reconstructions

15terminate in 1960 (as noted in Table 6.1 in the same chapter), because the reconstructions in the underlying papers also term inate in 1960. Six of the 12 reconstructions extend to 1990 or later, again based on the time peri od covered by the relevant dataset.

EPA’s TSD actually uses a figure fro m the NRC (2006), which shows six reconstructions, one of which terminates in 1960. Because these assessment reports are showing the entirety of the data represented in the underl ying literature, there is no evidence of any “artful deceit, ” nor is this evidence that the AR4 is “scientifically questionable.”

Comment (1-6) : Peabody Energy also quotes e-mail exchanges by Richard Alley and by John Mitchell before the release of the NRC (2006) report regarding divergence. For example, Peabody Energy cites the following excerpt from an e-mail by Richard Alley of Penn State to Jonathan Overpeck of the University of Arizona, written on March 11, 2006:

My impression is that, for good reasons, the US NRC panel looking at the record of temperatures over the last millennium or tw o is not going to strongly endorse the ability of proxies to detect warming above the level ofa millennium ago, and that a careful reexamination of the Chapter 6 wording and its representation in the TS and SPM would be

wise. . .

These considerations do somewhat affect the c onfidence that can be attached to the best

estimate of recent warmth versus that of a m illennium ago. If the paleoclimatic data could be confidently be interpreted as paleotempera tures, then joining the paleoclimatic and instrumental records would be appropriate, and the recent warmth would clearly be anomalous over the last millennium and beyond. By demonstrating that some tree-ring series chosen for temperature sensitivity are not fully reflecting temperature changes, the divergence issue widens the error bars a nd so reduces confidence in the comparison

between recent and earlier warmth 5

Peabody Energy also quotes Professor John Mitc hell from the UK Met Office as stating:

There needs to be a clear statement of why th e instrumental and proxy data are shown on the same graph. The issue of why we dont show the proxy data for the last few decades (they dont show continued warming) but assume that they are valid for early warm periods needs to be explained

and

I have not had time to check the original chapter, but the comments give the impression that the recent 50 yr warming is unprecedented over the last 500years (seems reasonable) and elsewhere over the last 1000years (less clear). 6

5 E-mail file 1142108839.txt, (March 11, 2006), pages 1103-1104, lines 9-13 and 37-44 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf

6 E-mail file 1150923423.txt, (March 11, 2006), pages 1141-1142, lines 45-46 and 16-17 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf

16Finally, Peabody Energy quotes an e-mail by Keith Briffa which stated “I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as re gards 'a pparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data' but in reality the situation is not quite so simple.” 7

Peabody Energy claims that “Taken together, the foregoing emails present a record of serious and sustained doubt about the validity of the proxy record, and particularly, as developed from tree rings. The divergence problem plainly concerned a number of respected researchers leading them to question not only the continued use of tree ring data in the science of paleoclimatolo gy, but also the key theory based on that data: that recent warming of the 20 th century is truly unprecedented and unmatched over a period of at least 1000 years.”

Response (1-6) : The petitioner’s arguments are flawed for seve ral reasons, previously discussed. First, not all tree ring records demonstrate divergen ce, only a subset mainly in far northern latitudes. Second, while this divergence does raise potential issues about the applicability

of those trees for reconstructions of warm eras, there are also a number of potential reasons for this divergence that are due to anthropogenic influences and that therefore would not reduce the value of these tree rings for reconstructions. Third, the TAR and AR4 do not solely rely on tree ring records in their assessment of temperatures in the past 1000 years. There are a number of other proxies that have be en used. Mann et al. (2008) shows proxy reconstructions that do not use any tree rings at all.

Finally, the EPA TSD quotes both the NRC and the AR4 on th e significant uncertainties

involved in reconstructions before 1600. The TSD never claims that the current warming is “truly unprecedented in 1000 years,” and neither does the AR4. What the IPCC AR4 says (Jansen et al., 2007) is:

The TAR pointed to the ‘exceptional warmth of the late 20th century, relative to the past 1,000 years’. Subsequent evidence has strengthene d this conclusion. It is very likely that average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were higher than for any other 50-year period in the last 500 years. It is also likely that this 50-year period was the warmest Northern Hemisphere period in the last 1.3 kyr, and that this warmth was more widespread than during any other 50-year period in the last 1.3 kyr. These conclusions are most robust for summer in extratropical land areas, and for more recent periods because of poor early data coverage.

The AR4 does not use the term “unprecedented” in this statement, nor with respect to temperature in its Summary for Policymakers, and discusses that there is increased uncertainty before the “more recent periods”.

In addition to these issues, th e petitioners do not quote the full context of the e-mails and instead cherry-pick only segments. For example, in the above e-mail quoted from

7 E-mail files 0938018124.txt, (Septe mber 22, 1999), page 205, line 22 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf

17Richard Alley, he provides a long and detailed assessment of many of the issues involved in divergence. The petitioners do not, for exam ple, quote his stat ement that “[t]hese

considerations do not affect the best estimate th at recent warmth is greater than that of a millennium ago; the central estimate from proxy data of latter-twentieth-century warmth is still above that of a millennium ago, with greater spatial cohere nce recently in the signal.” 8 John Mitchell and Jonathan Overpeck are discussing how to address issues of uncertainty: Jonathan Overpeck forwarded thes e concerns from Mitchell to Keith Briffa and Tim Osborn so that they would be addr essed in the IPCC chapter, and as noted above, the IPCC chapter includes a discussion of the relevant uncertainties and the divergence issue. Michael Ma nn’s response to Briffa’s arguments was that “Keith and Phil have both raised some very good points” 9 , and many of Briffa ’s arguments were

included in the final version of the IPCC AR4 chapter. For example, Keith Briffa argues in his e-mail that “I prefer a Figure that shows a multitude of reconstructions”, and the figure in the chapter includes a multitude of reconstructions. The discussion of the MWP in the IPCC AR4 chapter (Jansen et al. 2007) he avily referenced and was consistent with Briffa’s own research, concluding that:

The evidence currently availa ble indicates that NH mean temperatures during medieval times (950–1100) were indeed warm in a 2-kyr context and even warmer in relation to the less sparse but still limited evidence of wi despread average cool conditions in the 17th century (Osborn and Briffa, 2006). However, the evidence is not sufficient to support a conclusion that hemispheric mean temperatures were as warm, or the extent of warm regions as expansive, as those in the 20th century as a whole, during any period in medieval times (Jones et al., 2001; Bradley et al., 2003a,b; Osborn and Briffa, 2006).

Therefore, the petitioners do not appropriate ly characterize the e-mails which they are excerpting, and the fundamental i ssues of uncertainty related to historical reconstructions were properly reflected in the EPA TSD and the Endangerment Findings.

Comment (1-7) : Peabody Energy quotes a 1999 e-mail in which Cook (Professor at the Lamont-Dohert Earth Observatory) asks Briffa (Professor at CRU), “Also, there is no evidence for a decline or loss of temperature response in your data in th e post-1950s (I assume that you didn’t apply a bodge here)” 10 in relation to a discrepancy between a Nature paper published at that time by Va ganov (1999) and an earlier Nature paper by Briffa (1998). Peabody Energy states that “By saying he assu med Briffa had not applied a “bodge,” he seemed to be asking Briffa to confirm that Br iffa had not masked divergence in the data through statistical legerdemain.”

8 E-mail file 1142108839.txt, (Mar ch 11, 2006), page 1104, lines 34-37 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf

9 E-mail files 0938018124.txt, (Septe mber 22, 1999), page 205, line 22 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf

10 E-mail file 0932158667.txt, (July 16, 1999), page 180, lines 27-29 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf

18Response (1-7) : In this 1999 e-mail, two scientis ts are discussing the results of papers that are now more

than a decade old. The earlier Nature paper by Briffa (1998) (on which Vaganov was also a co-author) clearly stated in its abstract, “During the second half of the twentieth century, the decadal-scale trends in wood density and summer temperatures have increasingly diverged as w ood density has progressively fa llen.” This statement is clearly flagging the divergence issue and rebuts the petitioner’s claim that Briffa et al. “masked divergence” in their paper.

The paper by Vaganov explores the possibi lity that later spring snowmelt due to increased winter precipitation might explain the divergence obs erved in the data. In the e-mail discussion with Cook, Briffa is doubtful that this is the an swer (though he does not rule it out) because his data do not show an effect of high pr ecipitation and because the precipitation data in the region is “ dubious.” Cook notes that Vaganov used a different, more distant city from the tree ri ng site for the meteorological data for his paper than Briffa had used in the origin al, which may explain this difference.

This e-mail chain is clearly a professional discussion between colleagues attempting to understand the implications of newer lite rature. There is no evidence of any inappropriate behavior on the pa rt of the scientists involved.

The Independent Climate Change E-Mail Review ( The Independent Climate Change Email Inquiry, 2010 ) discussed the term “bodge” in th eir report, finding that the term referred to an ad hoc adjustment that was later validated:

The term “bodging” has been used, including by Briffa himself, to refer to a procedure he adopted in 1992. The ‘bodge ’ refers to the upward adju stment of the low-frequency behaviour of the density signal after 1750, to make it agree with the width signal. This

ad hoc process was based on the conjecture that the width signal was correct. There is nothing whatsoever underhand or unusual with this type of procedure, and it was fully described in the paper. The interpretation of the results is simply subject to this caveat. The conjecture was later validated when it was shown to be an effect due to the standardisation technique adopted in 1992. Briffa referred to it as a “bodge” in a private e-mail in the way that many researchers might have done when corresponding with colleagues. We find it unreasonable that this issue, pertaining to a publication in 1992, should continue to be misrepresented widely to imply some sort of wrongdoing or sloppy

science.

Comment (1-8) : Peabody Energy quotes from a July 2000 disc ussion between Bradley (Professor at UMass Amherst) and Frank Oldfield (Executive Director of the In ternational GeosphereBiosphere Programme Past Global Changes Core Project), in which they express concern that the divergence issue could “become a foothold for climate change skeptics.”

The petitioner highlights part of the e-mail from Bradley, “Indeed, in the verification period, the biggest ‘miss‘ was an apparently very warm year in the la te 19th century that

19we did not get right at all. This makes cri ticisms of the ‘antis‘ difficult to respond to (they have not yet risen to this level of sophistication, but they are ‘on the scent‘).

Furtherm ore, it may be that Mann et al simp ly don’t have the long-term trend right, due to underestimation of low frequency info.” 11

The petitioner states that this quote shows “complete disregard of objective science in Bradley’s statement that the ‘antis’ had not yet realized a possible flaw in the

reconstructions but were ‘on the scent.’ Br adley appears much mo re interested in preserving the views of himsel f and his colleagues than in an objective and transparent scientific process.”

Additionally, the petitioner hi ghlights another July 2000 quote from Bradley that stated “The results were good, giving me confidence that if we had a comparable proxy data set for post-1980 (we don’t!) our proxy-based recons truction would capture that period well. Unfortunately, the proxy network we used ha s not been updated, and furthermore there are many/some/tree ring sites where there ha s been a ‘decoupling’ between the longterm relationship between climate and tree growth, so that things fall apart in recent decades.... this makes it very difficult to demonstrate what I just claimed.” 12

Response (1-8) : As noted in the latter quote provided by the petiti oner, Bradley postulated that if more data for the period post-1980 existed, it would suppor t his existing conclusions. This suggests

that he believed that his conclusions are sou nd, though he recognized that the divergence

issue limits the number of us eable sites where his theory could be tested. Regarding discussion of the “antis,” there is no evidence of any attempt to hide or ignore uncertainties by Bradley or his colleagues.

To the contrary, the quote from the petitione r is embedded in a larger paragraph that begins, “But there are real questions to be as ked of the paleo reconstruction.” Furthermore, the e-mail ends, “In Ch 7 we will try to discuss some of these issues, in the limited space available. Perhaps the best thing at this stage is to simply point out the inherent uncertainties and point the way towards how these uncertainties can be reduced.” 13 Neither of these statements suggests th at Bradley was merely “interes ted in preserving the views of himself and his colleagues,” and both support th e contention that he was indeed interested in “an objective and transparent scientific pr ocess.” The petitioner se lectively lifts words or phrases from e-mail corres pondence to make unsupporte d, discrediting accusations.

Comment (1-9) : Peabody Energy claims that “The bona fide s of McIntyre and Mc Kitrick should have become evident after their 2003 paper and follow-up papers were published in peer-

11 E-mail file 0963233839.txt, (July 10, 2000), page 263, line 9-13 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf

12 E-mail file 0963233839.txt, (Jul y 10, 2000), page 262-263, line 43-46 and 1-3 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf

13 E-mail file 0963233839.txt, (July 10, 2000), page 262-263, lines 41-42 and 24-27 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf

20reviewed scientific journals. Moreover, the independent Wegman Report subsequently

confirm ed the validity of their critique s of the hockey stick analysis and the methodological errors in that an alysis that they brought to li ght, and the NRC report also

confirmed that it was not confident of the cen tral conclusions of th e hockey stick paper.” The Southeastern Legal Foundation also c ites McIntyre, McKitrick, and the Wegman Report in order to criticize the “hockey stick affair”.

Response (1-9) : The petitioners are critiquing a 1998 paper by Michael Mann (“the hockey stick paper”). This paper broke new ground in terms of temper ature reconstructions of the past several hundred years and therefore attracted a lot of attention. Indeed, the petitioners focus on this 1998 paper despite the fact that many ot her reconstructions have been published in the decade since the original paper and several additional assessments have been conducted (including NRC [2006], which focu sed specifically on the divergence issue and new literature since Mann’s paper). Th e TSD relied on the NRC (2006) report and the IPCC AR4, which were comprehensive asse ssments of the published literature, not only the early papers examined by the ad hoc Wegman report (2006) and McIntyre and McKitrick (2003).

We also note that there have been a number of peer-reviewed criti ques and discussions of the McIntyre and McKitrick analyses (e.g., Ru therford et al. 2005, Juckes et al. 2007, von Storch and Zorita 2005, Huybers 2005, Wahl and Amman 2007). These papers question the validity of some aspects of the McIn tyre and McKitrick cr itiques and find that correcting for other valid aspects of the cr itiques have “no significant effects on the reconstruction itself” (Wahl and Amman, 2007).

Therefore, the petitioners have overstated the implications of the “hockey stick” critiques, in terms of both the validity of the critiques and the reliance of EPA on the original “hockey stick” papers.

Comment (1-10) : Peabody Energy states that “In the fall of last year [2009], as a result of McIntyre’s requests for data, the author s of a paper published in Science were forced to admit that they had flipped a data se t upside down,” referring to Kaufman et al. (2009).

Response (1-10) : A correction to Kaufman et al. (2009) was recently published in Science (Kaufman, 2010). This correction updated some of the pr oxies to “conform to the interpretations of the original authors” and acknowledged the contributions of “H. McCulloch and others who have pointed out errors and have offered suggestions.”

However, the correction also stated that “[t]he original conclusions of the paper have been strengthened as a result,” and “[t]he primary trends of the Arctic temperature reconstruction, however, are not changed, incl uding the millennial-scale summer cooling that was reversed by strong warming during th e 20th century and (on the basis of the instrumental record) continue d through the last decade.”

211.1.4 Assessment of the Evidence Provided by the Petitioners of Intentional Data Manipulation Regarding Tree Ring Data and the MW P

Comment (1-11) : Petitioners cite a statement in an e-ma il written in November 1999 by Dr. Phil Jones (then co-director of th e CRU), which states:

“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” 14

The petitioners claim that this e-mail “evid ences CRU staff’s effort to deliberately manipulate data to yield desired results.” The Southeastern Legal Foundation states that some responses to this text reached the conc lusion that the statement shows “an attempt

to cook the books to conceal the fact that th e famous ‘hockey stick’ is a manipulated, misleading barrel of scientific nonsense.”

Response (1-11) : Based on our review of this string of e-ma ils, it appears that th e quote citing “Mike’s Nature Trick” referred to a graph prepared for the front cover of a WMO report, “WMO

Statement on the Status of the Global Clim ate in 1999,” which was under development at the time (WMO, 2000). While few details we re provided about the cover graphic, the caption and text box referring to it discussed the uncertainties invol ved in historical temperature reconstructions. The figure deve loped for this WMO report is unrelated to the IPCC process. While it would have been clearer about its sour ces if the graph had overlaid the instrumental record using a separate color rather than merging the instrumental and proxy records together, this is an issue for WMO to address, considering the purpose of the report and the role of the graph on the cove r. However, the graph and the method used to prepare the graph bear no relationship to the detailed technical discussion found in the assessment reports wh ich EPA relied upon in the development of the TSD, which addressed all of the evidence a nd discussed the issue of tree ring data in

the context of the entire body of paleoclimate evidence.

In fact, the evidence shows that the research community was fully aware of these issues and was not hiding or concealing them. Th e figure as developed for the WMO report was not used by the IPCC. Rather, the Third Assessment Report, published in 2001 (IPCC, 2001), had a full paragraph on “important caveats to be kept in mind” regarding paleoclimate reconstructions th at use tree rings. The paragr aph included a discussion of the divergence and concluded that tree rings were best used as one of multiple proxies rather than being the sole source for a c limate reconstruction. The AR4, published in 2007, addressed the divergence issue in a paragrap h that began “Several analyses of ring width and ring density chronologies, with ot herwise well established sensitivity to temperature, have shown that they do not emulate the general warming trend evident in instrumental temperature records over rece nt decades....” Figure 6.10 in the AR4 and

14 E-mail file 0942777075.txt, (November 16, 1999), page 243, lines 39-41 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf

22Figure S-1 in the NRC report (which was repl icated in Figure 4.3 in the EPA TSD) both clearly show a separate line for the inst rum ental temperature record and the lines provided by proxy reconstructions, unlike th e WMO figure. Hence, the IPCC and additional assessment literature relied on by EP A transparently document, illustrate, and discuss the divergence issue, as did EPA in Volume 2 of the RTC document. The evidence (the CRU e-mails) the petitioners cite on this i ssue have no relevance on the Administrator’s Findings.

The petitioners highlight the use of the word “t rick.” Contrary to the responses described by the Southeastern Legal Founda tion, more formal reviews di d not find that this phrase indicated an “attempt to cook the books”. The UK Science & Technology Committee (2010) reviewed this specific e-mail in its inve stigation of the disclo sure of climate data from the CRU. This investigation concluded: “We are content that the phrases such as ‘trick’ or ‘hiding the decline’ were colloqui al terms used in private e-mails, and the

balance of evidence is that th ey were not part of a systematic attempt to mislead.”

Comment (1-12) : As part of a set of e-mails that purporte dly “confirm certain scientists’ efforts to ‘artificially adjust’ data,” the Coalition fo r Responsible Regulation quotes from a 1996 email by Gary Funkhouser of the University of Arizona: “I really wish I could be more positive about the Kyrgyzstan material, but I sw ear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that.”

Response (1-12) : The Funkhouser quote regarding “trying to milk something out of that” does not appear to be an example of an effort to “artificially adjust” data. The full e- mail contains quotes such as “The data’s tempting but there’s too much variation even within stands” and “Not having seen the sites I can only speculate, but I’d be optimisti c if someone could get back there and spend more time collecting sample s, particularly at the upper elevations.” 15
Thus, this e-mail is most likely an example of a researcher being who is aware of the limits of the data, is committed to data that are of high quality, and did not draw stronger

conclusions than the data warranted. We furt her note that this email is almost 14 years old, and has no relevance to the literature assessed in the reports upon which EPA relied or the Finding.

Comment (1-13) : As part of a set of e-mails that purporte dly “confirm certain scientists’ efforts to ‘artificially adjust’ data,” the Coalition fo r Responsible Regulation quotes from a 2006 email from Keith Briffa (a scientist at CRU) noting that “the PC1 time series in the Mann et al. analysis was adjusted to reduce the positive slope in the last 150 years,” and that “this adjustment was arbitrary and the li nk between Bristlecone pine growth and CO 2 is, at the very least, arguable.” 16

15 E-mail file 0843161829.txt, (September 19, 1996), page 11, lines 13-14,16, and 19-21 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf

16 E-mail file 1163715685.txt, (November 16, 2006), page 1239, lines 9-10 and 15-16 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf

23Response (1-13) : The Briffa e-mail does not appear to raise questi ons about artificially adjusting the data in the analysis. While Briffa appears to disa gree with the adjustments used by Mann, he does note that the Mann adjustme nt was “following an earlier paper by Lamarche et al.” 17

based on CO 2 fertilization estimates and therefore is consistent with the literature. Disagreement among scientists is part of the nor mal scientific process and is not evidence

of deceit.

Comment (1-14) : As part of a set of e-mails that purporte dly “confirm certain scientists’ efforts to ‘artificially adjust’ data,” the Coalition fo r Responsible Regulation quotes from a 2003 email from Michael Mann (then of the University of Virginia ) stating that “it would be nice to try to ‘contain’ the putat ive ‘MWP’ [Medieval Warm Period].” 18

Response (1-14) : With regard to the Mann quote about contai ning the MWP, petitioners do not explain why the word “contain” is not a reference to timeframe rather than, as they imply, data manipulation. The full quote is: “I think that trying to adopt a tim eframe of 2K [2000 years], rather than the usua l 1K [1000 years], addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it woul d be nice to try to ‘contain’ the putative

‘MWP.’” 19 A 1,000-year-long reconstruction would only cover (i.e., “contain”) part of the MWP, whereas 2,000 years would contai n the entire MWP. In sum, although petitioners read into the quotes evidence of artificia l adjustment of data, when examined in their entirety the quotes do not support this conclusion.

1.1.5 Assessment of Petitioners’ Argume nt That the MWP May Have Been Warmer Than Present Temperatures

Comment (1-15) : Petitioners make a number of arguments cl aiming that the MWP may have been warmer than present temperatures. For example, petitioners claim that the divergence issue undermines our understanding of climate ch ange, because “if tree rings missed the warming of the latte r half of the 20 th century, they may also have missed the warming in the MWP.” They claim that all proxy data ar e unreliable for use in any time period. For example, Peabody Energy states that the eff ect of the divergence be tween tree ring proxy data and recent temperature data is to “reduce the mean and range of reconstructed values compared to what they actually were,” thereby making comparisons between the MWP and recent observed temperatures “virtually impossible.”

17 E-mail file 1163715685.txt, (November 16, 2006), page 1239, lines 10-11 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf

18 E-mail file 1054736277.txt, (June 4, 2003), page 510, lines 26-27 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf

19 E-mail file 1054736277.txt, (June 4, 2003), page 510, lines 25-27 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf

24Petitioners ascribe great significance to the reconstructions of pa leoclimate and their importance to our understanding of anthr opogenic global warming and claim this evidence was misused by the IPCC. For example, Peabody Energy states that because both the IPCC Third and Fourth Assessment Repo rts relied on tree rings “to significantly downplay the MWP and LIA [Little Ice Age],” th is casts doubt on “their conclusions that current warming is likely unprecedented in 1000 years.” Southeastern Legal Foundation claims that “[p]rior naturally occurring episodes of warming and cooling present a problem of proof for the promoters of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (“AGW”), namely how to explain that mode rn warming is caused by man when prior episodes of equal or greater warm ing self-evidently were not.”

Response (1-15) : The Finding states that “We agree there wa s a Medieval Warm Period in many regions

but find the evidence is insufficient to a ssess whether it was globally coherent. Our review of the available evidence suggests that Northern Hemisphere temperatures in the MWP were probably between 0.1°C and 0.2°C below the 1961–1990 mean and significantly below the level shown by instru mental data after 1980. However, we note significant uncertainty in the temper ature record prior to 1600 A.D.”

The TSD addresses paleoclimate in more de pth, finding that “Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature re constructions for the period from 900 to 1600 A.D” based on the NRC (2006) report, and fu rther stating that “C onsidering this study and additional research, the IPCC (2007c) concluded: ‘Paleoclimatic information supports the interpretation that the warmth of the last half cen tury is unusual in at least the previous 1,300 years.’ However, like N RC (2006), IPCC cautions th at uncertainty is significant prior to 1600 (J ansen et al., 2007).”

With regard to the claim that the IPCC AR 4 “downplays” the MWP and LIA, Jansen et al. (2007) clearly acknowledge the existence of and analyze the best estimates of the magnitude of both periods, noting the uncertain ty due to limitations of past data, and

conclude that

The evidence currently availa ble indicates that NH mean temperatures during medieval times (950–1100) were indeed warm in a 2-kyr context and even warmer in relation to the less sparse but still limited evidence of wi despread average cool conditions in the 17th century (Osborn and Briffa, 2006). However, the evidence is not sufficient to support a conclusion that hemispheric mean temperatures were as warm, or the extent of warm regions as expansive, as those in the 20th century as a whole, during any period in medieval times (Jones et al., 2001; Bradley et al., 2003a,b; Osborn and Briffa, 2006).

Therefore, the TSD appropriately highlighted the uncertainty that was reflected in both the NRC report and the IPCC statements. The NRC and IPCC assessed the best available science and came to conclusions that appropria tely reflected the underlying literature. The petitioners raise nothing new that was not already addressed by existing

characterizations of the uncer tainties involved in paleoclim ate reconstructions made by the IPCC, NRC, and EPA in the TSD.

25Comment (1-16) : Petitioners present a study by Loehle and Mc Culloch (2008) that calculated a 2,000-year reconstruction without using tree rings. Petit ioners claim that this study shows that the

MWP was as warm as the late 20 th century.

Response (1-16) : EPA has reviewed the petitioners’ submission of Loehle and McCulloch (2008) and finds that it was not impracticable to raise the objection during the public comment period and that the reasons for the objection did not arise between June 24, 2009, and February 16, 2010. Petitioners could have submitted this study during the comment period on the proposed Endangerment Finding. Although, in most cases, the petitioners provide excerpts from the CRU e-mails in support of their assertions, EPA’s review has determined that this evidence does not support their allegations, and that the information submitted by petitioners on these topics was available well before the comment period for the Endangerment Finding. Petitioners ha ve not shown why it would have been impractical for them to have submitted this study then. Indeed, similar points were already raised, and responded to, in the RTC. Despite the fact that these objections fail to meet the statutory timeframe for evidence s upporting a petition for reconsideration, we briefly explain why, contrary to petitioners’ al legation, they fail to call into question the Finding.

The petitioners presented a reconstruction from Loehle and McCulloch (2008) that claimed that without using tr ee rings they could show that the average of the warmest

three decades of the MWP was a little warm er (though not in a statistically significant sense) than the three decades ending in 2006. The paper uses the straight average of 18 proxies, apparently with no attempt to wei ght the proxies to take into account the geographic distribution of the s ites or the strength of their ability to detect temperature changes. In contrast, Mann et al. (2008) presented reconstr uctions both with and without tree rings, using geographic a nd other weighting corrections , and unlike Loehle (2008), they found that “Recent warmth appears a nomalous for at least the past 1,300 years whether or not tree-ring data are used.” We acknowledge that this is an area of ongoing research and that disagreement s among researchers are to be expected, and as noted, the assessment literature and the TSD appropriate ly characterize the Medieval Warm Period

and the uncertainties associated with r econstructing temperatures prior to 1600.

1.1.6 Assessment of the Petitioners’ Argument that Questions About the MWP

and Paleoclimate Reconstructions L imit Current Ability to Attribute Present Warming to Humans

Comment (1-17) : The Southeastern Legal Foundation claims that “The importance of these proxy reconstructions to the AGW conjecture can ha rdly be overstated. Since the Climategate documents gravely impeach the validity and reli ability of these rec onstructions, they are obviously of central relevance to the E ndangerment Finding.” Peabody Energy claims

that the doubts raised in the CRU e-mails woul d make it harder to attribute recent warmth to human activity. The petitioners claim that if the current warming is not unprecedented,

26this undermines our ability to determine that the recent warming is due to hum an influences.

Peabody Energy suggests that EPA relies on recons tructions of historic temperatures over the last 1,000 to 2,000 years as one of the three lines of ev idence supporting the statement that GHGs are the root cause of recently obs erved climate change, but that neither the IPCC nor NRC provide “compelling” evidence th at the temperatures of the last several

decades are unusual in that context. Pea body Energy further refers to the CRU e-mails discussing uncertainties in hist oric temperatures, including th e divergence in the tree-ring temperature reconstruction in the late part of the 20 th century.

Response (1-17) : The assertions that proxy reconstructions ar e of “central relevance to the Endangerment Finding” and that the importanc e of these reconstructions “ca n hardly be overstated” are

inconsistent with the scientific literature on attributi on. On this issue, the TSD states that the unusual nature of global su rface temperature changes in th e past decades are one line of evidence contributing to the confidence in statements about attribution (pg. 47), relying on Karl et al. (2009). The Finding makes the same argument (page 66523). The

TSD also notes in Box 5.1 that the IPCC AR4 found that paleoclimate analyses increased confidence in the role of external influences on climate, re lying on Hegerl et al. (2007). However, the relative warmth of the MWP and Holocene are just part of the paleoclimate data referred to by Karl et al . and Hegerl et al., and histor ical paleoclimate data is only one line, and not the primary line, of evidence suppor ting attribution.

According to Hegerl et al. ( 2007), paleoclimate data is used to “test understanding of the climate response to external forcings” (where external forcings include volcanic eruptions, solar variabil ity, and changes in GHGs, but not in ternal variability such as El Niño events). Hegerl et al. note that the past 1,000 years of analyses focus on responses to changes in solar radiati on and volcanism. The other time periods mentioned in the chapter are the mid-Holocene (6,000 years ag o) and the last gl acial maximum (21,000 years ago). Hegerl et al. state that the similarity between modeled and reconstructed temperatures over the past 1,000 years increases confidence that the inability to simulate modern warming without anthropogenic forci ng shows the impact of human activity. However, they also note that the uncertainty in both temperature reconstructions and the solar and volcanic forcings makes it difficult to fully assess models in this way. For example, a reconstruction that showed a colder MWP simultaneous with a warmer sun would be harder to explain than a warmer MWP.

The NRC (2006) explicitly addres sed this issue at length:

Surface temperature reconstructions have the potential to provide independent information about climate sensitivity and a bout the natural variability of the climate system that can be compared with estimates based on theoretical calculations and climate models, as well as other empirical data. However, large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the last 2,000 years ar e not the primary evidence for the widely accepted views that global warming is occurring, that human activities are contributing,

27at least in part, to this warming, and that the Earth will continue to warm over the next century. The primary evidence for these conc lusions (see, e.g., NRC 2001) includes:

 Measurements showing large increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases beginning in the middle of the 19th century, instrumental measurements of upward temperature trends and concomitant changes in a host of proxy indicators over the last century.

 Simple radiative transfer calculations of the forcing associated with increasing greenhouse gas concentrations together with reasonable assumptions about the sign and magnitude of climate feedbacks.

 Numerical experiments performed with state-of-the-art climate models.

Supporting evidence includes:

 The observed global cooling in response to volcanic eruptions is consistent with sensitivity estimates based on climate models.

 Proxy evidence concerning the atmospheric c ooling in response to the increased ice cover and the decreased atmospheric carbon di oxide concentrations at the time of the last glacial maximum is consistent with sensitivity estimates based on climate

models.

 Documentation that the recent warming h as been a nearly worldwide phenomenon.

 The stratosphere has cooled and the ocean s have warmed in a manner that is consistent with the predicte d spatial and temporal pattern of greenhouse warming.

Surface temperature reconstructions for the last 2,000 years are consistent with other evidence of global climate change and can be considered as additional supporting evidence. In particular, the numerous indica tions that recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia, in combination with estimates of external climate forcing vari ations over the same period, support the conclusion that human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming. However, the uncertainties in the reconstruc tions of surface temperature and external forcings for the period prior to the inst rumental record render this evidence less

conclusive than the other lines of evidence c ited above. It should also be noted that the scientific consensus regarding human-induced global warming would not be substantively altered if, for example, the global mean surface temperature 1,000 years ago was found to be as warm as it is today.

It is important to point out that, in drawing the conclusion that multiple lines of evidence

indicate GHGs are the root cause of recen tly observed climate change, EPA does not claim that any individual line of evidence by itself necessarily forms the “compelling” evidence of human-induced climate change. Rather, the multiple lines of evidence collectively form the compelling evidence.

28EPA did not state that the reconstructions of prior temperatures alone p rovide evidence that the recent warming is unusual, nor that the evidence that recent warming is unusual is “compelling” as stated by the petitioners . Instead, EPA appropriately reflected the uncertainty raised in the scientific literature in its statements, as described in Subsection 1.1.2 and many responses to comments in Subsection 1.1.3 of this Response to Petitions (RTP) document. The TSD appropriately highli ghted the uncertainty that was in both the NRC report and the IPCC statements. EPA properly found that this evidence “supports” the interpretation that the recent warming is unusual. The arguments raised by Petitioners

about the MWP and about other issues rela ted to temperature reconstructions do not change or undermine the basis for this conclusion.

In addition, even if the global mean temp erature was as warm or warmer during the MWP as it is today (which is not consistent with the best estimates of the scientific assessments, nor supported by petitioners’ argum ents), recent warming would still be “unusual,” even if not “unprecedented”. EP A never stated that recent warming was “unprecedented.” In fact, the TSD reserved the use of the term “unprecedented” for the rate of increase of radiative forcing in th e past 10,000 years and for the likely impacts on ecosystems due to a combination of changes in climate and other global change drivers over the next 100 years, should GHG emissions continue at or above current rates.

Additionally, uncertainty over the exact temperatures in the MWP does not change the

fact that other critical lines of evidence strongly support th e view that GHGs are the root cause of recent warming, such as our ba sic physical understanding of how GHGs trap heat, how the climate system responds to an increase in GHGs, and how other human and

natural factors influence clim ate and the broad, qualitative consistency between observed changes in climate and the computer mode l simulations of how climate would be expected to change in response to huma n activities. The NRC report “Advancing the Science of Climate Change” (NRC, 2010) summ arizes the many lines of evidence that support the conclusion that most of the observe d warming over at l east the last several

decades is due to human activities:

 Both the basic physics of the greenhouse e ffect and more detailed calculations using sophisticated models of atmosphe ric radiative transf er indicate that increase in atmospheric GHGs should lead to warming of the Earth’s surface and lower atmosphere.

 Earth’s surface temperature has unequivocal ly risen over the past 100 years, to

levels not seen in at least several hun dred years and possibly much longer, at

the same time that human activities ha ve resulted in sharp increases in CO 2 and other GHGs [as discussed above].

 Detailed observations of temperatures, GHG increases, and other climate forcing factors from an array of instruments, including Earth-orbiting satellites, reveal an unambiguous correspondence between human-induced GHG increases and planetary warming over at least the past three decades, in addition to substantial year-to-year climate variability.

29 The vertical pattern of atmospheric temperature change over the past few decades, with warming in the lower atm osphere and cooling in the stratosphere, is consistent with the pattern expected due to GHG increases and inconsistent with the patt ern expected if other climate forcing agents (e.g., changes in solar activity) were responsible.

 Estimates of changes in temperature a nd forcing factors ove r the first seven

decades of the 20 th century are slightly more uncertain and also reveal significant decadal-scale variability, but nonetheless indicate a consistent relationship between long-term temperat ure trends and estimated forcing by

human activities.

 The horizontal pattern of observed temp erature change over the past century, with stronger warming over land areas and higher latitudes, is consistent with the pattern of change expected from a persistent positive climate forcing.

 Detailed numerical model simulations of the climate system are able to reproduce the observed spatial and te mporal pattern of warming when anthropogenic GHG emissions and aerosols are included in the simulation, but not when only natural climate forcing factors are included.

 Both climate model simulations and rec onstructions of temperature variations over the past several centuries indicate that the current warming trend cannot be attributed to natural variability in the climate system

 Estimates of the climate forcing a nd temperature changes on a range of timescales, from the several years fo llowing volcanic eruptions to the 100,000+ year Ice Age cycles, yield estimat es of climate sensitivity that are consistent with the observed magnitude of observed climate change and estimated climate forcing.

 Finally, there is not any compelling ev idence for other possible explanations of the observed warming, such as change s in solar activity, changes in cosmic ray flux, natural climate variability, or rel ease of heat stored in the deep ocean or their climate system components.

Another example of evidence supporting human influence on recent warming given by the TSD is that observations of natural influences such as solar variability and historical volcanism over the past century are not c onsistent with the pattern of observed temperature trends. In genera l, Karl et al. (2009) found th at a number of aspects of modeled and theoretically pred icted responses to human-i nduced climate change were

consistent with observations. As Karl et al. state:

This conclusion rests on multiple lines of evidence. Like the warming “signal” that has gradually emerged from the “noise” of natural climate variability, the scientific evidence for a human influence on global climate has accumulated over the past several decades,

30from many hundreds of studies. No single study is a “smoking gun.” Nor has any single study or combination of studies undermined the large body of evidence supporting the conclusion that human activity is the primary driver of recent warming.

1.1.7 Summary

The IPCC, NRC, and TSD appropriately reflected the uncertainty involved in temperature reconstructions, including those for the MWP and the early Holocene. This involved considering the entire body of evidence, includi ng the kinds of evidence and arguments presented by petitioners. Petiti oners’ evidence and arguments do not warrant any revisions to these conclu sions and their related caveats on degree of certainty. In general, petitioners have not considered the breadth of evidence on these issues and the clear recognition and docume ntation of the uncertainty concerning temperature reconstructions of the past. They have in stead relied upon a limited selection of e-mails, studies, and other evidence that does not warrant the broad co nclusions they have drawn.

The issue of divergence of some tree ring records was discussed in depth in the assessment literature and in the RTC document, and the petitioners have not shown that these discussions were incorrect or incomplete . While the graph used for the cover of a 1999 World Meteorological Organization (WMO) re port did not disclose this divergence, the graph is both outdated and unr elated to any of the assessmen t reports or the Findings. The quotes provided by the petitioners as ex amples of “deliberate manipulation” or “artificial adjustments” ar e taken out of context and do not support this view.

The petitioners have not shown that the un certainty concerning the temperature during historical time periods is any different or hi gher than the degree of uncertainty clearly recognized in the assessment reports and considered by the Administrator in the Endangerment Finding. EPA stated that “We agree there was a Medieval Warm Period in many regions but find the evidence is in sufficient to assess whether it was globally

coherent. Our review of the available ev idence suggests that Northern Hemisphere temperatures in the MWP were probably between 0.1°C and 0.2°C below the 1961–1990 mean and significantly below the level shown by instrumental data after 1980. However, we note significant uncertain ty in the temperature reco rd prior to 1600 A.D.” The

assessment literature did not c onclude that the current warmi ng is definitively unique or unprecedented, but that it is unusual, properl y accounting for the uncertainty associated with temperature reconstructions. The pe titioners have provided no evidence that

indicates a different conclusion is appropriate in light of all of the scientific evidence, or that the Administrator failed to properly account for this uncertainty. The broad conclusions drawn by petitioners are not warra nted by the limited evidence they rely

upon.

The CRU e-mails and other evidence do not materially change or warrant any less reliance on the paleoclimate temperature rec onstructions. Petitioners’ objections to certain aspects of the scien ce behind paleoclimate reconstruc tions are without merit, as

discussed above. Petitioners fa il to consider or contest the other scientific bases for the temperature reconstructions, and fail to provide arguments that take into consideration the entire body of evidence. Pe titioners also mischaracter ize the limited role that

31paleoclimate temperature reconstructions pl ay in attributing recent warming to

atm ospheric concentrations of GHGs. EPA a nd the assessment literature consider this one of three lines of evidence, and largel y as supporting evidence, in light of the recognized uncertainties in th is area of science. Petit ioners' arguments do not support changing the degree of reliance EPA properl y placed on this one line of evidence.

The CRU e-mails and other evidence also do not materially change or warrant any less reliance on the other importan t lines of evidence linking GHGs and climate change: our basic physical understanding of the effects of changing GHG concentrations and other factors; the broad, qualitative consistency between observed changes in climate and the computer model simulations of how climate w ould be expected to change in response to human activities; and other important eviden ce of an anthropogenic fingerprint in the observed warming. All of the lines of evid ence cited in the TSD concerning attribution, including paleolcimate temperature reconstructi ons, properly reflect th e literature as far as the degree of certainty involved in each, and the scientific conclusion on attribution

that is drawn from them is based on consid eration of the entire body of evidence and not from any single element. Petitioners do not at tempt to assess this entire body of evidence

and do not show that when considered as a whole, it leads to a different conclusion on attribution from that found by EPA.

1.2 Attribution of Recent Temperature Trends and Models

1.2.1 The Validity of the Human “Fingerprint” in the Vertical Temperature Structure of the Atmosphere Over the Tropics

1.2.1.1 Background

Supporting the attribution of GHGs to clim ate change is the vertical pattern of temperature change that has been observed in recent decades, as briefly described in

Subsection 1.1.2.5 and discussed in Section 5 of the TSD. “Fingerprint studies” are often used to assess and identify the human contri bution to observed changes in the vertical temperature structure of the atmosphere. Fi ngerprint studies comp are the patterns of observed temperature changes w ith results from models th at account for GHG levels and

determine whether or not similarities coul d have occurred by chance. The assessment

literature documents the identification of these fingerprints—where observations and models match and similarities are not exp ected to have occurred by chance—which the

TSD summarizes as follows:

Fingerprint studies have identified GHG and sulfate aerosol signals in observed surface temperature records, a stratospheric ozone de pletion signal in stratospheric temperatures, and the combined effects of these forcing agents in the vertical structure of atmospheric temperature changes (Karl et al., 2006).

In many parts of the world, the anthropoge nic fingerprint has been unambiguous. However, the fingerprint in the tropics only recently has become apparent, as the TSD explains:

32... However, an important incons istency may have been identified in the tropics. In the tropics, most observational data sets show more warming at the surface than in the troposphere, while almost all model simulations have larger warming aloft than at the surface (Karl et al., 2006). Karl et al. (2009) state that when uncertainties in models and observations are properly accounted for, newer observational data sets are in agreement

with climate model results.

EPA references Karl et al. (2009) (the USGCRP 2009 assessme nt), which synthesizes the

results of several new studies to conclude that models are in general agreement with observations in the tropical troposphere. EPA re ferred to these same studies in Volume 3 of the RTC document, in response to public comment.

1.2.1.2 Assessment of the Arguments Re garding the Vertical Temperature Structure Over the Tropics

Comment (1-18): Peabody Energy asserts that the CRU e-mails ca ll into question the re liability of studies supporting the existence of a human (i.e., anthropogenic GHG) “f ingerprint” in the vertical temperature structure of the atmosphere (i.e., in th e troposphere) over the tropics. Peabody Energy claims that the CRU e-mails rev eal that the authors of fingerprint studies published their results in an “inappropriate and indeed unethical way.” Peabody Energy also suggests that the lack of an anthropogeni c fingerprint in the tr opics would challenge

the assessment literature findi ng of consistency between models and observations, which supports a primary line of evidence linking GHGs and climate change.

Specifically, Peabody Energy claims the authors of a significant article—Santer et al., 2008—supporting the existence of an anthropogenic tropical fi ngerprint, along with some

other scientists with whom Santer corres ponded, exerted improper influence to delay the print publication of a paper by Douglass et al . (2007) that did not identify a tropical fingerprint. Peabody Energy’s ch ief allegation is that the pr int publication of Douglass et

al. in the International Journal of Climatology (IJC), a paper which was originally published online in December 2007, was stal led until November 2008 to coincide with publication of Santer et al. (2008), a paper which rebutted th e Douglass et al. findings. According to Peabody Energy, the simultaneous print publication of Santer et al. (2008) and Douglass et al. (2007) prevented Dougla ss et al. from having an opportunity for a simultaneous response to Santer’s paper. The petitioner claims, “The gamesmanship behind this strategy diverted the process of scientific inquiry from its proper path and tainted the material on which the Agency now seeks to rely.” Peabody Energy claims that dozens of e-mails document inappropriate cond uct on the part of the authors and editors of the journals that published the studies suppor ting the presence of a tropical fingerprint.

Response (1-18) : Peabody Energy does not offer any substant ive basis for questioning the technical validity of the studies cited by EPA (and USGCRP), which rebut Douglass et al. The Santer et al. study convincingl y detailed a number of errors in the Douglass et al. study, the most blatant of which was the inappropria te calculation of uncerta inty range of model

33estimates, which was off by a factor of almost five in Douglas et al. (2007). Peabody’s

claim s of lack of reliability of the studies at issue are without scientific basis.

We also note that more than 18 months have passed since publicati on of Santer et al. (2008). Certainly, Douglass et al. have had ample opportuni ty to publish a rebuttal and defend their analysis during this time, either as a reply to Santer et al . in the IJC or as a new analysis in a different journal. Such a step is common in areas of active scientific discourse, where scientists go back and forth in the literature until the issues are resolved. However, to our knowledge, Douglass et al. have not responded with a scientific response that has been accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

Peabody instead relies upon an assertion of lack of scientific credib ility because of the timing of the article, not the substance of the article. The timing of the study’s publication bears no relationship to its scientific or techni cal validity. At most, Peabody is concerned that the paper publication of an article already availabl e online occurred at

the same time as a rebuttal. The lack of an opportunity for a simultaneous response is

unrelated to the scientific me rit of the study, especially wh en it appears no response has been forthcoming. There is no scientif ic merit to Peabody’s argument.

Furthermore, Peabody Energy is incorrect in as serting that EPA relied solely on Santer et al. to rebut Douglass et al. (2007). In response to public comment, RTC (3-7) also cites studies by Haimberger et al. (2008) a nd Allen and Sherwood (2008), which were published in other journals ( Journal of Climate and Nature Geoscience , respectively) and assessed by USGCRP.

Peabody Energy attempts to implicate several of the authors of the Haimberger et al. and Allen and Sherwood studies by linking them to the IJC dispute, because several of the authors were copied on some of the CRU e- mails in which the Douglass et al. (2007) results are discussed. However, Peabody Energy provides no evidence these authors were in any way involved in the publication timi ng of either the Douglas s et al. or Santer et al. paper in the IJC.

In summary, questions raised by petiti oners concerning the timing of the paper publication of papers in IJC do not provide any substantive basis for questioning the validity of the scientific conclusions of the studies at issue or the assessment literature (i.e., Karl et al., 2009) and EPA on this issue. For more detailed di scussion of the CRU e-mails pertaining to the publication of studies on the existence of a human fingerprint in the vertical temperature struct ure of the atmosphere over the tropics and what the e-mails signify, refer to Subsection 3.3.3 in Volume 3 of this RTP document. .

Comment (1-19) : Peabody Energy suggests that Ben Santer, a re search scientist at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory and lead author of the Santer et al. (2008) st udy discussed above, improperly accuses Douglass et al. of neglecting datasets that do not suggest a discrepancy between

observations and models in the vertical struct ure of the atmosphere in the tropics. The petitioner quotes an e-mail from Melissa Free, co-author of a paper acknowledging the

34existence of a discrepancy between observat ions and models, which was also the basic conclusion of Douglass et al. (2007). Free’s e-mail states: “W hat about the implications

of a real m odel-observation difference for uppe r-air trends? Is th is really so dire?” 20

Peabody Energy quotes Santer’s response: “Wha t is dire is Dougla ss et al.’s willful neglect of any observational datasets that do not support their arguments.” 21 According to Peabody Energy, Santer was referring to two radiosonde datasets—RAOBCORE v1.3 and v1.4—that were excluded from the analys is in Douglass et al. (2007). Peabody Energy states that Douglass et al. (2007) expl ained in an addendum that these datasets are faulty.

Response (1-19) : The comment by Santer about Douglass’ ne glect of datasets was an informal communication with colleagues, which was written in December 2007, before Douglass

et al. submitted the addendum to which Peabody Energy refers; the addendum was submitted in January 2008. We note that this addendum was not accepted for publication and seems to be available only via the author ’s personal website. The formal rebuttal to Douglass et al. remains the peer-reviewed paper by Santer et al., which states:

Our results contradict a recent claim that all simulated temperature trends in the tropical troposphere and in tropical lapse rates are inc onsistent with observations. This claim was

based on use of older radiosonde and satellite datasets, and on two methodological errors: the neglect of observational trend uncerta inties introduced by interannual climate variability, and application of an inappr opriate statistical “consistency test.”

As stated in the preceding response, to date , Douglass et al. have not published a rebuttal to Santer et al.’s formal critique. Furt hermore, the quote from Melissa Free does not acknowledge the existe nce of a discrepancy between observations and models; it is raising the possibility as a hypothetical.

1.2.2 Global Temperature Trends Over the Last Decade and Implications for Attribution of These Trends to GHGs

1.2.2.1 Background

According to the latest National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admini stration (NOAA) data (NOAA, 2010a), the decade spanning 2000–2009 was substantially warmer than the prior decade (1990–1999). Every year from 2000 to 2009 was warmer than the 1990–1999 average. Using data availa ble through 2008, the TSD in Box 4.1 states that “the warming rate in the last 10 30-year periods (avera ging about 0.30°F [0.17°C] per decade) is the greatest in the observed record...” Howeve r, depending on one’s choice of temperature record and the start and stop date chosen fo r computing a trend in that record, it is

20 E-mail file 1196956362.tx t, (December 6, 2007), page 1371, lin e 10-11 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf

21 E-mail file 1196956362. txt, (December 6, 2007), page 1371, line 5-6 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf

35possible to demonstrate a slowdown in the rate of warming over the la st 10 years or so

relative to th e rate of warming observed over the last several decades.

The assessment literature, as summarized in the TSD, emphasizes that “that year-to-year

fluctuations in natural weat her and climate patterns can pr oduce a period that does not follow the long-term trend” (Karl et al., 2009) . More recent assessment literature, not available for inclusion in the Endangerme nt TSD, states (NRC, 2010), “it is not appropriate to look at only a short period of the overall reco rd (such as changes over just the last five or ten years) to infer major changes in the trajectory of global warming.”

The responses in this section address pe titioners’ arguments about the meaning and implications of a possible slow down in the rate of warming.

1.2.2.2 Assessment of Arguments Regarding Gl obal Temperature Trends Over the Last Decade and Implications for At tribution of These Trends to GHGs

Comment (1-20): Peabody Energy alleges that the “CRU material ... contradicts EPA’s assertion that the

results of climate models constitute a thir d line of evidence that can be relied on to attribute climate change to anthropogenic GHG emissions.” To support this conclusion, Peabody Energy refers to CRU e-mails in whic h scientists discuss the possible slowdown in warming over the last 10 years or so.

Response (1-20): This issue is not new and was the subject of public comment during development of EPA’s Findings. As discussed in the TSD, analysis of surface and lower tropospheric temperature data over the last 10 or so years indicates that the rate of warming may have temporarily slowed, although the magnitude of the slowdown varies depending on dataset analyzed and choice of start date. Contrary to the argument of the petitioner, such a possible slowdown does not “evis cerate” the scientific support for climate change, which is a long-term process. As e xplained in Box 4.1 of the TSD:

It is important to recognize that year-to-year fluctuations in natural weather and climate patterns can produce a period that does not follow the long-term trend (Karl et al., 2009). Thus, each year will not necessarily be warmer th an every year before it, though the longterm warming trend continues (Karl et al., 2009).

In addition, the recent NRC (2010) states: “Indi vidual years, or even individual decades, can deviate from the long term trend due to natural climate variabili ty. Thus, it is not appropriate to look at only a short period of the overall reco rd (such as changes over just the last five or ten years) to infer major changes in the trajectory of global warming.”

As demonstrated by the detailed responses below, the petitioner’s evidence does not warrant the conclusion that current explanat ions for the possible slowdown in warming are invalid, or that this slowdown undermines our confidence in the utility of climate models for either attributing or projec ting climate change over appropriately long

timescales.

36Comment (1-21): In support of the argument that the short- term slowdown in warming undermines the science supporting the Findings , Peabody Energy specifically highlights an e-mail from climate scientist Kevin Trenberth (Head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research) stating, “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.” 22 On this basis, Peabody Energy asserts that “Trenberth was unconvinced that the recent lack of warming was consistent with the scientific understanding of the climate system on which the models are based.” Peabody Energy concludes that “Trenberth’s statement eviscerates the grounds for EPA’s Endangerment Finding” and pos its that “...if, as Trenberth says, the

science is too uncertain to determine wh ether GHG reductions will produce a measurable climate response, then there is no basis to re gulate and no basis to express confidence that anthropogenic GHG emissions are primarily responsible for the warming of the last

several decades.”

Response (1-21) : Peabody Energy’s interpretation of the Trenberth e-mail is a profound misinterpretation of the context and meaning of his statement. It is not in any sense an admission that the science underlying the climate models is compromised. In response to questions about the context of the quote, Trenberth provided th e following clarification on the website of his employer, the University Center fo r Atmospheric Research (Trenberth, 2010):

It is amazing to see this particular quote lambasted so often. It stems from a paper I published this year bemoaning our inability to effectively monitor the energy flows associated with short-term climate variability. It is quite clear from the paper that I was not questioning the link between anthropogeni c greenhouse gas emissions and warming, or even suggesting that recent temperatures are unusual in the context of short-term natural variability.

This paper tracks the effects of the changing Sun, how much heat went into the land, ocean, melting Arctic sea ice, melting Greenla nd and Antarctica, and changes in clouds, along with changes in greenhouse gases. We can track this well for 1993 to 2003, but not for 2004 to 2008. It does NOT mean that global warming is not happening...

Furthermore, the paper Trenberth references in this clarification states the following (Trenberth, 2009):

The present-day climate is changing mainly in response to human-induced changes in the composition of the atmosphere as increases in greenhouse gases promote warming...

Peabody Energy’s assertion that Trenberth was imp lying that the “science is too uncertain to determine whether GHG reductions will prod uce a measurable climate response,” is a gross mischaracterization of the meani ng and significance of both the quote and

22 E-mail file 1255352257.txt, (Oct ober 12, 2009), page 1801, lines 26-27 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf

37Trenberth’s position. Trenberth was not implyi ng or questioning the va lidity of climate models used for attribution and projections . He was identifying a gap in the Earthobserving system, which if filled, would improve our understanding of short-term

variations in climate.

Comment (1-22) : Petitioners (Competitive Enterprise Institute a nd Southeastern Legal Foundation) refer to

a recent interview between CRU scientist Ph il Jones and the BBC in which temperature trends are discussed, with an emphasis on th e last seven to 15 y ears (Harribin, 2010). They highlight a question for CRU scientist Phil Jones - “Do you agr ee that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-s ignificant global warming?” - to which he responds “Yes.” The Competitive Enterprise In stitute parenthetically mentions that Jones

states that there had indeed been warm ing during the period but that it was not statistically significant. Ba sed on this statement from Phil Jones, Southeastern Legal Foundation concludes: “Under the circumstances, it is apparent that there is no need to rush headlong into a potentially irrational and arbitrary decision [a reference to the need to regulate GHGs].” Additionally, the Competitiv e Enterprise Institute notes that, in this interview, Jones indicates that there has b een statistically insignificant cooling since 2002, appearing to contradict a statement (Reuters, 2008 23 ) he made on how the 2001– 2007 period was warmer than the previous decade.

Response (1-22) : The Competitive Enterprise Institute a nd Southeastern Legal Foundation are not presenting new information or making a new argument. The Jones statement does not substantively add to what we have already responded to in the RTC (e.g., see RTC 2-41). The TSD is very clear that some datasets show a possible slowdown in the warming trend

in the last decade or so. Box 4.1 of the TSD states:

Though most of the warmest years on record have occurred in the last decade in all available datasets, according to an analysis of the HadCRUT dataset in the “State of the Climate in 2008” report (Peterson and Baringer, 2009), the rate of warming has, for a short time, slowed. The temperature trend calculated for January 1999 to December 2008 was about +0.13 ± 0.13°F (+0.07 ± 0.07°C) per decade, which is less than the 0.32°F (0.18°C) per decade trend recorded between 1979 and 2005 (or 0.30°F [0.17  C] per decade for 1980 to 2008 as stated above). However, NOAA [the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration] (NOAA, 2009a) and NASA [the National Aeronautics and Space Administration] (NASA, 2009) trends do not show the same marked slowdown for the 1999-2008 period. The NOAA trend was ~0.21°F (0.12  C) per decade while the NASA trend was ~0.34°F (0.19  C) per decade. The variability among datasets is a reflection of fewer data points and some differences in dataset methodologies. Analysis of trends for the years 2000, 2001, and 2002 through 2008 indicate a rather flat trend, with slight warming or cooling depending on choice of dataset

23 CEI provided the following link in its petition, but this link does not seem to work: http://www.news24.com/Content/SciTech/News/1132/ 1249c274c6df42cca1302d82e4236ef6/11-01-2008- 06-57/Earth_still_warming#. We believe an active link for the article cited is http://www.news24.com/SciTech/New s/Earth-still-warming-20080111.

38and start date. It is important to recognize that year-to-year fluctuations in naturalweather and climate patterns can produce a period that does not follow the longterm trend (Karl et al., 2009). Thus, each year will not necessarily be warmer than every year before it, though the l ong-term warming trend continues (Karl et al., 2009).

In other words, the fact that the warmi ng rate may have temporarily slowed was recognized and taken into full account in the endangerment record.

In addition, the petitioner only includes part of Jones’ fu ll response to BBC’s interview question. Here is the question a nd complete response (Harribin, 2010):

[BBC] - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

[Jones] Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is pos itive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

As the complete response indica tes, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Southeastern Legal Foundation fail to mention that J ones found the warming nearly statistically significant and that he explains the limitations of analyzing temperature trends over short time periods. The petitioners’ implication that the lack of statistically significant warming over a few years somehow negates th e rationale for action is not supported by

the science or Dr. Jones’ statements.

Regarding the “cooling” Jones mentions since 2002, as the Competitive Enterprise Institute itself notes, it is statistically insi gnificant. Furthermore, it is analyzed over a completely inappropriate time period for discer ning long-term trends, as stated in both the scientific literature and the endangerment record. The fact that Jones computed a negative temperature trend over this very short period does not contradict the statement he had made the year before (in 2008 ) about the 2001–2007 period, described by the news service Reuters accordingly (Reuters, 2008):

Underscoring an underlying rise in temperatures, British forecaster Phil Jones said 2001-07, with an average of 0.44 Celsius above the 1961-90 world average of 14 degrees, was 0.21 degrees warmer than the corresponding values for 1991-

2000.

In this Reuters article, Jones was referri ng to absolute temperature levels in 2001–2007 compared to absolute temperatures in 1991–2000, rather than the 2002–2009 time series discussed in the BBC interview. Further, a very recent analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) (NOAA, 2010b)—using its own temperature record—

corroborates Jones’ statemen t. The NOAA analysis indicates that the 2000–2009 period was substantially warmer than the prior d ecade. Importantly, ev ery year from 2000 to 2009 was warmer than the 1990–1999 average, as shown in the figure below.

39To summarize, the TSD and endangerment r ecord address short-term trends in the temperature record in a manner that is entirely consistent with the statements in Jones’ BBC interview. The petitioners have not provided any new information that alters our understanding of temperatures over the last 10 to 15 years—when temperatures have

been the warmest in the instrumental record.

Comment (1-23) : From the BBC interview discussed in Respons e 1-22, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Southeastern Legal Foundation also refer to Jones’ statement that for the periods 1860 to 1880, 1910 to 1940, 1975 to 1998, and 1975 to 2009 “the warm ing rates ... are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.” The Competitive Enterprise Institute concludes:

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 levels dramati cally increased-according to EPA, to “essentially unprecedented levels.” 74 FR 66, 517. Yet if increasing levels of these gases did not produce a clear acceleration of warming, then the role of these gases as a major driver of te mperature becomes even more dubious.

Response (1-23) : The warming rates for those four periods are si milar, but it is important to note that these four periods are of different lengths (21, 31, 24, and 35 years), making trend comparisons incongruent. The TSD, comparing periods of equal lengths, notes that the recent warming rates are the greatest on record, though we note they are closely followed by (and therefore similar to) ear lier periods (TSD Box 4.1):

40The warming rate in the last 10 30-year periods (averaging about 0.30°F [0.17  C] per decade) is the greatest in the obser ved record, followed closely by the warming rate (averagi ng about 0.25°F [0.14  C] per decade) observed during a number of 30-year periods spanning the 1910s to the 1940s.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute’s assertion that similarity in warming rates between the present and past contradict s attribution of recent warm ing to anthropogenic GHGs is not supported by scientific analysis and ignor es the scientific assessments on which EPA relied. In contrast to petitioners, the TS D accurately characterizes current scientific understanding, which does not look at GHGs in isolation but considers them in the context of other drivers of warming or cool ing. For example, Section 5(a) of the TSD

states:

The IPCC (Hegerl et al., 2007) finds th at anthropogenic GHG emissions were one of the influences contributing to temp erature rise during the early part of the

20 th century along with increasing solar output and a relative lack of volcanic activity. During the 1950s and 1960s, when temperature leveled off, increases in

aerosols from fossil fuels and other sources ar e thought to have cooled the planet. For example, the eruption of Mt. Agung in 1963 put large quantities of reflective dust into the atmosphere. The rapid warming since the 1970s has occurred in a period when the increase in GHGs has dominated over all other factors (Hegerl et al., 2007).

Section 5 of the TSD provide s substantial additional info rmation to support this statement. Multiples responses (e.g., 1-24, 1-25, 1-27, 1-28, and 1-29) in this RTP discuss the possible slowing of the warming ra te in the last decade and implications for attribution to anthropogenic GHGs.

Thus, the Competitive Enterprise Institute provides no new information to support its conclusion that the role of GHGs in temperat ure change is “dubious.” The issues they raise are not new, their argument improperly lo oks at GHGs in isolation, and these issues were fully addressed in the Endangerment Finding, TSD, and RTC document.

Comment (1-24) : Peabody Energy contends that EPA’s understandi ng of the causes of the warming in the latter part of the 20 th century is contradicted by th e lack of warming over the 1998–2008 period. They assert that EPA di d not cite any natural forces (such as a volcanic eruption) that might explain the lack of warming dur ing this period, a period when atmospheric

GHG concentrations conti nued to increase.

Response (1-24) : The possible slowdown in warming from 1998 to 2008 does not contradict understanding of the causes of warming ove r the latter part of the 20 th century. EPA is very clear about

the well-known scientific limita tions of taking a short snapshot of the temperature record and attempting to draw any conclusion from it— with respect to either natural variability

or the human influence on climate. As stated in the RTC 3-4:

41... drawing conclusions from short time-scales is of limited value. Directly comparing global GHG emissions with global temperatures on decadal or shorter time-scales must consider all plausible variations and ot her existing non-linear inter-relationships.

We note there are other 10-year periods in th e temperature record that when extracted show no trend even though these periods are embedded within a longer period showing substantial overall warming (Easterling and Wehner, 2009). Therefore, it is clear that temperatures do not rise monotonically despite the continuing increase of GHG

concentrations. Observations over such shor t periods examined in isolation may be misleading in the interpretation of th e longer-term trend in temperatures.

In spite of the possible slowdow n in warming over the last 10 or so years, TSD Box 4.1

documents that the overall rate of warmi ng is about 0.29–0.30°F per decade over the last 30 years and 0.24–0.25°F per decade over the last 50 years.

Peabody Energy correctly states that EPA does not cite specific natura l factors that might explain temperature trends over th e last decade. This is beca use attribution of trends over

short timescales is more difficult and is an emerging area of research. The paper by Solomon et al. (2009) discussed in Response 1-81 of this volume provides a plausible explanation related to changes in stratospheric water vapor to explain at least some of the trend, but concludes that mo re research is required for understanding temperature changes on short time scales. Additionally, in Response 1-27 for example, we acknowledge gaps in describing the causes of short-term va riability but emphasize that these gaps do not undermine the case for linki ng longer term changes in temperature to

GHGs.

The TSD—citing the assessment literature—su mmarizes the significant advances in scientific understanding that have been made in linking long -term temperature trends to GHGs in Section 5(a):

The increased confidence in the GHG contribution to the observed warming results from (Hegerl. et al., 2007):

 An expanded and improved range of observations a llowing attribution of warming to be more fully addressed join tly with other changes in the climate
system.

 Improvements in the simulation of many aspects of present mean climate and its variability on seasonal to inter-decadal time scales.

 More detailed representations of pr ocesses related to aerosol and other forcings in models.

 Simulations of 20 th -century climate change that use many more models and much more complete anthr opogenic and natural forcings.

 Multi-model ensembles that increase c onfidence in attribution results by providing an improved representation of model uncertainty.

To summarize, the possible slowdown in wa rming over the last decade or so does not undermine the linkage between GHGs and temp erature over sufficiently long timescales.

42Comment (1-25) : Peabody Energy asserts that EPA’s explanati on for the slowdown in warming—that there is enough natural variability in the climate system to accommodate the lack of warming over a short time period—is not consistent with the following statement from the Academies of Science for the G8+5 countries, which EPA cites in RTC 1-43 :

... climate change is happening even faster than previously estimated; global CO 2 emissions since 2000 have been higher than even the highest predictions, Arctic sea ice has been melting at rates much fast er than predicted, and the rise in the sea level has become more rapid. (National Academies, 2009)

Peabody Energy states:

EPA cannot have it both ways. It cannot insist that the cessation of warming over the last eleven years must be the result of poorly understood natural variability; whereas, other climate phenomena during that period conclusively demonstrate man’s impact on the climate and are not explained by the same variability.

Moreover, EPA’s discussion of the period over which warming must be sustained to provide confidence that the warming is not natural is confusing. According to EPA, “[b]oth the IPCC and the TSD note that ‘difficulties remain in attributing temperature changes on smaller than continental scales and over time scales of less than fifty years,’ and that with lim ited exceptions attribution at these scales has not yet been established.” Since the warming of the second period lasted only about thirty years before it ceased, and since the plus-fifty year warming trend of

the 20 th century includes a period in which the warming did not result primarily from anthropogenic GHGs, it would appear that EPA cannot justify its conclusion that the warming of the last thirty years can be definitively attributed to anthropogenic GHGs.

Response (1-25) : The above statement from the Academies of Science for the G8+5 countries cited by EPA in RTC 1-43 (National Academies, 2009) desc ribes trends in GHG em issions, Arctic sea ice, and sea level but does not address attribution, whether over a short time period or a longer time period. The statement is provided in the context of listing many major

national and international scie ntific societies and academies that have endorsed or expressed support for the findings and conclusions of the assessment literature. It is not scientific information synthesized for the TSD or the Findings.

This Academies of Science statement does not address attribution and was not used to support arguments pertaining to attribution, and EPA is not “having it both ways”. Peabody Energy correctly articula tes our characterization of th e attribution issue when it

states:

According to EPA, “[b]oth the IPCC and the TSD note that ‘difficulties remain in attributing temperature changes on smaller than continental scales and over time scales of less than fifty years,’ and that with limited exceptions attribution at these scales has not yet been established.”

43There is no contradiction or in consistency in the view that the warming rate may have

slowed in th e last decade or so and the fact that the long-term warming trend has been attributed to anthropogenic GHGs—as described in Response 1-24. Our statements about temperature trends and their relationship to th e observed increases in GHGs are internally consistent within the endangerment record, and consistent with the assessment literature.

Comment (1-26) : Peabody Energy refers to the following CRU e- mail, written by climate scientist Kevin Trenberth in October 2009, to suggest th at the climate community could never demonstrate that reducing GHG em issions will reduce warming:

[t]he fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system [the lack of warming] makes any cons ideration of geoengineering quite hopeless

as we will never be able to te ll if it is successful or not! 24

Peabody Energy asserts that Trenberth’s refere nce to “geoengineering” includes reducing GHG emissions, citing a lett er Trenberth wrote in Physics Today in February 2009 ( Trenberth, 2009 ), stating:

The ethical questions associated with climate manipulation loom so large that some forms of geoengineering are simp ly unacceptable. The forms that are acceptable include those that reduce emissions and mitigate the rates of change or reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Based on Trenberth’s expressed doubts about the ability to evaluate geoengineering, Peabody Energy claims:

...Trenberth stated that the flaws in th e climate community’s understanding of climatic forces that are exposed by the lack of warming is so fundamental – and the extent of natural variability must be so great – that it could never be demonstrated that reducing GHG emissions will reduce warming.

Response (1-26) : Peabody Energy’s conclusions are specula tive and unsupportable, and are based on selectively linking disparate statements made at different times by Trenberth. Examining

each statement in context makes clear that he does not agree with the views Peabody Energy ascribes to him.

Although Trenberth included GHG emissions reductions as an example of a geoengineering method in the Physics Today letter, that does not m ean he is referring to GHG reductions as “geoengineering” within th e context of the stat ement, “we will never

be able to tell if it is successf ul or not,” from the CRU material.

24 E-mail file 1255523796.txt, (Oct ober 14, 2009), page 1810, lines 9-11 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf

44Generally, “geoengineering” does not refe r to GHG emissions reductions achieved by lowering anthropogenic emissions, but rather, al ternative options to counter the warm ing

effects of GHGs. The IPCC’s discussion (Barker et al., 2007) of geoengineering discusses options such as iron and nitroge n fertilization of the oceans (to take up CO 2 ) and deployment of technologies that reduc e the amount of sunlight accepted by the Earth’s system (e.g. injecting reflective aeros ols into the stratosphere and installing a deflector system in space to block sunlight). In fact, in a recent paper in Science authored by Trenberth and a colleague (Trenberth and Fasullo, 2010), Tr enberth describes geoengineering accordingly:

Proposals for addressing global warm ing now include geoengineering, whereby tiny particles are injected into the stratosphere to emulate the cooling effects of stratospheric aerosol of a volcanic eruption.

Furthermore, as discussed in Response 1-21, Trenberth makes clear that his comments in

this context are in reference to his frustra tion about gaps in the observing system that

make it difficult to understand the Earth’s ener gy balance, and hence climate variability,

on short timescales. Trenberth and Fasullo (2010) specifically men tion the importance of understanding the flow of energy in the Earth’ s system for tracking the effectiveness of potential geoengineering projects:

Implicitly, such proposals assume understanding and control of the energy flow, which requires detailed tracking of energy within the climate system.

Thus, EPA finds no evidence to suggest that Tr enberth intended to imply that reducing GHG emissions will not reduce warming. In fact, Trenberth’s July 2008 testimony ( Trenberth, 2008) before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works suggests the opposite:

I believe that mitigation actions are certa inly needed to significantly reduce the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and lessen the magnitude and rate of climate change. Action taken now to reduce significantly the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will lessen the magnitude and rates of climate change. In fact I believe there is a crisis of lack of adequate action in this regard.

Trenberth’s public statements and recent publis hed work very strongly suggest that the Trenberth statement cited by Peabody Energy doe s not mean it is impossible to know if GHG reductions will reduce warming, but simply that better understa nding of the energy budget is needed if we are to track po tential geoengineering projects (where “geoengineering” is referring to injecting particles into the atmosphere).

Comment (1-27) : Peabody Energy raises a number of methodol ogical concerns with the Easterling and Wehner (2009) and Knight et al. (2009) an alyses and concludes that “the models demonstrably do not take account of the current no-warming trend.”

45Response (1-27) : As discussed in Response 1-20, the NRC (2010) states “it is not a ppropriate to look at only a short period of the overall record (such as changes over just the last five or ten years) to infer major changes in the trajectory of global warming.” See other prior discussions (e.g., Response 1-22) concerning whether there is a slowdown in the rate of warming over a limited number of recent years. Furthermore, in the TSD, EPA cites the

NOAA “State of the Climate in 2008” report (Knight et al., 2009 25 ), which finds that climate models possess internal mechanisms of variability capabl e of reproducing the possible current slowdown in gl obal temperature rise. Further, in a response to public comments on the issue (2-41), we refer to Easterling and Wehner (2009), who find that short-term trends in long-term time series o ccasionally run counter to the overall trend.

As a general matter, the assessment literature is clear that the ability (o r lack of ability) of climate models to reproduce a short-term slow down in warming in no way invalidates or changes their reliability for at tributing or projecting long-te rm changes in global climate variables resulting from sustained anthropoge nic forcing of the climate system. The analysis of long-term trends is their primary purpose, rather than projecting year-to-year changes over a period of a decade or so or less. As the NRC (2010) states: “Robust analyses of global climate ch ange thus tend to focus on tr ends of at least several decades.” Our responses to the specific issues raised by Peabody Energy regarding Easterling and Wehner (2009), Knight et al. (2009), and related i ssues are discussed

below.

Comment (1-28) : Peabody Energy contends that th e failure of the planet to warm over the last 11 years raises serious questions about the accuracy of computer models, spec ifically challenging

the reliance on the stud ies of Easterling and Wehner ( 2009) and Knight et al. (2009), 26
which support the notion that climate models can produce short periods of temperature

trends that run counter to the ove rall long-term warming trend.

Peabody Energy expresses several concer ns about Easterling and Wehner (2009), asserting that:

 The examples of pauses from warming in the past (running counter to the longterm trend) from 1977 to 1985 and from 1981 to 1989 are shorter than the pause in warming from 1998 to 2008. Peabody En ergy writes that “no global warming during the eleven-year period 1998-2008 is a much more unlikely event than no global warming during the nine-y ear periods, 1975-1983 and 1981-1989.”

 The period of no warming from 1977 to 1985 was driven by the eruption of El

Chichon in 1981.

25 In the TSD, we cite Knight et al. (2009) as Peterson and Baringer (2009)—the overarching report containing Knight et al.

26 Knight et al. (2009) was cited as Peterson and Baringer, 2009 in EPA’s TSD.

46 Easterling and Wehner make a factual erro r, stating there was no warming from

1981 to 1989 because the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and CRU datasets indicate warming of +0.08°C per decade.

 “...[T]he probability of a ten-year period of no warming, as determined by Easterling and Wehner from climate model proj ections as 10%, is too large. If the

actual emissions were used to drive the climate models, the probability of occurrence of a ten year period of no tre nd would be smaller, and the mismatch between model expectations and observations would be higher.”

 The distribution of models used in th e study disproportionately included models that were more likely to simulate a pause in the warming, biasing the results.

Regarding Knight et al., Pea body Energy then contends that:

 Knight et al. did not compare observed tre nds with the results of the model when

run with an emissions scenario that is closest to observed emissions.

 Knight et al. changed various parameters within the climate model that do not occur in nature; the actual variability is only produced by a single set of physics.

Peabody Energy concludes that these two studies were designed and conducted in such a way as to lead to an artificially inflated proba bility of occurrence of low (or no) trends in global temperatures over short time periods and thus, provide false confidence in the ability of the climate models to replicate temp erature trends over such short time periods.

Response (1-28) : As we have discussed in prev ious responses (e.g., 1-24 and 1-25), the ability to project and attribute global trends in temperature over short time periods is limited, but this does not undermine their reliability in longer-term projection and attribution of temperature

trends to GHGs. It is well r ecognized that climate models do a better job of simulating global changes over longer time scales, when short-term “noise” in the climate system due to year-to-year climate variabil ity (e.g., El Niño or La Niña events 27 ) tends to

become sm oothed.

However, some of the limitations of modeling short-term variations in global climate can be overcome by running multiple simulations in which the input parameters are altered slightly to produce a range of plausible resu lts. This is exactly what Easterling and Wehner and Knight et al., relatively new studies published during and after the Proposed Endangerment Finding public comment period (refer to Response 1-29 for discussion on the timing of the publication of these studies), did to test whether models could simulate periods of no warming under a range of conditions.

27 El Niño is characterized by unusually warm ocean temperatures in the Equatorial Pacific, as opposed to La Niña, which characterized by unusually cold ocean temp eratures in the Equatorial Pacific. El Niño is an oscillation of the ocean-atmosphere system in the tr opical Pacific having im portant consequences for weather around the globe.

47With respect to Peabody Energy’s criticisms of Easterling and We hner, we note the following:

 When Peabody Energy asserts that an 11-year pause in warming (from 1998 to 2008) is much less likely than 9-year pauses in warming (from 1977 to 1985 and 1981 to 1989), Peabody Energy fails to me ntion that Easterling and Wehner

indicate that the lack of warming from 1998 to 2008 is la rgely related to the start and end date chosen. Easterling and We hner write: “if we drop 1998 and fit the trend to the period 1999-2008 we indeed get a strong, statis tically significant positive trend.”

 When Peabody Energy notes that the pa use in warming from 1977 to 1985 was affected by the 1981 volcanic eruption of Mt. Chichon, it is well recognized that volcanoes are one kind of natural variability that can temporarily slow the rate of warming. Just as the 1981 eruption cau sed a slow down in warming, there are other drivers of variability within the Earth system such as La Niña (or El Niño) events that may slow (or steepen) GHG-i nduced warming over short time periods. Peabody Energy does not explain why this specific example of temporary slowdown in warming embedded within a longer-term warming trend is significant or why it represents any sort of flaw in the Easterling and Wehner study.

 Though Peabody Energy claims that Easter ling and Wehner make a factual error in computing no warming from 1981 to 1989, Easterling and Wehner do not say there was no warming—just that there wa s no statistically significant warming (i.e., “no trend”).

 In indicating that Easterling and Wehner did not use a sufficiently aggressive

emissions scenario in its simulations , Peabody Energy fails to mention that Easterling and Wehner defend their choice of emissions scenario accordingly: “The A2 scenario postulates a ‘business as usual’ future with little reduction in anthropogenic emissions resulting in larg e greenhouse gas concentrations by the end of the 21st century.” In other words, Easterling and Wehner chose an aggressive emissions scenario. While it may be true that the current rate of increase in GHG emissions is higher than th at scenario, as discussed in Section 6 of the TSD, a range of future emissions scenarios are plausible and will depend on assumptions regarding population and economic growth, implementation of policies, technology change and ad option, and other factors.

 Peabody Energy’s assertion that the m odels chosen by Easterling and Wehner disproportionately included models more likely to simulate a slowdown is not substantiated. Easterling and Wehner state that they used all available simulations in the Climate Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) database. Peabody Energy states that “the models with the grea ter number of runs [in the database] – particularly those models with a large degree of internal noise – had a greater

influence on the overall distribution” but provides no additional evidence to support this assertion.

48With respect to Peabody Energy’s criticisms of Knight et al., we note the following:

 Just as in the Easterling and Wehner st udy, Peabody Energy criticizes the choice of the emissions scenario in the Knight et al. study as bei ng too conservative. However, Knight et al. i ndicate that they use “several” scenarios from the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios, wh ich is appropriate to reflect the range of plausible futures.

 Peabody Energy’s claim that Knight et al.’s technique of varying model parameters is inappropriate because only a single set of physics applies in nature is based on the flawed assumption that mode lers can perfectly replicate nature in its model settings. Modelers vary these parameters to capture the uncertainty in their modeling of the science. Through multiple model runs with these varying parameters, the model output can reflect the whole range of plausible results rather than a single value for which there would be limited confidence. Furthermore, Peabody Energy’s asserti on that producing multiple simulations artificially inflates the probability of the occurrence of low trends in global temperatures is false. Randomly incr easing the number of simulations should equally increase the number of results that show both large and small trends.

To summarize, we find Peabody Energy’s cri ticisms of the East erling and Wehner and Knight et al. studies misplaced, unsubstan tiated, and/or flawed. These studies demonstrate temporary slowdowns in the rate of warming have occurred in the recent past during a period of sustained long-t erm warming and conduct legitimate modeling experiments showing that models can and do produce sustained multi-year periods of reduced warming, no trend, and/or even slight cooling embedded within the longer term warming projected in the next century.

Comment (1-29) : Peabody Energy notes that the Easterling and Wehner study (dis cussed in Response 1-28) was published just before the public comment d eadline, such that th e public did not have an opportunity to fully comment on it. The pet itioner also notes that the Knight et al. paper was published after the public comment deadline, so the public did not have an opportunity to comment on it. Finally, the petitioner notes that the Easterling and Wehner and Knight et al. studies were publishe d too recently to have matured to the point that the issue has received extensive analysis.

Response (1-29) : Peabody Energy’s fundamental concern about these studies—that they allegedly may overstate how well models simulate or explai n short-term changes in temperature – does not undermine the basis for the Findings or justify their reconsideration. We have discussed above why EPA conc luded that the Easterling a nd Wehner and Knight et al. results are legitimate. However, these studies are not materially important to the Findings. The TSD acknowledges there are “d ifficulties” in explaining the causes of short-term temperature change, stating in S ection 5(a): “The IPCC (Hegerl et al., 2007) cautions that difficulties remain in attributing temperature changes ... over time scales of less than 50 years.” Thus, the amount of time the public had to comment on these studies

49as well as the concerns raised about them are insignificant. The issue of the ability of the models to project temperatures over short time periods was in fact highlighted in the TSD and subject to public comment. EPA’s res ponse to comments included an appropriate

discussion of studies that are relevant to these issues.

Finally, while the Easterling and Wehner and Kn ight et al. studies are relatively recent, they have been highly visible and subject to significant scrutiny. The Easterling and Wehner study was cited in the 2009 report, Global Climate Change Impacts in the United

States (published in June 2009)—a major assessmen t report of the USGCRP (Karl et al, 2009). The Knight et al. study was in corporated into NOAA’s peer-reviewed State of the

Climate 2008 report (issued in August 2009), publis hed as a special supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and disseminated to all AMS members (NOAA, 2009). Most recently, Easter ling and Wehner and Knight et al. were cited in the NRC assessment, “Advancing th e Science of Climate Change” (NRC, 2010). We are not aware of any publishe d criticisms of these studies.

These studies, and the petitioner’s criticis ms of them, do not change the degree of uncertainty expressed in the assessment report s and identified by EPA as associated with the use of temperature data over these kinds of short time periods. Confidence in linking observed climate change to GHGs is not ba sed on modeling analys is of short-term temperature trends but rather modeling analysis of longer-term temperature trends and additional lines of evidence. In summary, the results of these studies are not central to the Findings, and do not change the scientif ic position expressed in both the proposed and final Findings that temperatures over time peri ods as short as those at issue have only limited relevance to determining the existe nce of long-term temp erature trends or attributing such trends to their causes.

1.2.3 Climate Model Issues Raised by Petitions

Comment (1-30) : Petitioner Arthur Randol states that the CRU e-mails “reveal serious questions about the validity of the IPCC models and the modelers,” and th erefore, EPA’s reliance upon

models. Arthur Randol also quotes a number of EPA and IPCC sources discussing model uncertainties (e.g., “What does the accuracy of a climate model’s simulation of past or contemporary climate say about the accuracy of its projections of climate change? This question is just beginning to be addressed...”) (Randall, 2007).

Response (1-30) : EPA responded to comments on computer mo deling issues at length in the RTC document (Volume 4.1), in terms of both their uses and limitations. Response 4-1 of the RTC is provided here, as it is the general response to the petitioner’s issues already contained within the RTC document. Respons es to specific information provided by the petitioner are provided below. Response 4-1 stated:

First, models are not the foundation of climate science, rather they are the tools used to

better understand information and data from multiple sources and disciplines. Paleoclimate data, basic theory, observations of climate changes, and other branches of

50climate science together have provided (and continue to provide) the basis for key findings in the assessment literature. Indeed, research long before the advent of the computer found that the climate should respond to increased CO 2 concentrations. Recently, scientists have used paleoclimate data about historical analogues such as the last interglacial and glacial maximum to est imate climate sensitivity, sea level response to temperature change, and other important clima tic variables (Jansen et al., 2007, Hegerl et al., 2007). Computer modeling is , of course, important because it improves refinement of predictions, attributions, and analysis of non- linear interactions of a complex system, and thus climate models will continue to play a major role in understa nding and projecting the future of the climate system. However, the characterization of a number of commenters that the projection and attribution findings of the IPCC, the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), and others are supported only by the output of models is not

accurate.

With respect to the issues commenters raised concerning flaws in the models used for projections and attribution studies, it is well r ecognized that models are representations of complex systems and may not be able to perfectly represent all interactions in the system being modeled. For example, clouds are too difficult to model computationally because the physics involved in cloud formation occurs at scales smaller than the resolution of most climate models. Although model-based results are subject to some degree of inherent uncertainty, as reflected in th e assessment literature and in the TSD, these uncertainties are acknowledged; uncertainties do not mean that the models are fatally flawed or unreliable representations of the climate system. Climate models have been demonstrated to successfully simulate a number of climatic properties, as documented in the IPCC, CCSP, NRC, and USGCRP reports on which the TSD primarily relies.

Absolute certainty is not required, and in fact, the TSD summarizes both the important

role and the limitations of models in S ection 6(b), quoting Meehl et al. (2007):

[C]onfidence in models comes from thei r physical basis, and their skill in representing observed climate and past clim ate changes. Models have proven to be extremely important tools for simula ting and understanding climate, and there is considerable confidence that they ar e able to provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at larger scales. Models continue to have significant limitations, such as in their representation of clouds, which lead to uncertainties in the magnitude and timing, as well as regional details, of predicted climate change. Neverthe less, over several decades of model development, they have consistently pr ovided a robust and unambiguous picture of significant climate warming in response to increasing greenhouse gases.

Karl et al. (2009) reaches a similar conclusion, stating:

All of the models used in this work [Kar l et al., 2009] have imperfections in their representation of the complexities of the “r eal world” climate system. These are due to both limits in our understanding of the climate system, and in our ability to represent its complex behavior with availa ble computer resources. Despite this, models are extremely useful, for a number of reasons.

First, despite remaining imperfections, the current generation of climate models accurately portrays many important aspects of today’s weather patterns and

51climate. Models are constantly being im proved, and are routinely tested against many observations of Earth’s climate system. Second, the fingerprint work shows that models capture not only our present-day climate, but also key features of the observed climate changes over the p ast century. Third, many of the largescale observed climate changes (such as the warming of the surface and troposphere, and the increase in the amount of moisture in the atmosphere) are driven by very basic physics, which is well-represented in models. Fourth, climate models can be used to predict cha nges in climate that can be verified in the real world. Examples include the short-term global cooling subsequent to the eruption of Mount Pinatubo and the st ratospheric cooling with increasing carbon dioxide. Finally, models are the only tools that exist for trying to understand the climate changes likely to be experienced over the course of this century. No period in Earth’s geological history provides an exact analogue for the climate conditions that will unfold in the coming decades.

A CCSP report (2008a) assessed model strengths and limitations in detail, and the

introduction states:

Scientists extensively use mathematical models of Earth’s climate, executed on the most powerful computers available, to examine hypotheses about past and present-day climates. Development of clim ate models is fully consistent with approaches being taken in many other fi elds of science dealing with very complex systems. These climate simulati ons provide a framework within which enhanced understanding of climate relevant processes, along with improved observations, are merged into coherent pr ojections of future climate change...

The science of climate modeling has mature d through finer spatial resolution, the inclusion of a greater number of physical processes, and comparison to a rapidly expanding array of observa tions. These models have important strengths and limitations. They successfully simulate a growing set of processes and phenomena; this set intersects with, but does not fully cover, the set of processes and phenomena of central importance for attribution of past climate changes and the projection of future changes.

The consensus of the assessment literature is that models serve a useful purpose within the field of climate science, successfully modeling a number of processes. This is true despite the complexity of the system that was mentioned by one commenter. Although there are a number of limitations and uncertainties, they are accounted for, on a global scale, by providing a range of global mean temperature estimations for any given emission scenario (e.g., Figure 10.26, Meehl et al., 2007). This range, though important,

still enables robust conclusions about th e impact of GHGs on temperature.

A number of specific comments on model flaws are addressed by responses within this

volume. It is EPA’s conclusion that the models have demonstrated the ability to accurately simulate many key aspects of climate, and in light of the key conclusions of the IPCC, CCSP, and USGCRP in regard to model skill and limitations, we have determined that it is fully appropriate to report model-based projections and attribution

studies in the TSD.

52Comment (1-31) : Arthur Randol quotes an e-ma il from Tom Wigley to support his contention that the CRU e-mails “reveal serious questions abou t the validity of th e IPCC models and

the modelers”:

Mike[Mann], The Figure you sent is very deceptive. As an example, historical runs with PCM look as though they match observation—but the match is a fluke. PCM has no indirect aerosol forcing and a low climate sensitivity—compensa ting errors. In my (perhaps too harsh) view, there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC. This is why I still use results from MAGICC to compare with observed temperatures. At least here I can assess how sensitive matches are to sensitivity and forcing assump tions/uncertainties. Tom[Wigley]. 28

Response (1-31) : The figure referred to in this e-mail is an informal figure developed by Gavin Schmidt for posting at the blog “realclimate” and is related to the perception that the climate was warming more slowly than the models had pred icted. This figure does not appear in the IPCC or even the published literature. Gavi n Schmidt replies later in the e-mail chain that the reason for using the full CMIP3 ar chive (including the PC M historical runs referred to by Wigley) as the basis for the figure, rather than the MAGICC model developed by Wigley, is because the behavior being explored by this figure is related to unforced variability, which requires the mo re complex models. MAGICC, a simpler model, does not display unforced variabilit y. This is a normal discussion between scientists about how best to explore a gi ven question. While Wigley objects to one specific model (PCM), the reasoning behind us ing the full ensemble of different models (including PCM) is that the ensemble often demo nstrates better attri butes overall than any of the individual models within the ensemble (each of which have their own strengths and weaknesses). This feature of model ensembles was discussed in the paper “How well do coupled model simulate today’s climate? ” (Reichler and Kim, 2008). The paper concluded, based on the authors’ analysis of the CMIP3 model ensemble compared to earlier efforts, that “Both improved performance and more physical formulation suggest that an increasing level of confidence can be placed in model-based predictions of

climate.”

In the e-mail discussion, Wigley also promotes a couple of different methods of his own to explain the observed variability in the ra te of warming. One method used by Wigley involves comparing an artifici al distribution of unforced va riability to the difference

between the observed trend and the best estim ate of a trend without variability, rather than using the CMIP3 archive to determin e the variability. Another method involves using known sources of variability like the so lar cycle, ENSO, or volcanoes to explain recent temperature trends. Using both these me thods, Wigley also finds that the recent rate of warming is cons istent with the models:

28 E-mail file 1255553034.txt, (Oct ober 14, 2009), page 1824, lines 39-45 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf

53At the risk of overload, here are some notes of mine on the recent lack of warming. I look at this in two ways. The first is to look at the difference between the observed and expected anthropogenic trend relative to the pdf for unforced variability. The second is to remove ENSO, volcanoes and TSI variati ons from the observed data. Both methods show that what we are seeing is not unusual. The second method leaves a significant warming over the past decade. These sums complement Kevin‘s energy work. Kevin [Trenberth] says ... "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". I do not agree with this. 29

This e-mail from Tom Wigley does not reveal serious questions about the validity of models as a whole, nor does it demonstrate that the PCM model shoul d not be used. It reflects a discussion over alternate ways to analyze one specific question.

Comment (1-32) : Arthur Randol quotes one of the CRU e-ma ils from Susan Solomon, claiming that the questions raised regarding th e use of models are “enough to seriously challenge the IPCC

results.”

The question I want to raise is not related to the very important dialogue on how to handle the errors and the statistics, but ra ther how to think about the models. The attached paper by Forster et al. appeared recently in GRL. It taught me something I didn’t realize, namely that ozone losses a nd accompanying temperature trends at higher altitudes can strongly affect low altitudes, through the influence of downwelling longwave.

No global general circulation model can possibl y be expected to simulate this correctly unless it has interactive ozone, or prescribes an observed tropical ozone trend. The AR4 models did not include this, and any “discrepanci es” are not relevant at all to the issue of the fidelity of those models for global warming. 30

Response (1-32) : We note, with respect to this e-mail from Su san Solomon, that she specifically stated that

the issues raised were “not relevant at all to the issue of the fideli ty of those models for global warming.” 31 This means that this issue doe s not raise doubts about conclusions based on using these models for long-term gl obal warming studies. In addition, the fact that there are phenomena not captured by th e models should not be surprising, as described above. The question is, how much will the inclusion of these phenomena alter the conclusions reached from using the mode l? The particular phenomena described by Solomon is the possibility that cooling of the stratosphere due to ozone depletion may also lead to cooling of some parts of the troposphere: Solomon s uggests that this could further explain any discrepancies between the observed warming in the tropical

29 E-mail file 1255496484.txt, (Oct ober 14, 2009), page 1807, lines 37-43 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf

30 E-mail file 1199027884. txt, (December 30, 2007), page 1397-1398, lines 35-40 and 18-22 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf

31 E-mail file 1199027884.tx t, (December 30, 2007), pa ge 1398, lines 21-22 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf

54troposphere and theoretically predicted warmi ng (the “hot spot”). The comment at the

start of this e-ma il fragment about “the erro rs and the statistics” is a reference to the Douglass (2007) paper on the “hot spot”. The errors in the Douglass paper were the subject of a paper (Santer, 2008) that is discussed in Responses 1-18 and 1-19 of this RTP document. Our review finds that the pe titioner may have misunderstood the e-mail. The e-mail does not challenge the IPCC results ; if anything, it suggests a way in which some existing discrepancies might be further narrowed.

Comment (1-33) : Arthur Randol quotes an e-mail from Peter Thorne in support of his contention that

models are flawed:

Maybe we need to step back and rephrase the qu estion in terms of the physics rather than aiming solely to rebutt Douglass et al? In this case the key physical questions in my view

would be:

Is there really a stratospheric radiative influence? If so, how low does it go? What is the cause? Are the numbers consistent with the underlying governing physics or simply an

artifact of residual obs errors?

Can any models show trend behaviour th at deviates from a SALR on multi-decadal timescales? If so, what is it about the model th at causes this effect? Physics? Forcings? Phasing of natural variability? Is it also tr ue on shorter timescales in this model?

I think in the future the Forster et al pa per may be seen as the more scientifically significant result when Douglass et al is no longer cared about ... 32

Response (1-33) : This quote is also related to discussion about the “hot spot” in the troposphere, as was the quote discussed in Response 1-32. The e-mail’ s author indicates that there are more significant scientific questions involved on this topic than would be addressed merely by rebutting Douglass et al. (2007). The discrepancy that scientists are interested in is the possible difference between the theory of satu rated adiabatic lapse rate (SALR) and the observations of the tropical tropospheric temper atures. While the Santer (2008) rebuttal of the Douglass et al. study resolved this di screpancy in large part , there is still the interesting question of whether a model could demonstrate a way in which the troposphere would not warm as much as the surf ace, in contradiction to the basic theory. The Santer (2008) paper is di scussed in Responses 1-18 and 1-19 of this RTP document. This quote is not about flawed models, but ra ther, about determining whether models can be used to explore potentia lly interesting behavior about the vertical temperature structure of the troposphere.

32 E-mail file 1199286511.txt, (January 2, 2008), page 1400, lines 13-15, 18-23 and 27-29 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf

55Comment (1-34) : Arthur Randol quotes a 2008 e-mail from Ja gadish Shukla critiquing some aspects of regional climate change projections. The petitioner underlines two portions of this email:

For example, we can not advise the policymakers about re-building the city of New Orleans - or more generally about the habitability of the Gulf-Coast - using climate

models which have serious deficiencies in simulating the strength, frequency and tracks

of hurricanes.

and

It is not without precedent that quite deficient climate models are used by large communities simply because it is convenient to use them. It is self-evident that if a

coarse resolution IPCC model does not correc tly capture the large-scale mean and transient response, a high-resolution regional model, forced by the lateral boundary conditions from the coarse model, can not improve the response. Considering the important role of multi-scale interactions and feedbacks in the climate system, it is essential that the IPCC-class global models themselves be run at sufficiently high

resolution. 33

The petitioner also quotes the EPA TSD, underlining, among other statements, the following sentence:

Uncertainty also increases as the temporal scales move away from present, either backward, but more importantly forward in time.

Response (1-34) : In the e-mail from Shukla quoted by the pe titioner there is also the statement “in fact many of us were arguing for stronger language with a higher level of confidence at the last meetings of the Las [i.e. at the previous IPCC AR4 lead author meeting], ” 34 and a note that Shukla was not objecting to the us e of model results for discussions of mitigation, but rather for providing informa tion that is useful for adaptation. The

statement on hurricanes is consistent with the assessment of hurricane projections in Section 6(e) of the TSD. Moreover, that the “chaotic variability” of weather (required for predicting hurricane tracks) is different fr om climatic changes is well understood (see Response 4-2 of the RTC document). The un certainties in regiona l modeling are well

understood and summarized in the TS D (as quoted by the petitioner).

The TSD does not rely on downscaled modeli ng (where a high resolution model is run for a small area within a larger lower resolu tion model), including the kind critiqued in the e-mail. However, we note that within th e quote provided by the petitioner, there is no

33 E-mail file 1202939193.txt, (February 13, 2008), page 1460, lines 3-6 and 28-34 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf

34 E-mail file 1202939193.txt, (February 13, 2008), page 1459, lines 44-45 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf

56statement that downscaling cannot work, merely that the global m odels in which the

downscaled models are embedded should be run at an appropriate resolution.

The quoted e-mail argued for stronger language with a higher level of confidence, the uncertainties involved with regional modeling were well represented in the TSD, and specific issues highlighted in the e-mail by the petitioner we re both consistent with the TSD and not germane to the Findings. Ther efore we find that th e petitioner has not raised any issues that would result in a ch ange of any conclusions in the TSD or the

RTCs.

Comment (1-35) : Arthur Randol claims that “the CRU email re veal serious questions about the validity of the IPCC models and the modelers,” based on th e e-mails discussed above and also on an

e-mail from Ben Santer. The Santer e-mail discusses using a subset of models to examine certain climatic features, stating:

We’ve had fun computing a whole range of metrics that might be used to define such a subset of “better” models. The ultimate goal is to determine the sensitivity of our water vapor D&A results to model quality. I think th at this kind of analysis will be unavoidable

in the multi-model world in which we now live. Given substantial inter-model differences in simulation quality, “one mode l, one vote” is probably not the best policy

for D&A work! 35

The e-mail concludes with “The results are fa scinating, and show (at least for water vapor and SST) that every model has its own individu al strengths and weakne sses. It is difficult to identify a subset of mode ls that CONSISTENTLY does well in many different regions and over a range of different timescales.” 36

Response (1-35) : That different models have different strengths and weakne sses is well-understood and as

described above was discussed in the assessm ent reports and the Findings. This is why

conclusions in the literature are considered more robust when multiple models exhibit

similar behavior and the conclusi ons don’t rely on just one model or one line of evidence.

Parallel to the conclusions of Santer in th is e-mail, Reichler and Kim (2008) published a paper which showed that it is often difficult to identify one best model, and that using the average of multiple models often produces bett er results than any model individually over a range of metrics. Therefore, the issue that models have differential abilities to simulate different processes is well documented in the literature and the assessment reports, and

was taken into consideration when consider ing model results for purposes of developing an Endangerment Finding. The commenter does not explain how these recognized differences between models impacts the va lidity of the conclusions drawn in the

35 E-mail file 1196882357.tx t, (December 5, 2007), page 1368, lines 36-41 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf

36 E-mail file 1196882357.tx t, (December 5, 2007), page 1369, lin es 16-19 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf

57assessment reports and in EPA’s Endangermen t Finding, which recognized and took into account the differences, strengths, and weakne sses of the various climate models.

1.2.4 Summary

Petitioners attempt to challe nge key scientific informa tion supporting the Endangerment Finding pertaining to temperature trends in th e vertical structure of the atmosphere, the rate of warming over the last 10 or so years at the surface, the ability to attribute observed temperature trends (both in the vertical structure of the atmosphere and at the surface) to increasing GHG concentrations, and the general ability of models to replicate what has been observed and then make valid projections. Petitioners refer to material in the CRU e-mails in some cases to support their assertions.

We find the following:

 The claim that the CRU e-mails provid e evidence that there is no human fingerprint in the vertical structure of the atmosphere in the tropics is not supported by scientific evidence but rather speculative assertions pertaining the timing of the publication of a journal article.

 Petitioners’ overstate the significance of a possible slowdown in the rate of warming in the last 10 or so years; misinterpret statements on the issue from prominent scientists, as well as pub lished literature; and rely upon an inappropriate examination of a short peri od of the temperature record to draw broad, conclusive statements about global wa rming and the ability to attribute it to human activities, an issue which requires analysis of data over several decades and consideration of a wide body of evidence.

 The discussions among scientists in the CRU e-mails do not undermine the validity of climate models or raise any new issues of their reliability. The discussions revolve around the strength s and weaknesses of individual models, which have been long understood by the sc ientific community and were reflected in and taken into account in the assessment literature and in EPA’s endangerment record. The e-mails do not change the a ppropriate degree of cer tainty that should

be associated with the results obtained from such models, including the increased degree of certainty when multiple different models are used to evaluate an issue, as reflected in the assessment repor ts and EPA’s Endangerment Finding.

581.3

. Validity of the HadCRUT Temperature Record

1.3.1 Overview

A number of petitioners challenge the va lid ity of the surface temperature record developed by scientists at CRU. Many of their issues were raised during notice and comment on the Endangerment Findings, althou gh in some cases the petitioners claim additional support from more recent information released in the media. In particular, several petitioners reference the CRU e-mails that were made public in November 2009. Based on statements in the e-mails, petitioners question the validity of the HadCRUT temperature record and other asso ciated temperature records.

As described in more detail in this sec tion, the petitioners make a number of claims involving the HadCRUT temperature record, including alleged destruction of data; inappropriate data manipulation; selective use of data from Russian weather stations to create a biased global temper ature record; and inappropriate corrections for urban heat island (UHI) effect, particularly in China.

The petitioners argue that these errors demons trate that the CRU datasets in general, and the HadCRUT temperature record in particular, are flawed and unreliable. In some cases, they argue that errors in unrelated data sets maintained by CRU also undermine the HadCRUT temperature record. They then ar gue that these datasets and temperature records are a critical underpi nning of the IPCC assessment reports, and that questions about the quality of the CRU datasets must in evitably raise questions about the validity of the IPCC’s conclusions. Finally, they argue that EPA’s Endangerment Finding must be reconsidered as a result of these questions, because EPA relied on the IPCC findings in reaching its conclusions.

EPA’s analysis indicates that the issues a nd evidence presented by the petitioners do not support the conclusions they draw. First, we note that many of the issues raised by petitioners were already a ddressed in EPA’s RTC document, such as the alleged destruction of data and the alleged probl ems involving Chinese UHI analyses. As explained in more detail belo w, other issues identified by the petitioners involve codes

that have not been shown to be used in a public product; speculative analyses of Russian data that do not have any effect on modern te mperature trends;, and objections to logs of quality control efforts (related to a nother CRU dataset, but not the HadCRUT temperature record that is the main issue in the petitioners’ allegations), with no showing of any bias of the final products.

We note that the HadCRUT temperature record is one of three surface temperature records relied on by the AR4 or the EPA Findings. There are also many other records of warming, such as satellite and other record s of atmospheric temperatures, as well as evidence of warming in many aspects of the environment. These multiple and independent sources of physical evidence of warming provide a comprehensive and consistent picture of warming. Petitioners fail to address this body of evidence, and

59instead, as discussed below, make inappropr iate and exaggerated claims concerning one

of the three surface tem perature records.

For all of the temperature records referen ced in the IPCC’s AR4 and the TSD, including the HadCRUT temperature record, there are kno wn to be both strengths and uncertainties with respect to data coverage, instrumental error, and other issues. There is no assertion that historical temperatures are precisely known. The size of the error ranges shown in one paper (Brohan et al. 2006) on the Had CRUT temperature record, for example, appropriately indicates the certa inty of that temperature r econstruction. The petitioners have not shown that the existing error range was too small, nor have the petitioners presented any analysis indicat ing these error bounds should be adjusted. In addition, as described in responses throughout this section, thei r accusations of bi as are unfounded.

In reaching the Endangerment Finding, the Admi nistrator took the re cognized degree of certainty of the underlying scientific ev idence into consideration when making her decision. For many reasons that we discuss below, EPA strongly disputes the arguments that the HadCRUT temperature record or the CRU datasets serve as “the only” or “the most important” basis for 1) determinations pertaining to warming in recent decades, 2) all analyses of anthropogenic global warming, and 3) IPCC’s models of future warming.

EPA’s review indicates that neither the claims of error or bias nor their broad and

unfounded conclusions about the va lidity of EPA scientific findings are supported by the evidence that they present.

Note: petitioners’ arguments regarding the th ree surface temperature records together are

addressed in Section 1.4 of this document.

1.3.2 Scientific Background on Surface Temperature Records and Underlying

Datasets

Before the detailed response to petitioners ’ arguments, we provide some background on the development and use of the major surface temperature records a nd datasets. We list the records and datasets in the following te xt boxes. The CRU temperature record and datasets are described in this section, a nd the NOAA and NASA temperature records and

datasets are described in S ection 1.4 of this document.

60At CRU (University of East Anglia)

CRUTEM3 Temperature record; land only, based on multiple sources including unadjusted GHCN (see below)

HadCRUT Temperature record: land and ocean, based on CRUTEM3 plus ocean data
CRU TS2.1 and
TS3.0 Multiple climate elements (tempe rature, rainfall, cloudiness) at a high resolution

At NOAA (NCDC)

GHCN (Global
Historical Climate Network) Unadjusted: Data colle cted from a number of weather stations, used by NASA and CRU in developing their temperature record. Adjusted: Uses various te chniques to correct for

station moves and other issues in the raw data. This is the temperature record most commonly presented by NOAA.

USHCN (U.S.
Historical Climate Network) Adjusted: Uses various te chniques to correct for
time of observation and corre ctions based on neighboring

stations.

At NASA GISS

NASA temperature
record Referred to in other document s as the GISS temperature record, or GISTEMP. Available as a land only temperature record or as land plus ocean. Based on unadjusted GHCN, adjusted USHCN, and Antarctic station records.

Other data sources
CLIMAT Monthly reports from nationa l meteorological stations organized through WMO

World Weather

Records (WWR) Station data from around the wo rld, published decadally for most of the century. WWR wa s originally published by the Smithsonian Institution, late r by the U.S. Weather Bureau and other organizations, and was digitized by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).

Monitoring the changes in the surface temper ature of the Earth is one of several key components of studying climate change. Surface temperature is not the only metric of a changing climate. Receding glaciers, sea leve l rise, changes in Arctic ice, tropospheric and stratospheric temperatures, ocean heat content, changes in precipitation and hurricanes, movement of plants, and a numbe r of other indicators are also valuable physical parameters to monitor and evaluate observed changes of the Earth’s climate. The surface temperature record is but one of many sources of evidence leading to the conclusion that global warming is occurring.

61Surface temperature records are built on the data collected from thousands of weather stations around the globe, as well as sea surface temperature re cords taken by ships crossing the ocean on different routes. Some of this data goes back for well over 100 years. These weather stations and the data collected by the stations were not originally intended to be used for climate monitoring, a nd therefore, a number of adjustments often have to be made to the data they have co llected over time. Typical adjustments include

corrections for the introduction of artificial biases, such as ch anges in the time of day that observations were made, changes in stat ion locations, changes in the type of measurement instrument or temperature reco rding method, and addressing the effects of UHIs (the increased temperature observed within cities compared to rural locations). For example, sea surface temperatures used to be recorded by dipping a canvas or wooden bucket into the sea and checking the temperature after the bucket had been brought on board the ship. More recently, th ese temperatures are recorded in intake valves of ships.

Studies have shown that these two methods result in different temperatures for measurements made at the same time and place. Thus, a long-term climate record that

includes a transition from one method to the ot her requires an adjustment so that the whole time series consistently reflects the ac tual changes in temperature trends, rather

than artifacts of different data collection methodologies.

We note that the petitioners have rais ed no objections concerning the sea surface temperature record, despite the fact that the oceans cover about 70% of the Earth’s surface, and therefore, ocean surface temperat ure trends are the dominant component of any global temperature trend analyses. The co rrections described above to adjust for the bucket to intake valve transition (documen ted in Rayner et al., 2005 and Folland and Parker, 1995) result in a data set that shows less warming than the raw data would suggest. Folland and Parker noted that the first, crude attempts to correct for this bias in the 1980s involved adding 0.3 degrees to all data before 1940; this is the largest single source of bias correction involved in the gl obal surface temperature record. Even after this correction, the sea surface temperature record shows a clear warming signal over both the past several decades and the past cen tury. Petitioners ignore this aspect of the surface temperature record.

Other routine quality control measures involve checking for and deleting data that are shown to be duplicative. This can occur, for example, when data are obtained from different sources, and some st ations are included in both da tasets. Often, such duplicate

stations are identified because two records have the same WMO identifier. In some cases, weather stations in different countries, or at different points in time, will have inconsistent measurement methodologies or formats for reporting data. When this occurs, the data must be adjusted to ensure that the observed results reflect actual temperature change and not me thodological differences. Furthe r, the recording stations are not evenly distributed around the planet. The methodology for building up a global average temperature record must ensure that areas with many stations are not overrepresented in the record and areas with few stations are not underrepresented. In this case, available data from existing record ing stations need to be averaged in areas with high station coverage and extrapolated fo r areas with poorer coverage. Overall, the

62kinds of adjustments ma de to the underlying ra w data are designed so that the results of analyses of the dataset reflect as much as possible the actual direction and magnitude of any change in surface temperature and do not reflect other changes, such as in

measurement devices or in the location of stations, as if th ey were changes in surface
temperature.

In general, the method for estimating temperat ure trends does not attempt to determine the average surface temperature of the Earth, but rather, to determine if temperatures have changed over time, both regionally a nd globally. The difference between the temperatures at a given time period compar ed to a reference pe riod is known as the temperature “anomaly.” Anomalies or equivale nt methods are used for long-term trend analyses that combine multiple stations. Temperature anomalies are superior to absolute temperatures for climate analysis because ab solute temperatures can vary significantly over small distances, whereas anomalies are bette r correlated with larg e regional changes. For example, two nearby stations—one on t op of a mountain and one in the neighboring valley—will likely have differentabsolute temperatures but similar anomalies (changes in temperature) over time, as a shift in climate will cause both temperatures to drop or both temperatures to rise in c oncert. Additionally, use of anom alies, rather than absolute temperatures, allows for determination of temperature trends, even when the data availability changes (see Subsection 1.4.3.1 on “station drop-out” for an explanation of why this matters).

The process by which the HadCRUT global surf ace temperature record is collected and computed is described in a series of public ations from CRU scientists, such as Jones (1988), Jones (1994), Jones and Moberg (2003) , and Brohan et al. (2006). The earliest versions of these temperature records prim arily relied on the World Weather Records. The Jones (1988) work included 1,873 stations (m ostly in the Northern Hemisphere), plus 16 stations in Antarctica. The 1994 update adde d a number of additional stations that had been collected through the efforts of Karl et al. (1993) and incorporated some methodological improvements. Even with th ese improvements in spatial coverage and accuracy, the hemispheric averages were nearly unchanged. Jones attributed this to the robustness of the hemispheric mean temper ature series and the high correlation of anomaly measurements over large areas. He estimated that for a hemispheric average, only 100 well-placed stations would be necessary to give a robust result. However, for estimating continental or smaller regional-scale temperature trends, more temperature records would be necessary.

The Jones and Moberg (2003) paper repor ted the inclusion of the GHCN dataset (described in Subsection 1.4.2 of this doc ument on NOAA and NCDC data); improved

18 th and 19 th century records; and integrated data from individual National Meteorological Services (NMSs) in countries around the wo rld, data exchanged over the WMO CLIMAT network and other global da tasets covering the years after 1981, and data from Antarctica. The 2003 temper ature record was based on data from 5,159 stations. Jones and Moberg (2003) descri bes the “laborious and time consuming” analysis that was required when certain st ations existed in both the original Jones temperature record and in the new data th at was acquired from other sources, and the

63approach taken in such cases to determine how to appropriately “hom ogenize” the data. This “homogenization” involves adjusting data to correct for discontinuities in the data due to nonclimatic effects. For example, in 1994 the Australian NMS switched from reporting a “daily mean” temperature, which was the average of the maximum and minimum temperature each day, to a “daily mean” temperature, which was the average of every temperature recorded over the day on a three-hour basis. These two methods yield different results for the same date, and without an adjustment to corr ect for the change in average temperature before and after the swit ch, the apparent temperature trends would reflect the change in methodology in additi on to any actual climatic change. Other quality control methods involved examining ev ery outlier (defined as five standard deviations from the mean) and determining if there was a reason that the data point was

so far off from the other data from that st ation. Jones and Moberg (2003) compared the CRU analysis to the NOAA and NASA analyses as well as the older Jones study (1994), and found that the Northern Hemisphere pattern s remained remarkably similar in all four series. There were some larger differences in the Southern Hemisphere because fewer stations were located there, and therefore, differences in methodologies used for the different temperature records (in terms of how to include Antarc tica and South Pacific islands) could lead to more differences in the Southern Hemispheric record than were seen in the Northern Hemisphere.

The final published update (Brohan et al., 2006 ) added a few more stations, deleted some stations where there were duplicates, and pe rformed additional qual ity control checks. This update also describes thre e kinds of errors that are incorporat ed into an error analysis: station error due to bad measurements or adjustments to an individual station, sampling error because of too little coverage, an d large-scale bias error due to changes in methodologies (like the Australian NMS switch or the bucket to ship intake switch) (see Brohan et al. Figure). We

note that while bad

measurements or adjustments to an

individual station can lead

to incorrect assessments of very local trends, on a large scale, these kinds of random errors will, onaverage, cancel out. Largescale bias errors have the potential to be more important for large-scale trends, but the major sources of biases have all been examined, and corrections

for these biases have been incorporated into the temperature records a nd uncertainty estimations. Petitioners have not identified new sources of large-scale bi as that are not already considered and addressed by the scientific literature. Brohan et al. (2006) Figure: Land component of HadCRUT3: The solid black line is the best estimate value, the red band gives the 95% uncertainty range caused by station, sampling and measurement errors; the green band adds the 95% error

ran g e due to limited covera g e; and the blue band adds the 95% error range due to bias errors.

64Another graph is included in Brohan et al. ( 2006) that summarizes all the homogenization adjustme nts that were made to the data, s howing a fairly symmetric distribution, although with slightly more adjustments that cooled ol der data (attributed to a number of stations moving from inside a city to an out of town airport). Th e paper also discusses how the uncertainty estimates take into account the potential magnitude of the effects of urbanization (UHIs) and cha nges in thermometer methodologies. Continued updates to the HadCRUT methodology, along with links to the data, are reported on the UK Met office website (UK Met Office, 2010a).

These data, along with a number of other temperature records (such as the NOAA and NCDC temperature records), are used to anal yze long-term trends to compare to both

model simulations and satellite trends. The recent warming shown in HadCRUT and other temperature records has contributed to statements by the IPCC that “warming in the climate system is unequivocal” (IPCC 2007a), among other statements.

In addition to the HadCRUT temperature r ecord, CRU also maintains a dataset whose current version is known as TS3.0. TS2.1, also re ferred to in some of the CRU e-mails, is

the older version of this dataset. The TS da tasets include various temperature metrics and data on precipitation, wet-day frequency, frost-day frequency, vapour pressure, and cloud cover. The gridding of these data is at a high resolution (half a de gree) compared to the 5-degree resolution of the HadCRUT temperat ure record, and is de scribed in Mitchell and Jones (2005). These data have been used by many researchers, in combination with

other datasets that measure th e same variables, to analyze long-term trends and compare

to model simulations. The TS2.1 dataset is referred to twice in the IPCC AR4 in relation to historical precipitation da ta. However, almost all of the references to global temperatures over time that refer to CRU da ta refer to the HadCRUT temperature record. The HadCRUT temperature record is distinct from the TS datasets. Compared to HadCRUT, the TS datasets include many more climatic variables than temperature, are gridded at a finer resolution, and are updated only once every several years rather than every month. While the TS2.1 dataset did use the CRUTEM datase t from Jones and Moberg (2003) for temperature data, it also included temperature data from five other sources. Arguments made by petitioners about the TS datasets are not relevant to the HadCRUT temperature record.

1.3.3 Responses to Petitioners ’ Arguments Regarding the Validity of CRU

Data

Petitioners, including the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Pacific Legal Foundation, Peabody Energy, the Southeastern Legal F oundation, the State of Texas, and the Coalition for Responsible Regulation, raise a number of concerns regarding the data held and analyzed by CRU. The petitioners pres ent five major arguments regarding the validity of the CRU data. The first argument is that alleged destruction of raw data for the HadCRUT temperature record renders th e scientific data on surface temperature worthless and makes replicati on of temperature trends impo ssible. The second argument alleges that comments within code and log files are evid ence of manipulation that “undercuts the credibility of CRU databases.” The third argument refers to a report from

the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Anal ysis (IEA) (Pivovarova, 2009) that claims

65to show that the Russian stations used in the HadCRUT temp erature record were selectively chosen to show increased warming. The fourth argument refers to a dispute about a 1990 paper coauthored by Phil Jones (Jones et. al, 199 0) and claims that the IPCC improperly relied on this study for its conclusions about the magnitude of the UHI effect. Finally, petitioners argue that the CRU data is the primar y basis for the conclusion of “unprecedented” warming and the foundation of anthropogenic global warming analyses.

The following subsections address each of these five arguments. The alleged data

destruction was addressed in the RTC document. No original raw data were destroyed, the original raw data are and remain the prope rty of the NMS that collected them and can be obtained from the original stations (or nati onal meteorological offices), subject to their procedures. With respect to the code and log files, the quot es selected by the petitioners are not evidence of deliberate data manipul ation and are mainly the result of quality control processes determining how to best address the vast quantities of data collected from different sources. The IEA analysis of Russian temperature stations shows little divergence between the HadCRUT dataset a nd its own analysis after 1950, and while there is some divergence in the pre-1950 timeframe, the IE A analysis is not credible because it uses improper methodologies to do the comparison. Jones et al. (1990) was

addressed in the RTC document and is not a central component of the IPCC analysis of UHI effects. Finally, the Ha dCRUT temperature record does not serve as the only or most important basis for recent warming or other anthropogenic global warming analyses. It is one of several temperature records used in analyses of global warming, along with numerous other analyses of physical evidence of warming.

1.3.3.1 Alleged Destruction of Raw Data

Comment (1-36) : Several petitioners claim that CRU has not kept raw data collected from the surface weather stations, only the homogenized and value-added data (e.g., the data corrected for station moves and measurement changes), and that therefore, the evidence for warming in the past century is questionable. For ex ample, the Competitive Enterprise Institute objects that CRU has been involved in “data dumping” the original raw data for its

datasets and claims that this action “renders independent review and verification of the 150-plus year temperature trends publishe d by the Hadley Center-CRU impossible - a clear violation of basic principles of sc ience and was found by the British Information

Commissioner’s Office to be a violation of the British Freedom of Information Act.” Along similar lines, the State of Texas argue s that “revelations that CRU data was destroyed, lost, or simply wit hheld indicate a different, but equally serious, problem: that the data can neither confirm nor deny how quickly, how far, for how long, or even, in some cases, whether, temperatures have ri sen.” The Southeastern Legal Foundation cited a newspaper article claiming that “Shortly after the Climategate documents became public, CRU was forced to admit on or about November 29, 2009 that much of their original data has been de stroyed...” (Leake, 2009).

66Petitioners assert that these alleged ac tions by CRU make EPA’s “claim of warming trends scientifically indefensible” (Compe titive Enterprise Institute) and render the CRU data “scientifically worthl ess” (State of Texas).

Peabody Energy states:

EPA was aware at the time it published the E ndangerment Finding that some of the raw data used in HadCRUT3 had been destroyed but dismissed concerns about the reliability of these records on essentially three grounds. Fi rst, it uncritically adopted CRU’s public position that since (a) ninety-five percent of the raw data has long been available to researchers on the Global Historical Climatology Network (“GHCN”) and (b) CRU’s adjustment methodology is available, then (c) researchers could independently replicate and confirm the appropriateness of CRU’s adjustments. 243 But as shown in section VI(E) below, the reason CRU and independent resear chers cannot replicate CRU’s adjustments is because CRU can no longer determine which data from the GHCN it used. EPA’s unwillingness to make its own assessment of th is issue further illustrates that EPA has ceded its own judgment to third parties.

Response (1-36) : CRU has not retained all of the raw weather station data collected during development of the HadCRUT temperature record, and CRU has openly acknowledged this point and provided a detailed explanation for its handling of the data. In fact, this issue was raised in public comment on the proposed Endangermen t Finding and is addressed at length in Volume 2 (Response 2-39) of the EPA RTC document. In that response, we explained

that:

CRU has stated (see Appendix B) that they do not hold the original raw data but only the value added (i.e., quality-controlled and homoge nized) data for ”some sites,” and refers readers to a long list of peer-reviewed refere nces that describe how the value-added data were generated. To the extent possible, CRU has made all data for the HadCRUT record available (see Appendix A). In certain instan ces, data may be unavailable to the public due to constraints of the arrangements made in obtaining the data between CRU and other governments/organizations, as described in Appendix B.

CRU’s statement on this issue is av ailable on their website (CRU, 2010).

The fact that CRU has not retained all the raw data does not interf ere in any way with replication of or development of independent estimates of global or regional surface temperature history. The vast majority of th e raw global weather station data is available from the GHCN and other public data sources. It is therefore possi ble to generate an independent estimate of global temperatures , as GISS, NCDC, a nd other groups have done. While attempting an exact replication of a particular analysis could be useful in understanding how it works and possibly id entify minor bugs, this kind of exact replication is certainly not necessary. Indee d, for a result to be robust, it should yield a very similar answer, even if there are differences in the method of the underlying analysis. As discussed in Section 1.4 of this document, NOAA and NASA analyses of global surface temperature records provide such evidence. These analyses find temperature increases of similar magnitude a nd thus, strongly support the conclusion that the CRU analysis is robust. Similarly, as described in the background above, the major

67conclusions about warming based on the Had CRUT temperature record have rema ined robust, even as more data were integrated and methodologies refine d over a period of two decades. Additionally, CRU has posted a gr aph showing that there is very little difference in global average surface temperat ures resulting from using the 80% of the station data that is publicly available compared to the full dataset (MetOffice Data Subset Figure; UK Met Office, 2010c). At smaller spatial scales there may be differences between the full and partial datasets, but at th e global scale, this confirms the trend is very robust and reliable.

UK Met Office Data Subset Figure: The temper ature reconstruction fr om the full dataset is in black, and the temperature reconstruction from the publica lly available dataset is in red. (UK Met Office, 2010c)

Petitioners have not conducte d an independent analysis to determine global temperature trends, although the data are av ailable, and they do not provi de any global analysis that yields a different resu lt. They have provided no evidence that an additional or different analysis using the publicly available temperat ure data would yield a result that differs substantively from the warming over the cen tury reflected in the HadCRUT and other analyses of global surface temperature.

In contrast, the recent Independent Climate Change E-mails Review (2010) managed to write computer code from scratch in a space of two days that produced results similar to the HadCRUT temperature record and other in dependent analyses, wo rking with publicly accessible data. This independent effort in cluded the two key characteristics of any global temperature analysis: use of anomalies (or equivalent method) in order to focus on the change in temperature rather than the ab solute temperature, and use of gridding (or

68equivalent method) to take into account the spatial distribution of the data. In the process, the Review determ ined that: The exercise and comparison of all figures demonstrates that:

1. Any independent researcher may freely ob tain the primary station data. It is impossible for any group to withhold data. 2. It is impossible for any group to tamper improperly with data unless they have done so to the GHCN and NCAR (and presumably the NMO [National Meteorological Office]) sources themselves. 3. The steps needed to create a temper ature trend are straightforward to implement. 4. The computer code necessary is straight forward to write from scratch and could easily be done by any competent programmer. 5. The shape obtained in all cases is very similar; in other words, if one does the same thing with the same data one gets very similar results. 6. The result does not depend significan tly on the exact list of stations. 7. Adjustments make little difference.

Studies that use consistent methods for determining annual anomalies and spatial interpolation weighting factors produce resu lts broadly consistent with the HadCRUT temperature record. Contrary to the assert ions of petitioners, EPA has not ceded its judgment to third parties or uncritically adopted positions by other organizations; it has assessed the major surface temperature record s and the methodologies of creating them and determined that the global trends found in these temperature records are robust. Contrary to the implications by the petitioners , it is not necessary to perfectly duplicate the HadCRUT temperature record to the pr ecise decimal point in order to make scientifically useful conclusions from replication exercises.

In addition, the limited amount of raw data that is no longer in CRU’s possession does not adversely affect the scientific useful ness of the surface temperature analyses and results prepared by CRU. There is a l ong record of peer-reviewed publications explaining the process of prepar ing the raw data for analysis, presenting the results of the analyses, and evaluating the magnitude of vari ous possible sources of error. It is an unwarranted leap in logic to assume these analyses have no merit just because a small percentage of the underlying raw da ta is no longer in CRU’s possession.

In summary, we find that the petitioners ar guments were previously addressed in EPA’s RTC document, and they have shown no evidence that CRU’s lack of a sm all portion of the raw temperature data impedes the ability to check if the publicly available data give results consistent with the HadCRUT temperatur e record, or that it changes the scientific validity of the analyses performed by CRU.

691.3.3.2 Alleged Data Manipulation

Comment (1-37) : The Coalition for Responsible Regulation claims that “According to CRU’s own programming staff, the CRU temperature data were ‘fudged,’” noting that “the file BRIFFA_SEPT98_E.PRO reveals that the pr ogrammer ‘Appl[ied] a VERYARTIFICIAL correction for decline!!,’ and literally labeled several of the adjustments as ‘fudge

factors.’”

Response (1-37) : Based on the comments in the code, BRIFFA_SEPT98_E.PRO appears to be a provisional test program, w ith comments in capital letters to remind the programmer to replace the temporary fudge fact ors with more valid adjustments before the code is used for public products. Additionally, although the peti tioners claim that this code shows that “CRU temperature data were ‘fudged,’” it appe ars that the fudge factor in question is related to the divergen ce issue discussed in Section 1.1 of this document, and therefore the fudge factor is not relate d to the HadCRUT temperature record. There is no evidence

or reason to believe that the BRIFFA_SEPT98_E.PRO code was actually used for any public final product. On its f ace the “Artificial Correction” was designed as a temporary adjustment.

Comment (1-38) : The State of Texas refers to “one notable email” in which “a CRU staff member discuss a

‘trick’ to ‘hide the declin e’ in CRU temperature data sets from 1981-2000”, and

concludes that “Such emails show that the CRU did not simply gather raw temperature data, enter it into computer programs, and produce conclusions based on collated raw data. Instead, the CRU gathered temperatur e data and manipulated it to produce a result

that was sometimes different from the result that the raw data would have produced.” The State of Texas states that “Conseque ntly, the British Meteorological Office (the

‘MET ’ ) has announced that it will reexamine 160 y ears of climate data, attributing the

need to reexamine the data to a ‘lack of public confidence based on the leaked emails.’” The Southeastern Legal Foundation also brought up the MET reexamination in its petition.

Response (1-38) : The State of Texas is referring to an e-ma il that addressed paleoclimate temperature reconstructions, not the modern surface temper ature record. As di scussed in Subsection 1.1.4, the “decline” referenced in this e-mail was a referenc e to the divergence between some tree ring records and the instrumental record. This divergence was recognized in the published literature, and in some cases the authors of these publications were the same people who were the authors of the e-mails. This is unrelated to the HadCRUT temperature record.

In addition, the petitioner objects to the “man ipulation” of raw temperature data but has produced no evidence or argument that CRU ma de any inappropriate adjustments to the data in the process of producing the HadCRU T temperature record. The adjustments to

70the raw data are made in order to ma ke th e resulting temperature record a more accurate representation of the actual la rge-scale historical temperat ure changes. There is no scientific merit to petitioners’ allegations that the adjusted data is faulty because it gives different results than the unadjusted data. Th at ignores the scientific basis for making the adjustments. EPA addresses these issu es in Subsection 1.3.2 on the Scientific Background on the HadCRUT Temperature Record.

The MET announced a reexamination of climat e data, but creating an investigative body

to reexamine the data is not ev idence that the original conclu sions are in error. Indeed, the proposal from the MET (UK Met Office, 2010b) stated, “[i]t is important to emphasize that we do not anticipate any subs tantial changes in th e resulting global and

continental-scale multi-decadal trends. This effort will ensure that the datasets are completely robust and that all methods are transparent.” There have been several investigations of CRU and other climate res earchers, and to date, none of the released conclusions of these investigations ha ve found evidence of inappropriate data manipulation, nor has any evidence been shown that the HadCRUT temperature record is

not robust. The existence of similar tre nds in the NASA and NOAA records, along with other physical signs of warming, such as glacia l melt, satellite record s, and ocean heating, strongly supports the robustne ss of the HadCRUT temperatur e record, and it is all of these sources that provide the comprehensive evidence that has led to the conclusion that warming in the climate system is unequivocal.

Comment (1-39) : The State of Texas also references the inve stigation into CRU by the British House of Commons, stating “On December 2, 2009, Science and Technology Committee Chairman Phil Willis wrote to the Vice Chancellor of East Anglia University asking for an explanation of CRU’s conduct and expres sing concern about allegations that CRU ‘data may have been manipulated or dele ted in order to produce evidence on global warming.’”

Response (1-39) : The UK House of Commons Science and Tech nology Committee has released the report (2010) from its independent i nvestigation and found no evid ence of manipulations or deletions to produce evidence on global warmi ng. See the Decision Document, as well as

Subsections 1.3.5 and 1.4.3.5.

Additionally, the “Report of the International Panel set up by the University of East Anglia to examine the research of the C limatic Research Unit” was issued recently (University of East Ang lia, 2010a), and found that:

We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the

Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it. Rather we found a small group of dedicated if slightly disorganised researchers who were ill-prepared for being the focus of pub lic attention. As with many small research groups their internal procedures were rather informal.

71Comment (1-40) : The Pacific Legal Foundation claims that “T he e-mails may suggest that the authors manipulated and “massaged” the data to st rengthen the case in favor of unprecedented global warming, and to suppress their own data if it called global warming into question.

See e-mails 0938018124, 0843161829, 0939154709, 0942777075, and 1059664704.” 37

Response (1-40) : The petitioners do not state what portions of these selected e-mails are evidence for their claim of manipulation. All of these e-mails were written in 1999. The first e-mail (0938018124) 38 , for example, is from Michael Ma nn to Keith Briffa, Chris Folland, and

Phil Jones and includes in the fi rst paragraph a statement that is directly contrary to the assertion of the petitioners. This paragra ph demonstrates appropr iate acknowledgment of

limitations and avoidanc e of overconfidence:

And I should point out that Chris, through no fault of his own, but probably through ME not conveying my thoughts very clearly to the others, definitely overstates any singular confidence I have in my own (Mann et al) series. I believe strongly that the strength in our discussion will be the fact that certain key features of past climate estimates are robust among a number of quasi-independent a nd truly independent estimates, each of

which is not without its own limitations and potential biases. And I certainly don’t want to abuse my lead authorship by advocating my own work. 39

E-mail 0843161829 40 is from Gary Funkhouser, about a certain Kyrgyzstan tree ring

dataset from which he was unable to make r obust conclusions. We respond to the issues in this e-mail in Response 1-12 in Subsecti on 1.1.4 of this RTP document, and find that the scientist is following proper procedures and not using data unless the data meets statistical requirements. The e-mail ends w ith Funkhouser hoping that someone will take some more data from the site to get better statistics.

E-mail 0939154709 41 contains data from a temperat ure reconstruction from Tim Osborn

to Mike Mann and others. This e-mail contains a discussi on of the post-1960 nontemperature signal that has been discussed in Section 1.1 on “divergence”, but again this e-mail contains no evidence of improperly massaging data:

Keith has asked me to send you a timeseries for the IPCC multi-proxy reconstruction figure, to replace the one you currently have. Th e data are attached to this e-mail. They

37 E-mail files 0938018124.txt (September 22, 1999) page 203 line 12, 0843161829.txt (September 19, 2006) page 11 line 4, 0939154709.txt (October 5, 1999) page 229 line 32, 0942777075.txt (November 16, 1999) page 243 line 31, and 1059664704.txt (July 31, 2003) page 558 line 6 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf

38 E-mail files 0938018124.txt, (Septe mber 22, 1999), page 203, line 12 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf

39 E-mail file 0938018124.txt, (Septe mber 22, 1999), page 203, lines 21-27 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf

40 E-mail files 0843161829.txt, (Septemb er 19, 2006), page 11, line 4 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf

41 E-mail files 0939154709.txt, (October 5, 1999), page 229, line 32 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf

72go from 1402 to 1995, although we usually st op the series in 1960 because of the recent non-temperature signal that is superimposed on the tree-ring data that we use. I haven’t put a 40-yr smoothing through them - I thought it best if you were to do this to ensure the

same filter was used for all curves. 42

E-mail 0942777075 43 is from 1999 and similarly refers to the divergence issue, and has been quoted extensively because it used the term “Mike’s Nature trick”. We address this e-mail in Response 1-11 in Subsection 1.1.4 of this document, and find that this e-mail refers to a graph used in a 1999 WMO report wh ich is unrelated to the IPCC and that the word “trick” does not imply deceit. The unde rlying issues involved with divergence are

addressed in Section 1.1 of this document.

E-mail 1059664704 44 is the e-mail from Mike Mann di scussing “calibration residuals.” We respond to these issues in Response 1-80 in Section 1.3.3.6 where it is shown that the uncertainties arising from these residuals we re discussed in the published papers by Dr.

Mann.

None of these e-mails provide evidence of or support the conclusion that the e-mail authors conducted inap propriate “massaging” or manipulat ing of the data or suppressed

their own data.

1.3.3.3 “Harry Read Me” file and other code

The petitioners submitted a large number of quotes from a 300 page, 90,000 word document named HARRY_READ_ME.txt 45 . The HARRY_READ_ME.txt debugging notes are a record of “Harry’s” 46 attempt to update the CRU TS2.1 product to TS3.0 during the years 2006 to 2009 by merging six ye ars of additional data (covering 2003 to 2008) to an old dataset runni ng until 2002, and migrating the code to a new computer system at the same time. As noted in th e science background in Subsection 1.3.2 of this document, CRU TS2.1 and 3.0 are different from the HadCRUT temperature record that is referred to in the EPA TSD. Arguments ma de by petitioners about the TS datasets are

not relevant to the HadCRU T temperature record.

These quotes mainly fall into the following categories:

1) Expressions of frustration with docum entation or system processes that do not indicate any problems in the underlying data.

42 E-mail file 0939141116.txt, (Octob er 5, 1999), page 226, lines 32-37 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf

43 E-mail files 0942777075.txt, (November 16, 1999), page 243, line 31 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf

44 E-mail files 1059664704.txt, (July 31, 2003), page 558, line 6 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf

45 The complete text of this document has been placed in the docket for this action. See Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171 at www.regulations.gov.

46 “Harry” is a researcher at CRU.

732) Notes about imperfections in the data received from various organizations that make it difficult to integrate the new data with the old database. The problems that arise from this integr ation are resolved one by one throughout the time period covered by the file. 3) Expressions of frustration based on intr oducing errors into code which then have to be fixed. Bugs are almost always introduced in the coding process, and the key is to find them and fix them. The file includes evidence that this is being done. 4) A few unresolved data issues arise at the end of the log file, and there is no indication in the log file of how thes e imperfections were fixed. This does

not mean that these issues were not fi xed between the version of the log file

that was released with the CRU e-mails and the final TS3.0 version. Additionally, none of these i ssues appear to involve large-scale e rrors that would introduce bias, but rather unresolv ed inconsistencies in the data of one

or two stations for a subset of the climate variables being recorded.

In sum, the HARRY_READ_ME.txt is a long, multi-year log of expressed frustrations with old codes, merging datasets from diffe rent sources, changing computer systems, and the arduous process of performing quality cont rol. This file reflects both specific technical terminology and the personality of th e researcher. Taken out of context, as done by petitioners, the quotes from the file can provide misleading impressions. As the files show, the datasets are not perfect, but th at is not a surprise. As exemplified by the Brohan et al. (2006) uncertainty analysis discussed in Subsection 1.3.2 (Background), it

is well known that there are a number of reasons for there to be errors and uncertainties in the underlying raw data set. Importantly, the petitioners have not identified any errors that are likely to bias that would affect the large-scale trends analyzed with the TS dataset. As discussed, measurement or other er rors at individual stations matter for very

local trends but tend to cancel out when av eraged over large scales. Importantly, EPA was unable to identify any quotes among the many dozens submitted that indicated any deliberate attempt to bias the data (nor did EPA find any such evidence in its analysis of the underlying HARRY_READ_ME document).

The evidence shows that “Harry” was working on identifying and solving these errors in order to improve on the CRU TS2.1 dataset, much like the HadCRUT temperature record has gone through multiple iterations and impr ovements. Again, the petitioners have

shown no evidence of bias or of errors that are of sufficient magnit ude to compromise the climate signals in the various climate variab les included in the TS dataset.

The CRU TS2.1 dataset was not used in the IPCC for evaluating the trends in surface temperature. The HadCRUT temperature record was used for that, and it is a separate and distinct dataset from TS2.1. The TS2.1 pr oducts are only directly cited in Working Group I of the IPCC AR4 in two places: in Figure 3.12/Table 3.4 as one example out of several of a global land precip itation dataset (Trenberth et al., 2007), and in Figure 9.19 for comparing Sahel precipitation trends to model simulations (Hegerl et al., 2007). Therefore, in addition to a lack of evidence that the contents of the HARRY_READ_ME.txt file materially change any large-scale trends, analyses of TS2.1

74data in most cases are presented alongside ot her independent data th at support the same

conclusions.

The TS datasets in particular involved up to nine different climate variables collected

from thousands of weather stations from do zens of different countries covering a century of time. One problem in particular invol ving WMO codes that appears in many of the quotes highlighted by petitioners was explicitly highlighted in the paper published about TS2.1, as well as in other papers in the litera ture as discussed in Response 1-46. None of the quotes highlighted indicated any problem s that are outside the bounds of the known uncertainties and imperfections in the data that are discussed in the literature.

Comment (1-41) : One petitioner provides a quote: “As far as I can see, this renders the (weather) station counts totally meaningless.”

Response (1-41) : This quote is followed, a long time later, by a discussion from “Harry” of trying to get this code working on the computer system of a client (the British Atmospheric Data Center): “Next problem - station counts. I had this working fine in CRU - here it’s insisting on stopping indefinitely at January 1957.” The first part of the quote shows that “Harry” did fix the station count problem. The last part of this quote refers to additional frustrations involved in getting the code to work on an unfamiliar computer system, which is a fairly typical occurrence when moving from one system to another.

Comment (1-42) : The quote “COBAR AIRPORT AWS (data from an Australian weather station) cannot start in 1962, it didn’t open until 1993!” is provided by Peabody Energy as an example of

false data.

Response (1-42) : The paragraphs preceding and following the quote clearly indicate that this problem was identified by an automated quality control routine, that “Harry” followed up by e-mailing the Australia Bureau of Meteorology, and th at he was able to resolve the problem by determining that the 1962 to 1993 portion of the COBAR AIRPORT AWS station was actually from the Cobar MO station.

Comment (1-43) : Southeastern Legal Foundation provides a quote : “Well, dtr2cld is not the world’s most complicated program. Wheras cloudreg is, and I immediately found a mistake! Scanning forward to 1951 was done with a loop that, for completely unfathomable reasons, didn’t include months! So we read 50 grids instead of 600!!!”

Response (1-43) : Examination of this file shows that this quot e refers to a piece of code that “Harry” had just written, and the quote was immediatel y followed by the comment, “Running with those bits fixed improved matters somewhat...,” showing that the goal of the exercise

75was to identify and address issues with the merging/updating of the data system, and that the problems were addressed.

Comment (1-44) : Another quote Southeastern Legal Foundation pr ovides is: “I was expecting that maybe the latter contained 94-00 normals, what I wasn’t expecti ng was that they are in % x10

not %! Unbelievable - even here the conventions have not been followed. It’s botch after botch after botch. Modified the conversion pr ogram to process either kind of normals

line.”

Response (1-44) : In this case, the problem was merely that so me input data had diffe rent units than other input data, and that “Harry” developed a rout ine to address this. The resolution of the problem (modifying the conversion program) is included within the quote provided by the petitioner.

Comment (1-45) : Peabody Energy claims that if adjustments are made to a methodology of developing a temperature record after peer review, then the resulting temperature record no longer qualifies as peer-reviewed itsel f, stating “If CRU cannot repl icate its adjustments (as in the case with their HadCRUT3 data), or if adjustments were made after the publication of peer-reviewed methodology (as in the case with their TS2.1/3.0 data), there is no basis to say that the adjustments, in fact, were properly applied. CRU—and EPA—in essence are saying “trust me,” but any basis to do so seems to have collapsed with the Harry_Read_Me files.” Peabody Energy further argues that any datase t that is updated or changed cannot count as peer reviewed, stating “Moreover, as is evident in several emails, the CRU temperature data set is in a constant state of flux, with the data set constantly being modified both in terms of th e inclusion/exclusion of data as well as the methods employed. Thus, the datasets now av ailable have not been directly peerreviewed.”

Response (1-45) : The petitioner misunderstands how the peer-revi ew process is applied to the creation of temperature records and similar datasets. The papers published by CRU over the years detail the sources and methods used to genera te the temperature record (as summarized in Subsection 1.3.2). It is expected that as new data become available, they will be incorporated, and as minor errors or updates ar e made that those too will be incorporated, without triggering any need for a new peer re view. If any of this new data or updates resulted in substantial change s to the final output or the methodology, then that might call for further review. However, as has been noted repeatedly, the HadCRUT temperature

record is both reliable and r obust, with similar trends resu lting from the analyses of NOAA, NASA, and other groups. The evidence suggests that these temperature records and other datasets are being produced in acco rdance with the peer-reviewed papers in which they are described, where these peer-rev iewed papers discuss the limitations of the underlying data records and other uncertainties . The petitioner has not shown evidence of any changes that are substantial enough to warrant a new peer-r eview process.

76The Harry_Read_Me file is not related to the HadCRUT temperature record, but rather to the creation of TS3.0, as expl ained in Subsection 1.3.2. TS3.0 (or Time-Series 3.0) is a separate dataset produced by CRU , with different stations, sp atial resoluti on, and set of

variables. R egardless, the no tion that CRU and EPA are saying “trust me” with regard to the surface temperature record is flawed; th e GHCN data is publicly available for any

individual or researcher to us e to generate his or her own gl obal temperature record. The petitioners have not provided or referenced any credible analysis of the GHCN data that

reaches a different conclusion than t hose of NOAA, NASA, and the CRU.

Comment (1-46) : The Coalition for Responsible Regula tion, Peabody Energy, and Pacific Legal Foundation all provide sections of a quot e from the HARRY_READ_ME file: “What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh y eah - there is no ‘supposed’, I can make it up. So I have :-)” The Coalition for Responsible Regulation claims that “The programmer asserts in the HARRY READ ME.txt file that, in the absence of data from the period 1990 through 2003, he made up what to do” and st ates “EPA cannot support a scientific judgment premised on ‘very artificial,’ ‘fudged,’ and ‘made up’

data. Because these Disclosures demonstrat e that at least some of the temperature data managed and maintained by CRU were ‘fudged’ or ‘made up,’ EPA must reconsider its Finding and demonstrate that the data upon which it relied are valid and not corrupted.”

Related quotes about WMO codes are provi ded by the above petitioners and the Southeastern Legal Foundation: “You can’t imag ine what this has cost me - to actually allow the operator to assign false WMO code s!! But what else is there [in] such situations? Especially when dealing with a ‘Master‘ da tabase of dubious provenance (which, er, they all are and always will be), ” “So with a somewhat cynical shrug, I added the nuclear option - to match every WMO possibl e, and turn the rest into new stations ... In other words, what CRU usually do. It will allow bad database s to pass unnoticed, and good databases to become bad, but I really don ’t think people care enough to fix `em, and it’s the main reason the project is nearly a ye ar late,” and “False codes will be obtained by multiplying the legitimate code (5 dig its) by 100, then adding 1 at a time until a

number is found with no matches in the data base. THIS IS NOT PERFECT but as there is no central repository for WMO codes - espe cially made-up ones – we’ll have to chance duplicating one that’s present in one of the other databases. In any case, anyone comparing WMO codes between databases - something I’ve studiously avoided doing except for tmin/tmax where I had to - will be treating the false codes with suspicion anyway. Hopefully.”

The Coalition for Responsible Regulation clai ms that these quotes are evidence of “deliberately fabricating non-existent temperat ure-recording stations ” and that “This kind of data manipulation, including creation of false temperature stations, undercuts the credibility of the CRU databases and requi res EPA to reconsider its Endangerment Finding.”

77Response (1-46) : Petitioners mischaracterize the emails by i gnoring the context of the legitimate quality control process that they reflect. The pr oblems encountered in merging WMO station data from different countries and time periods has been recognized and discussed in the peer reviewed literature (two examples ar e quoted in this res ponse), and the quality

control measures taken here are consistent with those discussed in the literature.

These quotes address a specific issue where the programmer had written an automatic quality control routine to be used when merging incoming data provided by national weather organizations to the existing data in the database. As mentioned in the background discussion above, data are assumed to be from the same weather station if their WMO codes match, but sometimes issues arise that cast doubt on this assumption. To address these situations, the programmer de veloped a routine that ran prior to merging the data that checked for sufficient correlation (e.g., seasonal patterns) between the new

and the old data. If the data were correla ted, the merge would proceed. However, in cases where the correlation routine finds something anomalous, the program warns the user that an inconsistency exists a nd provides the user with three options:

You have failed a match despite the WMO codes matching.

This must be resolved!! Please choose one:

1. Match them after all. 2. Leave the existing station alone, and discard the update. 3. Give existing station a false code, an d make the update the new WMO station.

Therefore, this quality contro l check is ensuring that for a ny data that seems odd, a user

will conduct a manual review and determine whet her the best option is to assume that

both datasets are from the same station or wh ether the new station should be discarded or

turned into its own station. We note here that the use of “false codes” is not “falsification,” as inferred by the Pacific Le gal Foundation, but rather a way to address the problem that a few stations in the new data set had the same WMO code as stations in the old data set, despite the fact that quality control routines determined that the data from

these stations had different st atistical characteristics.

This is not “making up” data. No data have been created; the only thing “made up” is an

identification number associated with the da ta (the WMO code), because the previous identification number was already in use. The petitioners did not highlight these additional quotes that show the fuller contex t of the now oft-cited “I can make it up”
quote.

Moreover, the problems involved with WMO codes are not new and are well documented in the published literature. As explaine d in the published paper on the CRU TS2.1 database (e.g., Mitchell and Jones, 2005), there are challenges involved in matching

WMO codes.

However, not all sources attach WMO codes to their data, and not all stations have been assigned WMO codes, so additional information was used: location, name and country. Each additional station was compared with the stations already in the database, both to

78avoid unnecessary duplication and to ensure that each station record is as complete as possible.

If an additional station was already present in the database, then the two records were compared....The comparison was based on any available overlap between the records; if none was available, then an attempt was ma de to construct a reference series that overlapped both records (as in Section 2.4). If an overlap was found, then it was used to

alter the statistical characteristics of the a dditional station to match those of the existing record, using the method in Section 2.4.4; the two records were then merged. If no overlap was found, then the records were assumed to be for different stations, because of the possibility of the two records having different normals.

Where the sources were very recent (CLIMAT and MCDW) the additional station was

assumed to be the same without the above da ta check. This was justified because the normals from these sources were likely to be the same as the post-adjustment normals from other sources. This assumption was neces sary for some climate variables (notably wet days) for which overlaps with stations fro m other sources were very rare; without it

the normals could be calculated for very few recent data.

As demonstrated by this quote from the publis hed literature, the st andard procedure was

to assume that a new record was a different station if the data di d not have sufficient overlap to merge the records with confidence. This is what “Harry” was doing when he was “making up” a new WMO code.

Peterson, Daan, and Jones (1997) also addre ssed some of the challenges involved when gathering data from many independent nati onal services based on WMO codes, and the well understood imperfections in this procedure:

These four sources total 15,433 stations. But how many are unique? To answer this question, all the stations needed to be merged into a single list, as shown in Fig. 2. This was not an easy task: in the four sources, latitudes and longitudes were recorded in hundredths of degrees, tenths of degrees, and minutes, depending on the source. Therefore, station locations seldom agreed ex actly. In addition, stations often move slightly over time so data from earlier sources might not have the current location. Not only did the spelling of station names change over time, but in many cases, particularly in newly independent countries, the entire station name changed. These problems are compounded by keypunch errors that occur wh en keying in hard-to-read metadata from

handwritten RCS lists. WMO st ation numbers also change with time, not only for individual stations. Sometimes a country w ill change all their WMO numbers at one time. Since most of the metadata flags we re keyed to WMO numbers, the final station list was merged with the current WMO Volume A station list to tag each station with the appropriate WMO number whenever possible.

The result was a list of 8653 unique stations, but the list is far from perfect. It is very likely that some errors in merging remain . An example is the assigning of a WMO number from a short-term synoptic reporting air port station to a nearby long-term climate station with a similar name. Also, normals stations were treated as if they started in 1961, which is often erroneous but was the best that could be done with the information available. Therefore, the list should be carefully inspected for accuracy by individuals from each country that has stations initially selected for the GSN.

79This quote from Peterson et al. (199 7) is a perfect example of the difficulties involved in dealing with data from different time periods and different nations, which results in many of the frustrations expressed throughout the HARRY_READ_ME file. These kinds of difficulties would not lead to the kind of larg e-scale bias errors with the potential to impact large-scale trends that were discu ssed in Subsection 1.3.2 of this document.

As stated before, the “Harry” quality contro l program gives the user several options of

how to treat the data. The thre e options are to merge the new and old data together in one station, to discard the new data, or to give the old data a “made-up” station number and use the existing WMO code for the new da ta. “Making up” a station number, and assigning it a code that is clea rly not a standard WMO code, is a straightforward attempt to properly treat imperfect data in the case wher e the user of the code concludes that this is a better solution than either merging th e data or throwing away the new data. Therefore, this is not a case of “fudged” or “made-up” data as claimed by the petitioners, but rather a legitimate attempt to address imperfect input data.

Comment (1-47) : The Pacific Legal Foundation claims that “t he e-mails suggest that the CRU Data may have been falsified,” stating that:

The scientists referred to "false codes" and running programs to "allow bad databases to pass unnoticed, and good data bases to become bad," see Appendix A, 15-16, leading to the possible inference that the CRU scientists ma y have falsified or manipulated the data.

The fact that the British Information Commiss ioner’s Office has found that CRU violated British law by failing to make disclosures under British freedom of information laws lends substantial credence to the proposition that CRU engaged in at least some wrongdoing in connection with the CRU Data. See Guy Chazan, U K Says University Broke Law on Turning Over Data, Wall St. J., Jan. 29, 2010, at A8. See also David Derbyshire, Scientists broke the law by hiding c limate change data: But legal loophole means they won’t be prosecuted, Daily Mail, Jan. 30, 2010.

Response (1-47) : The statement about “false codes” is addressed in Response 1-46 above which

demonstrates that this statement does not refer to falsification of data.

The issues involved with the British freedom of information laws are unrelated to the issues involved in the HARRY_READ_ME file . Freedom of information issues are addressed in Volume 3, Sec tion 3.4 of the RTP document.

Comment (1-48) : The Coalition for Responsible Regulation provides the following quote from the HARRY

READ ME.txt file

OH F[---] THIS. It’s Sunday evening, I’ve worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I’m hitting yet another problem that’s based on the hopeless state of our

databases. There is no uniform data integrity, it’s just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they’re found.

80The petitioner claims that this shows that “the CRU programm er admits the CRU data are without integrity.”

Response (1-48) : The programmer is upset because one dataset has a resolution of 2.5 degrees of latitude and longitude, but the programmer wanted to do an analysis comparing this dataset to

another dataset with a resolution of 0.5 degrees. Data integrity in this case refers to the

fact that the historical datase t used different procedures for calculating rain days before 1990 and from 1990 onwards, and therefore, “Harry” needs to add a conditional

statement to his code to address this differe nce. “No uniform data integrity” does not mean “without integrity,” it just means that di fferent data have been treated in different ways. This makes a programmer’s job more diff icult, but it is not a major flaw in the data. The petitioner clearly misconstrue s terminology commonly used by computer programmers. In addition, this dataset a nd analysis is unrelated to the HadCRUT temperature record. The petitioner provides no support for the assertion that “the CRU data” in general are wi thout integrity.

Comment (1-49) : The Coalition for Responsible Regulation provides the following quote:

But what are all those monthly files? DON’T KNOW, UNDOCUMENTED. Wherever I look, there are data files, no info a bout what they are other than their names. And that’s useless... take the above example, the file names in the _mon and _ann directories are identical, but the contents are not. And the only difference is that one directory is apparently `monthly’ and the other `ann ual’ - yet both contain monthly files.

Response (1-49) : In this quote, “Harry” is co mplaining about the way certain intermediate data products (monthly files) were stored. There is no evid ence that these intermediate data products were ever meant to be used again, but “Harry ” needed to go back to these because of a

coefficients file. This coefficients file wa s eventually reconstruc ted. Therefore, this quote is not evidence of flaws in the output of either the older product (TS2.1) or the newer product (TS3.0) produced by CRU. Neith er of these products is related to the dataset used for the HadCRUT temperature record.

Comment (1-50) : The Coalition for Responsible Regulation a nd Peabody Energy provide portions of the following quote:

Back to the gridding. I am seriously worried that our flagship gridded data product is produced by Delaunay triangulation - apparently linear as well. As far as I can see, this renders the [weather] station counts totally meaningless. It also means that we cannot say exactly how the gridded data is arrived at from a statistical perspective - since we’re using an off-the-shelf product that isn’t documented sufficiently to say that. . . . Was too much effort expended on homogenisation, that there wasn’t enough time to write a gridding procedure? Of course, it’s too late for me to fix it too. Meh.

81Response (1-50): This quote refers to a quality control problem with the CRU TS dataset that is identified and later resolved. Delaunay triangulation is an alternate method for determining global maps from an uneven distribution of stations. One method used to produce a global map is to create a set of square grid cells and average together the stat ions within each grid cell before averaging all the grid cells t ogether. The Delaunay method instead makes triangles of different sizes with stations at the vertices and weights the stations by the size of the triangles on which they are located. The use of an “off-the-shelf product” means

that CRU did not have access to the code that was used for the Delauney triangulation method, and there might be subtle differen ces depending on exactly how the method is implemented. Petitioners provide no evid ence that the “off-the-shelf product” is inaccurate or that Delaunay triangulation is an inappropriate method.

“Harry” does use a different product to dete rmine station counts, because the Delaunay triangulation method is inappropria te for that use. He also refers to a functional gridding program that he wrote: “Got the griddi ng working, I think. IDL of course”.

Comment (1-51) : The Coalition for Responsible Regula tion provides the following quote:

I am seriously close to giving up, again. The history of this is so complex that I can’t get far Enough into it before my head hurts and I have to stop. Each parameter has a tortuous history of manual and

semi-automated interventions that I simply cannot just go back to early versions and run the update prog.

Response (1-51) : This quote from the HARRY_READ_ME file expresses frustration that CRU TS2.1 was built by using both manual and automated procedures, making it more difficult to integrate new data. Good programming practice would have standardized the procedures. However, there is no evidence that this mix of manual and automated procedures produces incorrect results. Therefore, this quot e is not evidence of flaws in the output of either the older product (TS2.1) or the ne wer product (TS3.0) produced by CRU. It is only evidence of the frustration generated by implementing an arduous quality control

process.

Comment (1-52) : The Southeastern Legal Foundation claims that the “HARRY_READ_ME.txt” file reveals “an appalling series of manipulations of the data and the code, with no provisions for review, no QA/QC on the data or the code, no double-check on data integrity. As has been noted by several commentators, the HARRY_READ_ME.txt file really is the ‘smoking gun‘ of the AGW argument.”

Response (1-52) : As demonstrated by the responses in this section, these arguments by the petitioner are gross assertions without scien tific merit. Indeed, in cont rast to the assertion of the petitioner that this file included no QA/QC or double-check s on data integr ity, the entire

82HARRY_READ_ME file is a massive and comp rehensive QA/QC endeavor. There is no “appalling series of m anipulations.” Instea d, there is clear evidence of a researcher attempting to do the best job possible of bri nging together large disp arate databases into one product with as much integrity as possible.

With respect to the “smoking gun” claim, as noted before, nothing in the HARRY_READ_ME file deals with issues in the data set used for the HadCRUT temperature record. The TS produc ts that are the focus of this file are not related to the HadCRUT temperature record. Thus, we conclu de that there is no “smoking gun” here.

Comment (1-53) : The Pacific Legal Foundation re ferenced the HARRY_READ_ME file and stated that “A complete analysis of the progr amming routines within this file and their implications would reasonably require more than five days , which is the number of days between the time EPA received the supplement to the peti tion to reopen the public comments based upon the CRU data, and the time that the Endangerment Finding was finalized.”

Response (1-53) : The CRU data were made public on November 19 th , which was more than five days before the Endangerment Finding was finalize d. This was enough time for EPA’s initial review to determine that the e-mails and data were not likely to materially change the Endangerment Finding. EPA’s Response 11-2 of the RTC document addressed this

issue:

On December 2, 2009, another commenter ( 11537) submitted a supplement to an October 5th petition asking EPA to reopen the comment pe riod in light of what they alleged was

new information. This commenter claims th at the recent disclosure of hacked e-mail messages and documents from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of East Anglia University in the United Kingdom undermines the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) science and assessment process upon which the Technical Support Document (TSD) and the Findings primarily rely.

From our review, it appears that the scientific i ssues raised in the e-mails were also raised in public comments. In fact, we believe that the public comments submitted on our Proposed Findings are more comprehensive th an the discussions of the issues in the emails because many commenters expended consid erable effort to describe their point of view and concerns to us, and several also provided supporting lite rature and data. In preparing the Finding, EPA has addressed many of the issues raised in the hacked emails, among the hundreds of issues raised by commenters. Our responses are fully documented, transparent and available to the public. The science on which the

Administrator has based her determinations regarding the endangerment of both public health and welfare, and the process EPA has undertaken, have been fully open and
transparent.

Some groups have also used the hacked e-mails to attack the credibility of the IPCC process and its findings. We received many comments on the process used to develop, review and approve or accept IPCC reports; see our responses on these issues in Volume

1 of this Response to Comments document. Th e disclosure of the private co mmu n ications of a few individual scientists, among the hundreds of scientists that have participated in

83the development of the IPCC reports and the t housands that have developed the literature that was assessed, provides no evidence that contradicts the key conclusions and basic science underlying climate change. As IPCC Chairman Rajendra K. Pachauri recently

stated:

IPCC relies entirely on peer reviewed literature in carrying out its assessment and follows a process that renders it unlikely that any peer reviewed piece of literature, however contrary to the views of any individual author, would be left out. The entire report writing process of the IPCC is subjected to extensiv e and repeated review by experts as well as governments. Consequently, there is at every stage full opportunity for experts in the field to draw attention to any piece of literature and its basic findings that would ensure inclusion of a wide range of views. There is , therefore, no possibility of exclusion of any contrarian views, if they have been published in established journals or other publications which are peer reviewed.

We note that many of the concerns about the emails appear to be based on a misunderstanding of the importance of certain issues and how concerns raised about a specific issue or study relate to the fu ndamental conclusions reached through the assessment of hundreds of scientific studies; in other words a misunderstanding that results in an exaggeration of the importa nce of these issues. Our responses on these specific issues are provided in the relevant volumes of the Response to Comments document. As an example of overstateme nts regarding the events at CRU, many commenters and others have implied that the CRU dataset on global surface temperatures is “unique” or “the most important” or even “the basis for virtually all peer-reviewed literature.” These statements are incorrect. In fact, as we discuss in detail in Volume 2 of the Response to Comments document, the CRU data set is not unique (in fact, the other two data sets are developed by NASA and NOAA), and it there are multiple lines of evidence that support the conclusions reached in the assessment literature upon which we primarily rely.

Additionally, the HARRY_READ_ ME file is entirely concerned with the TS2.1 and TS3.0 products, which are not germane to the Endangerment Finding. The in-depth analysis of the e-mails a nd files provided in the D ecision and this RTP document

indicates that EPA was correct in its conclusions, reflected in the response above, that

there were no issues in the CRU e-mails or the HARRY_READ_ME file that would materially change the Endangerment Finding.

Comment (1-54) : The Pacific Legal Foundation claims that “The ‘HARRY READ ME’ file may suggest that the data selected, used, and analyzed by CRU not only had substantial gaps but was also potentially irreparably compromised. See Appendix A, 10-21.” Peabody Energy and other petitioners also provided a large number of quotes.

Response (1-54) : Appendix A of Pacific Legal Foundation’s pet ition contains a large number of excerpts from HARRY_READ_ME. Most of the substantive excerpts are addressed in this section of the RTP. The majority of the co mments included in the appendix provided by Pacific Legal Foundation are merely expres sions of frustration or notes on the programming process that do not indicat e “substantial gaps” or “irreparably

84compromi sed” data. In addition, as noted prev iously, this does not relate to the dataset used for the HadCRUT temperature record.

A number of quotes provided by the petiti oners are completely innocuous, such as a complaint about the number of files invol ved, a quote about naming two files with the same name, and a quote indicating “Harry’s” intention to start work on the final product. A large number of quotes bemoan inadequate documentation for the original code, but this is not an indication of “substantial ga ps” or “irreparably comp romised” data. One quote addresses a network crash: “The bigge st immediate problem was the loss of an hour’s edits to the program, when the networ k died,” which is cl early not a problem related to the data produced by CRU. In some cases, the petitioners even quote statements that indicate success, such as “So let’s say, anoma lies are done. Hurrah. Onwards, plenty more to do!”

A large number of quotes address trivial e rrors that were quic kly addressed. For example, one quote is the result of confusi on about what number indicates missing data: “Harry” had been assuming that “-9999” indi cated missing data, but the code for missing data was actually “-1999.” Running an an alysis using the wrong missing data code resulted in “Harry’s” comment “Oh Tim what have you done, man?” But this was followed almost immediately by his parenthetical realization about the difference in codes. Another quote, “It’s botch after botch after botch,” refers to a file that had different units than the programmer had been expecting. Once he corrected his code to account for the proper units, th is was not a problem.

One quote provided was “Oh, GOD, if I could star t this project again and actually argue the case for junking the inherited program suite.” But the very next line of the document (notably not highlighted by th e petitioners) is “OK.. the .ann file was simply that it refuses to overwrite any existing one. Meh.” Again, this quote reflects frustration because the programmer was unfam iliar with the code, but this is not a problem with the data. The solution to the problem of the progr am not overwriting files is merely to allow overwriting of existing files, and HARRY_R EAD_ME clearly indicates that “Harry” figured out and fixed the problem immediately.

A series of quotes result from the attempt by “Harry” to work on the precipitation database: e.g., “If the latest precipitation database file contained a fatal data error ... then surely it has been altered since Tim last used it to produce the precipitation grids?” In this case, the fatal data error was that one m onth of one year of da ta at one station had been corrupted and was providing a non-physical value. When that data point was removed, the program was able to read the da ta file. However, it appears that TS2.1 had used a different file without this corrupted da ta bit, and similarly, “Harry” appears to use

a different version of the file later. Theref ore, these quotes are about an inconsequential file (another exampl e of messy, poorly documented code, but no evidence of flaws in the TS2.1 or TS3.0 output).

A large number of quotes result from “Harry ’s” work on merging the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) data with the CRU da ta. Because the Australian BOM changed

85formatting and coding for a number of their stat ions, this was a challenging process. T he file indicates that “Harry” wo rked with the Australian BOM to resolve the majority of these issues. This is another example show ing that the CRU researchers were working on quality control to properly merge a set of challenging datasets and succeeding in resolving a number of tricky issues.

A number of quotes refer to an issue with Russian “rain day” data from one or two stations, where quality contro l procedures found indications that there are internal

inconsistencies between data before a “missing block” in the 1980s and data after that missing block. This particular error in the da ta for these one or two stations may never have been resolved (it is unclear from th e debugging file). For these stations, “Harry” stated, “although I can match WMO codes (or should be able to), I must check that the data correlate adequately,” indicating that he was doing the appropr iate quality control for dealing with data provided by outside orga nizations. A few imperfect stations in a large dataset do not indicate that the data is “irreparably compromised.” Imperfect data is accounted for in the uncertainty analyses in the data. As stated in New et al. (1999), “Isolated errors and subtle inhomogeneities not detected during quality control do not have a significant effect at the regional scale.”

In sum, petitioners have assembled a lengthy collection of quotes that do not support the broad conclusions they drawn.

Comment (1-55) : Peabody Energy provides the quote, “... this shou ld all have been re written from scratch a year ago !”

Response (1-55) : The programmer is complaining because some of the data is stored with longitudes from

0 to 360 rather than the more standard longitudes that run from -180 (W) to +180 (E). In the next line of the file, the programmer di scusses his solution to the formatting issue (“So, I wrote ‘revlons.for’”) which changes the da ta from one format to the other. Again, this does not indicate any flaws with the data or the products of this work, and the file indicates that the issue “Harry” encountered was solved, as were almost all the other problems identified in the HARRY _READ_ME file. In addition, this does not relate to the HadCRUT temperature data set used for a long-term temperature record.

Comment (1-56) : Peabody Energy provides the quote, “Am I the first person to attempt to get the CRU databases in working order?! !”

Response (1-56) : This quote appears to be referring to an in termediate database ( postdating the CRU TS2.1 product, as it includes more recent data th an what was included in TS2.1), which had been assembled without checking for duplicat e stations, and which apparently didn’t always have the same number of stations recording maximum daily temperatures and minimum daily temperatures. The program mer resolved both these problems by

86producing TS3.0. Therefore, this problem wa s not present in TS2.1 and was solved for TS3.0. In any case, these problems, if left uncorrected, would ha ve led to missing or duplicate data, but there is no ev idence that these problems woul d have led to any kind of

bias.

Comment (1-57) : Peabody Energy states that it “does not have the resources to try to untangle the coder notes and the TS2.1/3.0 data files to determine the magnitude of the errors in those files. Given the state of the record at this point , the TS2.1/3.0 dataset a nd the HadCRUT3 cannot legitimately be relied on nor can any study or modeling which utilized these data.”

Response (1-57) : HadCRUT3 and TS2.1 and 3.0 are two differe nt products. Peabody Energy and other

commenters have not demonstr ated that there are any pr oblems with these databases that materially affect any conclusions base d on the data. Imperfec tions with individual stations are to be expected when data is being collected from thousands of stations throughout dozens of nations, but the large-scale patterns ar e still robust (especially after quality control). While the code used to generate TS2.1 could have been better documented and organized, the petitioners have not shown that the output of this code was flawed or that the quality control improvements by the programmer “Harry” were

not successful. The scientific conclusions drawn from use of th ese datasets by the research community are consistent with conc lusions drawn from other similar datasets,

as well as other sources of data on clim atic changes over time. Therefore, the conclusion by Peabody Energy that these data sets cannot be relied on is not supported by our analysis of the underlying files.

Comment (1-58) : The Southeastern Legal Foundation claims th at “The entire HARRY_READ_ME.txt file

is so riddled with such damn ing admissions that th ere’s really little point in highlighting them all. The key conclusion is inescapabl e: no reasonable person can conclude that the models that CRU produced, and the datasets on which they were based, meet basic scientific standards for reliability, and ther efore the IPCC analyses and projections cannot be said to be reliable, and therefore EPA’s incorpor ation of IPCC’s findings and

conclusions must be reconsidered. Put differently, there is zero chance that CRU’s work

could survive a Daubert challenge 15 that was armed with the Climategate documents.

Since CRU’s work would be inadmissible in federal court as junk science, it should not be relied upon by the EPA as the foundation of the most far-reaching and consequential action in its history.”

Response (1-58) : While the petitioner has quoted from HARRY_READ_ME at length, none of the statements in this file are “damning.” This f ile has demonstrated that the first version of the code was poorly documented, and that the process of inte grating data from a large group of datasets provided by a number of diffe rent nations and sources is a challenging process. It also has demonstrated th at CRU put a high value on tracking down and resolving inconsistencies in the data and bei ng as complete as possible. The petitioners

87have not shown that the issues raised in th e internal quality cont rol process documented

in this README file would have resulted in any major change in the TS2.1 product, or that they were not addressed properly in creating the TS3.0 product. Therefore, the characterization of this product as “j unk science” has no f actual backing.

Moreover, the petitioner is making an unfounde d leap to conclude that any problems involved with the TS2.1 and 3.0 products are al so reflected in other CRU products. The TS product upgrade was unrelated to the Ha dCRUT temperature record. While the HadCRUT temperature record and the TS pr oducts include the GHCN temperature data set in common, there is no evidence that any of the issues discussed in the “Harry” file

were related to the GHCN data set. CRU does not produce any models, counter to the claim of the petitioner. A nd finally, IPCC analyses and pr ojections are based on a wide range of different sources and datasets that have produced consistent results, not just the CRU output. Therefore, the petitioner is maki ng an unjustified leap to assume that any problems in the TS2.1 and TS3.0 product, or even CRU products as a whole, would undermine the conclusions of the IPCC, CCSP, National Academies, and other organizations that have all found after extensive assessments that there are robust conclusions about a number of aspects of th e climate system. Th ese robust conclusions

are the ones that have formed the basis of EPA’s Findings, and nothing presented by the petitioner has materially underm ined these conclusions.

The reference to Daubert is unavailing. As described above, there is no basis to characterize this as "junk scie nce." In addition, Daubert di scusses the Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which establishes a threshold inquiry for introduc tion of scientific evidence at a trial, a formal adjudicatory pro ceeding. Even if that were applicable here, the criteria would be readily met:

If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to

understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue" an expert "may testify thereto." (Emphasis added.) The subject of an expert's testimony must be "scientific . . . knowledge." The adjective "scientific" implies a grounding in the methods and procedures of science. Similarly, the word "knowledge" connotes more than subjective belief or unsupported speculation. The term "applies to any body of known facts or to any body of ideas inferred from such facts or accep ted as truths on good grounds." Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1252 ( 1986). Of course, it would be unreasonable to conclude that the subject of scientific testimony must be "known" to a certainty; arguably, there are no certainties in science. S ee, e.g., Brief for Nicolaas Bloembergen et al. as Amici Curiae 9 ("Indeed, scientists do not assert that they know what is immutably 'true' -- they are committed to searching for new, temporary, theories to explain, as best they can, phenomena"); Brief for American A ssociation for the Advancement of Science et al. as Amici Curiae 7-8 ("Science is not an encyclopedic body of knowledge about the universe. Instead, it represents a process for proposing and refining theoretical explanations about the world that are subject to further testing and refinement" (emphasis in original)). But, in order to qualify as " scientific knowledge," an inference or assertion must be derived by the scientific method. Proposed testimony must be supported by appropriate validation -- i.e., "good grounds," based on what is known. In short, the requirement that an expert's testimony pertain to "scientific knowledge" establishes a standard of evidentiary reliability. 509 U.S. 579, 589-90..

881.3.3.4 Claims of Selective Use of Da ta From Russian Weather Stations

Comment (1-59) : Petitioners state that the “Moscow-based Inst itute of Economic Analys is (IEA) claims the UK Met Office’s Hadley Center for Climate Change tampered with Russian meteorological station data that did not support the anth ropogenic global warming theory.” The Southeastern Le gal Foundation further states

The Institute for Economic Analysis in Mosco w prepared a report showing that selective use of only 25% of the available Russian stations in the HadCRUT dataset imparted a warming bias of .64 C o greater than the tre nd calculated using all available data. D’Aleo & Watts (2010) at p. 16. This results from the disproportionate use of more southern and urban stations, and from interpolating or ‘infi lling’ data from these warmer stations to colder areas for which actually available data was eschewed. Id. at 16-17. Russia represents 11.5% of the Earth’s land mass, so this is a significant issue.

Petitioners claim that CRU selectively chose Russian data stations to create a biased dataset that would show more warming than th e full dataset. Petitioners provide a link to a translation (hosted at a blog) of the original report wri tten in Russian by the IEA in Moscow (Pivovarova, 2009).

Response (1-59) : EPA has carefully examined this document and finds that it does not support the petitioners’ claims. The Moscow IEA temper ature record derived from the full set of Russian stations agrees well with the record derived from the set of HadCRUT stations after 1955, and the difference between the reco rds derived from the two datasets is mainly in the 1850 to 1950 section of the r ecord, with the HadCRUT temperature record showing more warming over the pe riod, but a smaller peak in 1940. 47 The validity of the IEA analysis is suspect, however, due to fl aws in the methodology it used. IEA averaged together the 90 grid cells containing temperat ure data from HadCRUT and compared it to an average of the 152 cells containing temper ature data from the full Russian set. A proper comparison would involve using the sa me kind of geographic infilling used by HadCRUT in calculating temperatures acros s all of Russia on both the 90-cell and 152- cell datasets. Because HadCRUT extrapolates temperatures from cells with data to some cells without data, when computing a re gional or global average HadCRUT does not necessarily weight cells evenly; a cell with data that is adja cent to a cell without data will be used to help “fill” that cell in (along with other cells adjacent to the no-data cell), and therefore, this cell will be weighted more heavily than a cell that is surrounded by other cells that have their own data. The geogra phic weighting algorithm is more important when data is sparse, as it is in the deca des before 1955 where the IEA finds that their analysis of the full station set diverges from their analysis using the HadCRUT stations (and where the Brohan et al. 2006 figure in Subsection 1.3.2 shows that there is more

47 Figure 8 and Figure 9 in the orig inal document at http://www.iea.ru/ar ticle/kioto_order/15.12.2009.pdf or in the unofficial English translation at http://cli mateaudit.files.wordpress. com/2009/12/iea1.pdf.

89uncertainty in the temperature record ). Because of the simplistic and flawed methodological approach taken by IEA, its anal ysis is a faulty “apples and oranges” comparison of the two datasets.

We also note that there has been no evidence provided that the station selectivity was a result of choices made by CRU. Because CRU depends on a number of other data sources, such as WMO reports, World Weather Records, GHCN, and NMS, it is possible

that the HadCRUT dataset did not use all avai lable stations because the data sources it was relying on also did not include these a dditional Russian stations. CRU also uses

several metrics to ensure that data can be used, such as the quantity of data available during the baseline period. The petitioners did not assess whether these additional Russian stations were provided to CRU, or whet her these stations met the criteria laid out in published papers. Thus, there is no suppor t for the claim that CRU was biased in its

use of the Russian data.

Moreover, in contrast to the petitioners’ assertio n that the HadCRUT data show excessive warming over Russia, a discus sion of a preliminary analysis reported by the MET stated: “The ECMWF [European Centre for Medium-R ange Weather Forecasts] analysis shows that in data-sparse regions such as Russia, Africa and Canada, warming over land is more extreme than in regions sampled by HadCRU T” (UK Met Office, 2009). If the datasparse regions actually show a greater warming trend, this means that the approach for data infill taken by CRU in developing the HadCRUT temperature record may understate the recent warming over Russia, contrary to the assumption of petitioners.

In summary, petitioners’ evidence does not support the conclusion that HadCRUT selectively picked stations. Their analysis comparing the HadCRUT data and the full Russian dataset is flawed, and the differences that they show with the flawed analysis mainly appear before 1950. Other analys is by the ECMWF suggest s that HadCRUT may actually be underestimating recent warming in the region.

1.3.4 Claims of Flawed Approach to Co rrect for Urban Heat Island (UHI) Effects

Comment (1-60) : Petitioners take significant issue with UHI co rrections in the light of a dispute about the possible relocation of certain Ch inese weather stations that were used in a study by Jones et al. (1990). Petitioners argue that this study was ch allenged as fraudulent by Doug Keenan, an “amateur climate analyst” (as desc ribed by the State of Texas). The State of

Texas asserts:

“The history of where the weather stations were sited was central to the 1990 paper because it concluded that the warmer temper atures in China were caused by climate change rather than the heat-island effect of growing cities” and that “[t]he Fourth Assessment relied on the Jones-Wang study to support the conclusion that ‘any urbanrelated trend’ in global temperatures was ‘a n order of magnitude smaller’ than other

trends.”

90The State of Texas further alleges that “A lthough the university found ‘evidence of the alleged fabrication of results,’ it exonerated Wang.” The Stat e of Texas finally notes that “Ironically, Phil Jones s ubmitted a report to the Journal of Geophysical Research reexamining temperatures in eastern China. His report concluded that not only was the urban heat effect not ‘neglig ible’ it could account for 40% of the warming shown in the study.”

Response (1-60) : Petitioners raise the treatment of UHI e ffects in the HadCRUT dataset as another example of alleged data manipulation. EPA has long been aware of the UHI issue and it

is not new. There is substantial research underway to better determine the scope and magnitude of UHI effects and to improve me thodologies for minimizing these effects in surface temperature records. We addressed UHI issues in responses 2-28 through 2-30 of the RTC document. Response 2-30, in particul ar, addresses the Jone s et al. (1990) paper to which the petitioners refer, in the contex t of UHI corrections in the global dataset:

“Though the assessment literature continues to c ite Jones et al. (1990), we dispute that it is solely ‘relied upon.’ Many subsequent studies (Peterson et al., 1999; Peterson, 2003; Parker, 2004; Peterson and Owen, 2005; Parker , 2006) have found supporting results (as discussed in response 2-28). In IPCC (Trenberth et al., 2007), Jones et al. (1990) is referenced as just one of a number studies which support the Trenberth et al. (2007)conclusion that ‘urban heat island effects are real but local, and have not biased the largescale trends’ which is summarized in the TSD.”

As noted in Response 2-30, Jone s et al. (1990) is reference d, but it is not the only study that the IPCC AR4 referenced with respect to UHI adjustments. We also note that satellite records are not susceptible to UHI and globally show similar trends to the

HadCRUT and other records of land-based measurements over their overlapping time period.

There is no merit in the peti tioners’ claim that in a late r paper Jones et al. (2008) published in the Journal of Geophysical Research , Jones found different results than in his previous study. This paper actually conc luded that “accounting for site moves has no impact on the results given by Jones et al . (1990),” which is not supportive of the petitioners’ claim regarding th e results of the study. Jone s et al. (2008) did find that changes in UHI effects contribut ed to measured temperature trends in China over the full time period up to 2004, but this was because of da ta not available for the original study. They also found that UHIs did not contribute to measured temperature trends in other

urban areas such as London and Vienna. So the claim that UHI effects bias the temperature record upward in all urban areas is not supported.

We also note that this issue has been reviewed by other organizations. The University of East Anglia has also issued a statement on th is controversy (Univers ity of East Anglia, 2010b), stating that the accuracy of the data was confirmed in a later paper and that the findings of the 1990 paper with regard to UHI effects were confirmed by other papers used by the IPCC. In addition, contrary to th e assertion by the State of Texas that “the university found ‘evidence of the alleged fabric ation of results,’” th e statement from the

91University of Albany (as quoted in the news article used by the State of Texas as a reference—Pearce, 2010—and the linked copy of the confidential letter from the university) was “it found ‘no ev idence of the alleged fabr ication of results’ and exonerated him.” Therefore, the State of Texas is m isquoting its source and asserting the exact opposite.

In sum, contrary to the petitioners’ claims, as discussed in the TSD and the RTC for the Finding, UHI effects are not inappropriately treated or masked but instead are appropriately accounted for using widely accepted and transparent methods. The petitioners’ evidence and argum ents do not show that the original Jones paper was mistaken or fraudulent, nor have they addr essed the many papers on UHI effects in the subsequent two decades. We reviewed and responded to these same issues in Volume 2 of the RTC document, and based on the availabl e literature, we found that the UHI effect was small on a global scale

1.3.5 Alleged Dependence of IPCC Conclusions on the HadCRUT temperature record

Comment (1-61) : Petitioners ascribe great significance to the alleged issues with the HadCRUT temperature record, claiming that it is the primary or core support for IPCC conclusions on current warming, attribution, and projections of future warming. For example, the Coalition for Responsible Regulation asserts:

...the CRU data form the primary basis for EPA’s determination that ‘unprecedented’ warming has occurred in recent decades.

Similarly, Southeastern Le gal Foundation states:

The CRU dataset constitutes one of the most important sets of information on which all analyses of anthropogenic global warming (“ AGW”) are based. In addition, the model used by CRU formed the basis for IPCC’s models of future global warming.

Response (1-61) : EPA finds no merit in the view that the HadCRUT temperature record is the primary or core support on which our understanding of climat e change rests. As we have previously discussed in the TSD and RTC document, th e IPCC and USGCRP have concluded that warming of the climate system in recent decad es is “unequivocal.” This conclusion is not drawn from any one source of data, but is based on a review of multiple sources of data and information, including the HadCRUT temp erature record as well as additional temperature records from other sources and numerous other independent indicators of global warming. All of the different elements of this body of scientific evidence have their strengths and weaknesses, and these are discussed and explained in the TSD and the

RTC. However it is this en tire body of evidence considered together that is the primary and core support for EPA’s conclusions on warming. The overall consistency of the evidence of warming across multiple types of evidence is central to this conclusion.

Petitioners have failed to c onsider or rebut this body of evidence, and instead have

92focused on arguments aimed at one source of surface tem perature record. As shown above, their arguments and evidence concer ning the HadCRUT temperature record are misplaced and do not warrant any change in th e weight placed on this one part of a much broader body of evidence.

This consistency across vari ous kinds of evidence of warming also supports the

robustness of the evidence at issue here. As documented in Section 4(b) of the TSD, NOAA (from NCDC) and NASA temperature reco rds (from GISS) show nearly identical warming trends to the HadCRUT temperat ure record, despite different analysis methodologies. As discussed below, satellite data and other methods of determining atmospheric temperature trends are also cons istent with the Had CRUT and other surface temperature records, and the sources of atmos pheric data are independent of the datasets relied upon for surface temp erature records.

Contrary to the Coalition for Responsible Regulation’s assertion, EPA does not refer to the warming observed in recent decades as being “unprecedented.” We do note the following facts, which are consistent across the NOAA, NASA, and HadCRUT temperature records in the TSD’s Box 4.1:

 Eight of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 2001.

 The 10 warmest years [on record] have all occurred in the past 12 years.

 The 20 warmest years [on record] have all occurred since 1981.

Significantly, entirely independent records of lower tropospheric temperature measured by both weather balloons (also known as radiosondes) and satellites (from the University of Alabama and Remote Sensing Systems) in recent decades demonstrate strong agreement with the HadCRUT surface temperature record as well as NOAA’s and NASA’s. Additional independently monitored indicators of global warming discussed in

the TSD include:

 Increasing global ocean heat cont ent (Section 4(f) of the TSD)

 Rising global sea levels (S ection 4(f) of the TSD)

 Shrinking glaciers worldwide (S ection 4(i) of the TSD)

 Changes in biological systems, including pol eward and elevationa l range shifts of flora and fauna; the earlier onset of sp ring events, migrati on, and lengthening of the growing season; and changes in abundan ce of certain species (Section 4(i) of the TSD)

Reaffirming this evidence, NOAA’s State of the Climate in 2009 report (Kennedy et al., 2010) states:

The IPCC conclusion (Alley et al. 2007) th at “warming of the climate system is unequivocal” does not rest solely upon LSAT [land surface air temperature] records. These constitute only one line of evidence among many, for example: uptake of heat by the oceans, melting of land ice such as glaci ers, the associated rise in sea level, and increased atmospheric surface humidity (Figure 2.5) [as shown below]. If the land surface records were systematically flawed and the globe had not really warmed, then it

93would be almost impossible to explain the c oncurrent changes in this wide range of indicators produced by many independent groups. The observed changes in a broad range of indicators provide a self-cons istent story of a warming world.

The figure below (Figure 2.5 from Kennedy et al ., 2010) illustrates a range of indicators that would be expected to correlate strongl y with the surface temperature record. Note that stratospheric cooling is an e xpected consequence of GHG increases.

In this figure, the indicators that we would expect to trend upward with surface temperatures (e.g. sea surface temperature, specific humidity) do so, and those that one

94would expect to trend downward (e.g., stratosphe ric ozone, sea-ice extent) also behave as the science predicts. It is this large body of evidence that supports the conclusion that there is an unambiguous warming trend over th e last 100 years, with an increase in the rate of warming over the past 30 years.

The investig ation into the CRU e-mails and the validity of the HadCRUT surface temperature record conducted by the British Parliament’s House of Commons Science and Technology Committee reached a conclusi on that is consistent with our own assessment of these issues (UK Parliament, 2009):

We have established to the extent that a lim ited inquiry of this nature can, that the

NCDC/NOAA and GISS/NASA datasets measuri ng temperature changes on land and at sea have arrived at similar conclusions using si milar data to that used by CRU, but using independently devised methodologies. We have further identified that there are two other datasets (University of Alabama and Remote Sensing Systems), using satellite observations that use entirely different data than that used by CRU. These also confirm the findings of the CRU work. We therefore conclude that there is independent verification, through the use of other meth odologies and other sources of data, of the results and conclusions of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia . [emphasis in the original]

Thus, EPA finds that the Coalition for Responsible Regulation’s claim that the HadCRUT temperature record serves as the basis for all anthropogenic warming studies is unsubstantiated and unsupportable. Numerous studies cited in th e assessment literature have been published that rely on data and methods independent of the HadCRUT temperature record, many pertaining to the i ndicators above. Though it is true that many studies do, in fact, cite CRU data, there is no reason to question the legitimacy of those

studies. Petitioners have not provided a basis for changi ng the weight placed on the HadCRUT temperature record, as described above. In addition, the CRU results are consistent with other surface temperature r ecords and atmospheric temperature records,

as well as with all of the othe r physical evidence of warming. Even if there were a basis to place less weight on this one surface temper ature record, it would be grossly overbroad

to conclude that all studies that even reference this dataset would be suspect.

The claim by Southeastern Legal Foundation an d others that the HadCRUT temperature

record is the foundation for com puter modeling of the climate and that all climate models are thus suspect is also without merit. The models used to generate projections of future warming described in the IPCC AR4 do not use the CRU or other surface temperature data as an input. These pr ojections of future temperat ures arise from the use of Atmospheric-Oceanic General Circulation M odels (AOGCM). These models are driven by physical equations describing the radiative properties and dynamics of the atmosphere and oceans and parameterizations of small-s cale processes. They do not use observed

CRU or other sources of te mperature data as inputs.

The projections of future warming come fr om the largest coordinated global, coupledclimate model experiment ever attempted, providing the most comprehensive multimodel perspective of any IPCC climate assessm ent. A set of coordinated, standard

95experiments was performe d by 14 AOGCM modeling groups from 10 countries using 23 models. The HadCRUT and other temperature records may be compared with AOGCM output to assess how well the models replicate the observed climate, but temperature data are not input to these models. There is no “model” used by CRU that was used as a basis for the AOGCM models, and the AOGCM models do not rely on or use CRU analysis of historical temperature data.

1.3.6 Summary

The observed warming of the climate is an important factor considered in the Endangerment Finding. The Finding notes that this warming is observed in surface and ocean temperatures, atmospheric temperatures, melting of snow and ice, rising sea levels, and other physical indicators of warmi ng. The Finding states, “The global surface temperature record relies on three major global temperature datasets, developed by NOAA, NASA, and the United Kingdom’s Ha dley Center. All three show an unambiguous warming trend over the last 100 ye ars, with the greatest warming occurring over the past 30 years.” The evidence and arguments relied on by petitioners do not show otherwise and do not support their br oad assertions and conclusions.

Petitioners have not presented any additional or different analysis of the underlying surface temperature data. They have pointed to computer work that involves work on a non-public document with no relationship to the Endangerment Finding, or CRU datasets other than the HadCRUT temperature record. The CRU datasets at issue had a tangential at best relationship to the TSD supporti ng the Endangerment Finding. The computer quality control on this unrelated dataset a ppears to be just that— comprehensive and successful quality control—and does not provi de support for allega tions that changes

made were intended to or did bias the resul ting dataset. Petitione rs’ objections to the analysis of temperature data from Russi a or China stations appear unfounded and speculative and not supported by the body of evidence.

Certain reviews of CRU and its scientific work have been completed, and there continues to be additional independent investigation. EPA supports and appreciates that these reviews and investigations are being conducted and takes the re sults into consideration as they are released. The reviews that have b een completed to date are consistent with

EPA’s conclusions described above.

EPA and the assessment reports have consider ed the degree of certainty in the various

lines of evidence on the existence of warm ing, including the HadCRUT (Brohan et al., 2006); NOAA (2009); and NASA (Han sen et al., 2010, submitted) temperature records; the satellite temperature record s; and the observed changes in the global oceans, glaciers,

and sea levels. Petitioners’ evidence fails to show that these sources of information are

not credible and reliable. EPA continues to believe that this body of evidence indicates an unambiguous warming trend, when viewed as a whole, and that petitioners have not presented evidence that would indicate ot herwise. EPA remains confident in the appropriateness of its overall scientific conclusion of a warming trend over the last 100 years, with the greatest warming occurring over the past 30 years. This is based on

96the multiple sources of consistent inform ation indicating such warming, information including the three separate surface temperat ure datasets, as well as a wide variety of other data and information independent of th e three surface temperature datasets. This broad body of evidence is stronger than any one single source of data. Neither the evidence presented by petitioners and reviewed by EPA, nor the existence of an ongoing review of the CRU and its work, warrants a change in the scientific conclusion drawn by EPA concerning the existence of global warming.

1.4 Validity of NOAA and NASA Temperature Records

1.4.1 Overview

A number of petitioners (e.g., Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Southeastern Legal Foundation, Peabody Energy, the State of Texas, Pacific Legal Foundation, Commonwealth of Virginia, Coalition for Responsible Regulation) question the validity of NOAA and NASA surface temperat ure records. As discussed in detail below, they raise a number of claims, including sta tion “drop-out,” flawed or manipulative adjustments to data, improper use of smoothi ng in data presentations, and a lack of independence between the three major surface temperature records. To support their arguments, the petitioners reference a number of studies—two peer-reviewed and several non-peer-reviewed—and in one case provi de a quote from the CRU e-mails.

Many of the issues raised by the petitioners were also raised in comments and responded to in the Endangerment Finding. Several of th e petitioners’ arguments have already been convincingly rebutted in the pee r-reviewed literature or by th e organizations in question. In these cases, petitioners have failed to acknowledge these rebuttals and have not provided any additional explana tion for why their concerns remain valid. In addition, many of the sources on which petitioners re ly are not peer-reviewed and use highly flawed methodologies. In some cases, petiti oners have provided additional arguments or new information, which we have reviewed and evaluated. Upon review, petitioners’ evidence and arguments do not s upport the conclusions they draw, and do not materially change the credibility or reliability of the NOAA and NASA global te mperature record or

the conclusions drawn from them.

The remainder of this section includes b ackground on the scien tific issues being discussed, a description of the petitio ners’ arguments, and EPA’s responses.

1.4.2 Background on the Collection an d Analysis of Surface Temperature

Data

There are two steps to creating a global surface temperature reco rd. The first is to collect the raw weather data, and the second is to process the data into a useable form. As

described in Subsection 1.3.2 of this docum ent, the CRU team, over several decades, acquired and merged data from a number of different sources and then applied corrections and geographical smoothing algori thms as appropriate to generate the HadCRUT temperature record. Petitioners’ claims regarding the HadCRUT temperature

97record are responded to in Sec tion 1.3 of this document. Here, we discuss petitioners’

claims related to the NASA and NOAA surface tem perature records, including claims that alleged problems with the HadCRUT temperature record also undermine the reliability and credibility of the work by NASA and NOAA. A list of temperature records and underlying datasets are also provi ded in Subsection 1.3.2 of this document.

One of the sources of data for the HadCRUT temperature record is the GHCN, which was developed and is maintained by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). The GCHN dataset is also used by both NOA A and NASA in their surface temperature records. NOAA, NASA, and CRU each have th eir own algorithms to calculate global surface temperature trends from a combinati on of GHCN data and other data sources, with each group applying its own set of adjustments and corrections. Subsection 1.3.2 of this volume describes the process used to develop the HadCRUT te mperature record and algorithms; this section will describes the GHCN and the approaches used by NOAA and NASA to develop their temperature records.

The original version of GHCN is described in Vose et al. (1 992). Version 2 is described in Peterson and Vose (1997). In this paper, Peterson and Vose describe how they collected data from 31 sources by “1) contacting data centers, 2) exploiting personal contacts, 3) tapping related proj ects, 4) conducting literature searches, and 5) distributing miscellaneous requests” because of the lack of a central repository of temperature and

climate data. The raw GHCN dataset underwen t quality control, which included merging data that was provided by different sources for the same weather station. In many cases, however, multiple duplicates of the same sta tion are included in the record where the original data was not identical, so as to let users determine the best approach to merging these sources. The next quality control st ep involved rejecting da tasets that did not include original observations, were derive d from unreliable s ources, or showed significant processing errors. Another step co rrected mis-located stations, data that was repeated month to month, or unexplained discontinuities. A final stage examined outlying data—in cases where the data failed add itional tests, they were kept in a separate

file in case later researchers wanted to reincorporate them. Only three of the 31 sources used provide regular updates of additional monthly data.

NOAA (NCDC) (NOAA, 2009) a nd NASA (Goddard Institute of Space Studies or GISS, or sometimes GISTEMP) (Hansen et al., 2010, submitted) both use GHCN and other data (including sea surface temperat ure data) to calculate surface temperature trends around the globe. Each group performs different ad justments to the data in building their temperature records, and in some cases us es different subsets of the GHCN data or includes other outside datasets. As stated by Hansen et al. (2010, submitted):

These analyses are not independent, as they must use much of the same input observations. However, the multiple anal yses provide useful checks because they employ different ways of handling data probl ems such as incomplete spatial and temporal coverage and non-climatic influences on measurement station environment.

For example, the NASA algorithms include an adjustment to urban temperature stations based on satellite maps of nighttime lights and uses the fact that temperature anomalies

98measured at a specific spot ar e correlated with anomalies up to 1200 kilome ters away to extrapolate measurements over large areas where the observations are sparse (giving greater coverage in certain areas such as the Arctic). The adjustments that NOAA and NASA make to the unadjusted GHCN dataset ar e almost all automated, in contrast to some of the adjustment procedures used in the HadCRUT temperature record. In the case of NASA, there were two stations (St. Hele na Island and Lihue, Hawaii) where manual adjustments were made because of detected errors and the lack of neighboring stations that could be used by the automated algorithms . In both cases, the raw data shows more warming than the adjusted data.

The U.S. Historical Climate Network (USHCN) temperature record developed by NOAA and used by both NOAA and NASA uses a sl ightly different methodology than the adjustments used by NOAA for the global GHCN da taset. The most important difference is that NOAA corrects for several systematic changes in the U.S. monitoring system that

could lead to artificial bias es, the most important of whic h are shifts from afternoon to morning temperature data collection at many st ations, and shifts from “liquid in glass” (LiG) measurement instruments to maximum/minimum temperature systems (MMTS) (described in Menne et al. 2009). USHCN2 uses a sophisticated automated methodology

to detect and correct for disconti nuities in the temperature data at specific stations such as

these shifts in measurement time or instru mentation, and this methodology also corrects for station moves (whether documented or not).

GHCN data are available online, both in the unadjusted (raw) format and in an adjusted

format that includes the automated correcti ons by NOAA (NOAA, 2010c). Similarly, the NASA-adjusted data is all available online along with the GHCN data used to derive the adjusted dataset (NASA, 2010a).

1.4.3 The Petitioners ’ Arguments and EPA Responses

1.4.3.1 Assessment of Issues Related to Alleged Station Dropout and Inappropriate Extrapolation

Comment (1-62) : Petitioners raise a number of issues regardi ng the alleged “drop-out” of stations after 1990 from surface temperature records, and th e extrapolation of data from “warmer” areas to “colder” areas due to this drop-out or for other reasons, which the petitioners claim leads to bias in the global surface temp erature record. The Competitive Enterprise Institute cites a non-peer-revi ewed report by D’Aleo and Watts (2010), which states:

“Around 1990, NOAA began weeding out more than three-quarters of the climate measuring stations around the world. They may have been working under the auspices of the World Meteorological Organiza tion (WMO). It can be shown that they systematically and purposefully, country by country, removed higher-latitude, higher-altitude and rural locations, all of which had a te ndency to be cooler.”

Petitioners argue that station dropout (fro m 6,000 in the 1970s to about 1,500 currently) “likely contributed to false warming trends over the entire globe”—in part because the

99dropped stations “are generally in colder clim ates” or because “remaining stations were

biased towards lower la titudes, lowe r elevations, and urban locations.”

Petitioners also cite the specific example of Bolivia, where they claim that GHCN has no data collection but shows interpolated warm ing there that “is purely an artifact of interpolation from distant warmer and lower alti tude stations.” The petitioners claim that station dropout is also a problem in the Un ited States, stating, “The USHCN has dropped

90% of its climate stations. Most of the remain ing stations are at air ports, and in the west most of the higher elevation stations are gone. In California, the onl y remaining stations are in San Francisco, Santa Maria, Los Angeles and San Diego.” Finally, the Southeastern Legal Foundation states, “Infil ling from warmer temperature stations to colder grid cells for which no actual data is collected also imparts a spurious warming signal.”

Response (1-62) : Many of the petitioners’ arguments rest on a non-peer-reviewed document by D’Aleo and Watts (2010). D’Aleo and Watts’ (2010) study contains a number of inaccurate statements, and relies on a scientifically flawed analysis.

Peterson and Vose (1997) describe the pro cedures for updating the GHCN database, and explain—in a clear and transparent manner— the reasons why there are fewer measuring stations covering the post-1992 period than there were for the 1980s. Namely, Peterson and Vose explain that only three out of 31 sources submit regular monthly updates, and

that the remainder of the data would onl y be updated on “a highly irregular basis”:

Thirty-one different sources contributed temperature data to GHCN. Many of these were acquired through second-hand contacts and some were digitized by special projects that have now ended. Therefore, not all GHCN stations will be able to be updated on a regular basis. Of the 31 sources, we are able to perform regular monthly updates with only three of them (Fig. 5). These are 1) the U.S. HCN, 1221 high quality, long-term, mostly rural stations in the United States; 2) a 371-station subset of the U.S. First Order station network (mostly airport stations in the United States and U.S. territories such as

the Marshall and Caroline Islands in the west ern Pacific); and 3) 1502 Monthly Climatic Data for the World stations (subset of those stations around the world that report CLIMAT monthly code over the Global Teleco mmunications System and/ or mail reports to NCDC). Other stations will be update d or added to GHCN when additional data become available, but this will be on a highly irregular basis.

Therefore, the reduction in stations with data after the 1990s is due to the fact that NOAA has not completed a major data collection e ffort since Peterson and Vose (1997). We note, however, that such an effort is ind eed currently ongoing and will result in a new dataset—GHCN Version 3—likely in late 2010. In contrast to this public explanation of the GHCN process, D’Aleo and Watts provide no evidence that there was a systematic and purposeful “weeding out” process, and do not address the reasoning and process described in the public, peer reviewed documentation of the GHCN data set.

The petitioners, by relying on the flawed methodology used in the D’Aleo and Watts study, have assumed that dropping stations that are at higher latit udes and in colder

100climates would result in a bi ased, warmer temper ature trend. This is an unfounded assumption that is based on a misunderst anding of the basic methodology used in analyzing surface temperature data. The surface temperature datasets evaluate the change in temperature over time at the various stati ons (the temperature “anomaly”), and do not base their evaluation on the absolute temperat ure level, as discussed in Subsection 1.3.2. This use of temperature changes or anomalies minimizes localized differences in absolute temperature and makes the resulting temperatur e record relatively insensitive to addition

or removal of stations. This is because of the correlation of temperature changes over

distances.

In fact, theory predicts that high latitudes and colder climates will warm more rapidly

than low latitudes and warmer climates. Thus, the change in temperature at higher latitude or colder climates should tend to indicate greater warming than elsewhere, and dropping those stations would t hus tend to lead to underestimating the resulting trend not overestimating it (although as long as there are at least a couple of st ations in any region, the correlation of temperature measurements over hundreds of kilometers should also reduce this potential bias). We previously responded to comments on this issue in Volume 2 of the RTC document (2-36). The petitioners incorrectly assume and do not explain why dropping these statio ns would bias the trend in the change in temperature toward greater warmth.

An analysis (Clear Climate Code, 2010) used an emulation of the NASA GISTEMP code to only output the data from those stations that kept reporting data after a given year, or only output data from stations that stopped reporting data after that year. A graph from this analysis is shown here, where the blue line is a graph of global land temperatures (no ocean data) from stations that “dropped out” before 1992, and the red line is the same analysis but only from

stations that were sti ll reporting past that date. As can be seen in the graph, the difference between the two groups of stations is very small in modern ti mes. Differences are larg pre-1945 because there are a smaller number of stations, especially in the southern hemisphere, so taking a subset of a small numb er of stations increas es the potential fo errors due to insufficient coverage of the la nd surface (the increased uncertainty in early

20 th century temperatures can be seen in th e Brohan, 2006 figure reproduced in Section

1.3.2 of this d er

r

ocument).

This graph shows that the station drop-out issue which many peti tioners raise has not imparted any kind of “spurious warming signa l.” This analysis and graph were produced as part of the C lear Climate Code project, an independent project which

101involved the replication the NASA GISTEMP c ode in Python. We have independently verified this analysis. M uch like the Inde pendent Climate Change Email Review creation of a surface temperature record from public data in two days, the ability of the group working on this project to exactly reprodu ce the NASA temperature record and then apply the same code to new analysis demonstr ates the overall availa bility, transparency, and utility of public code and data which enable any scientist to examine the issues involved in developing te mperature records.

It also appears that D’Aleo and Watts failed to account for the methodologies used by NOAA, NASA, and HadCRUT to create a reco rd of the trend in changes in global temperature, called anomalies. These methods determine the change in temperature at various stations and then average the temperature changes; they do not average the absolute temperatures of the stations. Thus , dropping colder stations does not make the resulting record of the change in temperatur e warmer unless the change in temperature at colder stations is lower than the change in temperature at warmer st ations. As discussed previously, this does not appear to be the case, and scientific literature in general indicates that the opposite is tr ue (the change in temperatur e in colder, hi gher latitude regions is generally larger that at warmer, lower latitude regions).

In contrast, the D’Aleo and Watts analyses use a scientifically improper methodology to evaluate the change in temperature over time . They determine simple averages of the absolute temperatures at the stations—wit hout, apparently, taking into account their geographic distribution, much le ss calculating the change in temperature at the stations (the anomalies). As discussed in th e science background in Subsection 1.3.2 on HadCRUT, two nearby stations can have very different absolute temperatures but very similar anomalies or changes in temperature, which is one reason why using changes in temperature is a more correct method than us ing absolute temperatur es. In addition, not taking into account the geogra phic distribution of stations leads to overweighting those regions with many temperature records, such as the United States, rather than weighting each area of the globe equally in order to determine the gl obal average temperature. These are both significant e rrors that undermine the peti tioners’ critique of the temperature records.

With respect to Bolivia, the NASA temperature record does not appear to have any data for Bolivia after 1990. The reason is likely b ecause stations in Bolivia have not been reporting through the CLIMAT network. However, there is no merit to the argument that extrapolating temperature changes or anom alies from bordering countries will create a warming bias in Bolivia because those countri es are warmer than Bolivia. As already explained, the issue is not the absolute temper ature, but rather temp erature trends that have been shown to be correlated over large distances. The petitioners provide no data to support that neighboring countries are warming faster than Bolivia, rather than being

warmer in an absolute sense.

There is no factual basis for the petitioners’ claim that the USHCN has dropped 90% of

its stations. As demonstrated in the followi ng Figure (Number of U.S. HCN stations with

102temperature records) from Menne et al. (2009), the station cove rage in the past few years is only slightly lowe r than the peak coverage:

Similarly, the claim that only four stations ar e reporting from California conflicts with the NOAA temperature record for California (NOAA, 2010), which shows more than 40

stations in California with data in 2009.

Finally, we also note that th e station dropout comes during th e period when satellite data are available. As noted in the TSD, “The satellite tropospheric te mperature record is broadly consistent with surface temperature tr ends,” confirming that the reduction in the raw data reported from weather stations ha s not created a warming bias in the surface temperature dataset.

Comment (1-63) : The Southeastern Legal Foundation, in their Th ird Amendment to Petition, discussed the issue of “station drop-out” at length:

“Station drop-out” refers here to the precip itous decline in the number of temperature

records included in the GHCN dataset. In the 1 970’s more than 6000 stations were active. Today the figure is 1500 or less. D’Aleo & Watts, p. 10, n. 94 The following graph, prepared by Ross McKitrick 5 shows the relationship betw een station drop-out and average temperature, where “Average T” is a mean of raw unprocessed temperature data,

and No. of Stations.

103D’Aleo & Watts, p. 11. See http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/nvst.html (last visited Feb. 10, 2010) for a full explanation of this chart, and access to data it represents. This chart shows that the station drop out coincides with a sharp and significant increase in average raw temperature, and thus suggests that the change in temperature is the result of sampling bias and not climate change.

The stations that were dropped were dispropor tionately rural. D’Aleo & Watts, p. 11-12. Further, the remaining stations were biased towards lower latitudes, lower elevations, and

urban locations. Id., citing E.M. Smith 6

, http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11 /03/ghcnthe-global-analysis/ (last visited Feb. 10, 2010). All of these tendencies aw ay from random sampling impart a warm bias to the r ecord. D’Aleo & Watts show that station drop out has occurred all over the world, but the greatest station drop-out has occurred in Siberia and Canada, where these global temperature datasets purport to show the greatest warming has occurred.

Response (1-63) : In the previous response, EPA addressed pe titioners’ allegations that weather station dropouts have led to a warming bias in the temperature record. As described above, 1) petitioners rely on a non-peer-reviewed s ource that contains a number of inaccurate statements and relies on a scientifically flawed analysis; 2) petitioners demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of how to dete rmine a warming or cooling trend from a temperature record and what issues actually would lead to either a warming or cooling bias in that record; and 3) petitioners fail to acknowledge that climatic records other than land surface temperature records also show cl ear warming trends consistent with the trend shown by the surface temperature data.

The graph submitted by the petitioner shows the absolute temperature averaged across all the stations existing at any given point in time, which has no real physical meaning— proper analysis averages the changes of stati on temperatures across a set of stations. Additionally, the analysis should take into account station location when making global

104average rather than weighting every station e qually. Equal we ighting tends to introduce a bias by overweighting regions with many stations.

Comment (1-64) : The Competitive Enterprise Institute states that D’Aleo and Watts found that “NASA modified 20% of the historical record 16 times in two and one-half years ending in 2007” and that every modification “res ulted in temperature trends that appeared to increase faster than they did in reality.”

Response (1-64) : EPA’s review of the information provided indicates that the Competitive Enterprise Institute’ statement that “every instance of manipulation resulted in temperature trends that appeared to increase faster than they di d in reality” is not supported by D’Aleo and Watts (2010) or by Goetz (2010), the source on which D’Aleo and Watts rely. On the contrary, D’Aleo and Watts ( 2010) state: “John Goetz showed that 20% of the historical

record was modified 16 times in the 21⁄2 years ending in 2007. 1998 and 1934 ping pong regularly between first and second warmest year as the fiddling with old data continues.” The Web page with the Goetz analysis stat es, “I will note that the overall trend in changes between now and Sep. 24, 2005 is very close to zero” (Goetz, 2010). This contrasts with the assertion by the Competitive Enterprise Institute that these changes to the temperature record always resulted in a warmer trend. The peti tioners evidence does not support their claim of manipulation with th e intent to bias th e temperature record inappropriately.

Comment (1-65) : The Competitive Enterprise Institute also cites D’Aleo and Watts:

In late January 2010, the findings of D’Aleo, Watts, and Smith were confirmed by investigative journalists. They found, for example, that in the 1980s 600 Canadian monitoring stations were used in the NOAA da taset. Now only 35 are used, with only one above the Arctic Circle. Yet, Environment Canada reports that the government maintains

1400 stations with over 100 above the Arctic Circle.

Response (1-65) : According to Environment Canada, there ar e 1480 stations with climate normals in Canada. Of these stations, only a subset (about 140) are marked as reporting data through the CLIMAT system (WMO, 2010). As noted in the Section 1.4.2 of this document, Peterson and Vose (1997) finished their data collection effort in the mid 1990s. As part of this collection effort, they integrated historical data from hundreds of Canadian stations. The main source of updated data since this collection effort has been the automated CLIMAT reports. Therefore, the weather stations that do not produce CLIMAT reports would not be expected to be included in GHCN records for the past decade—this includes the majority of the Canadian stations. The NOAA GHCN dataset

does contain data from 49 stations in Cana da. Because many of the Canadian stations that report CLIMAT data only started doing so recently, they do not have the minimum quantity of data during the baseline period (1961 to 1990) to be included in the GHCN dataset. Given that Jones (1994) found that only 100 well-placed stations

105around the world would be sufficient to de termine hemi spheric average trends, 49

stations within Canada shoul d be more than sufficient for determining large-scale

trends.

1.4.3.2 Issues Raised With Respect to Adjustments for the UHI Effect

Comment (1-66) : Petitioners assert that the UHI adjustme nts performed by NASA are insufficient or improperly applied, both globally and in the USHCN. The State of Texas claims, “But according to the TSD, the CRU’s temperature data ‘applies an urbanization adjustment,’” and therefore “the CRU temperatures cite d by both the IPCC and EPA do not reflect temperatures that were actually captured by weather station thermometers, but rather temperatures that have been recalculated by the CRU for one purpor ted scientific reason or another.” The Southeastern Legal Founda tion objects that Version 2 of the USHCN record does not correct for UHI, that “The notion that there is zero urban heat island effect in Manhattan is not valid,” and th at NASA UHI adjustments have the wrong sign based on an analysis by D’Aleo and Watts (2010 ) of the Puerto Maldon station in Peru. The Southeastern Legal Foundation points to an analysis of UHI adjustments by the Science & Public Policy Institute (Long, 2010). The petitioner quotes from the study, “Thus, the adjustments to the data have increased the rural rate of in crease by a factor of 5 and slightly decreased the urban rate, from that of the raw data,” and states that therefore, “The consequence, intended or not , is to report a false rate of temperature increase for the Contiguous U.S.” Add itionally, the Southeastern Legal Foundation claims that a project—surfacestation.org—has sh own that 90% of stations in the United States “were sited in ways that result in errors exceeding 1°C.”

Response (1-66) : The Long (2010) study cited by petitioners averag ed together 48 rural stations (one per state) in the continental United States and co mpared them with 48 urban stations (one per state). Based on this method, Long found that the net effect of NOAA adjustments to the raw data had little effect on temperature tr ends for urban stations but led to more warming in rural stations. However, neither the petitioners nor L ong analyze the reasons for the adjustments to rural stations or pres ent any reason or argume nt indicating that the adjustments were inappropriate. Their sole ar gument is that the result of the adjustment must mean the adjustment was wrong. Howe ver it is the reason behind the adjustment that determines its validity, not the result of the adjustment. In the United States, the time of day at which temperature observations were made was changed at some stations. This change of observation time is known to intr oduce a nonclimatic trend into the raw data that would create apparent cooling if unco rrected (Vose et al. 2003). These time of observation changes were mostly limited to rura l stations in the Unite d States. Therefore, the warming adjustments found in rural statio ns by Long are likely the result of the

correction of this “tim e of observation bias.” 48

48 Time of observation bias refers to the fact that if temperatures were recorded at noon for one year, but at 8 a.m. for another year, there needs to be an adjustment to make them consistent.

106With regard to the objection that some te mperature records do not correct for the UHI effect, we responded to a very similar co mment when finalizing the Endangerment Findings. Response 2-28, notes, “The differe nt surface temperature datasets shown or cited in the TSD all account for urbanization, ei ther directly and/or indirectly.” The

claim that NASA makes corrections of th e wrong sign, using Puerto Maldon as an example, does not take into account the hom ogenization routine that NASA employs that uses neighboring stations to correct station data . Under that routine, stations identified as urban are automatically shifte d to come into agreement w ith the neighboring stations. These automated homogenization routines us e the fact that temperature changes over time (i.e., anomalies) are correlated over di stances to correct for things like weather station moves and other changes of the imme diate environment of a weather station. These changes, as explained in NASA’s documentation, can be either positive or negative.

The argument by the State of Texas that th ese temperature records “do not reflect temperatures that were actually captured by weather station thermometers” is without scientific merit as the adjustments are appropr iate and necessary either because of station moves, changes in time of observation, urbaniza tion, or other reasons. If changes such as switching from afternoon measurements to mo rning measurements were not corrected, then the temperature record would not accurate ly reflect the surface te mperature reality.

We also note that overall, these adjustme nts have had little effect on the global temperature trends. This can be seen in the two GHCN figures included below, one based on adjusted data and one based on the unadjusted, raw data. Adjustments are more important on a local basis. Also, within the United States itself, adjustments have more importance because of the need to correct for systematic changes in the time of

observations and measurement instruments th at were more widespread in the United

States than elsewhere.

107GHCN Figure showing temperature record using adjusted data.

GHCN Figure showing temperature record using raw data.

With regard to the surfacesta tion.org analysis, this was addr essed in depth in response 2- 27 of the RTC document for the Endangerment Findings. EPA found that “NOAA has provided extensive information to the public in response to the concerns raised by the commenters, available at http://www.nc dc.noaa.gov/oa/about/response-v2.pdf (NOAA Climate Services, 2009).” NOAA stated in this document, “A peer-reviewed study specifically quantified the potential bias in trends caused by poor station exposure (Peterson, 2006). The analysis examined only a small subset of stat ions – all that had their exposure checked at that time – and f ound no bias in long-term trends.” Since the publication of the RTC document, another an alysis by Menne et al. (2010) has also

concluded that well-sited stati ons give a trend similar to the full set of stations, therefore

108providing further evidence that poorly sited stations have not undermined the final temperature record. The surfacestatio n.org anal ysis estimated station errors by visual inspection, not by measuring actual temperatures . In addition, the station error visual rating method results in estimated errors for absolute temperatures, not for changes in temperature. Therefore, methodologies using changes in temperatur e that average across a large number of stations could be expected to have much sma ller errors than the error in absolute temperature at any individual stati on. This projection of small errors for largescale trends was confirmed by the analyses by Peterson (2006) and Me nne et al. (2010).

Comment (1-67) : The Southeastern Legal Foundation, in their Third Amendment to Petition, objects to the changes in the USHCN temperature record between

Version 1 and Version 2. To support this argument, they present several graphs. The first is a temperature graph from D’Aleo and Watts (2010)

attributed to James Hansen in

2010.

The petitioner states that the

20 th -century record was “misrepresented” in order to “exaggerate a 20th century warming trend and claim it was caused by AGW [anthropogenic global warming].” They object to the replacement of the UHI adjustment used in Version 1 of the US HCN with the “change point algorithm” used in Version 2 because the petitioners claim th at while this algorithm can detect abrupt changes it “cannot account for long term cha nges to the temperature record, such as UHI, making such signals indistinguishable from th e climate change signal that is sought.”

The petitioner provides another chart

from D’Aleo and W atts (2010) showing

the difference between USHCN Version 1 and Version 2 (Figure USHCN V2- V1).

The petitioner objects: “The warming of

the 1930’s has been minim ized by negative adjustments, and the recent warming has been exaggerated by positive adjustments (or by failure to properly adjust for urban heat islands), thereby imparting to the 20 th century a warming trend that the raw data and

109rural stations do not show.”

A third chart that the petitioner provides re lated to this issue is one showing the adjustments to the temperature record in Cent ral Park in New York City, stating: “The

notion that there is zero heat island effect in Manhattan is not valid.”

The petitioners note that GISS us es a different procedure:

The GISS temperature dataset maintained by NASA retains an urban heat island adjustment for the US, and for this reas on diverges from USHCN. Between 1950-2008,

the trend difference between GISS and USHC N is approximately 0.7 F°/century. See id. at 42-43. The asserted warming trend over the 20 th century is 0.74 ± 0.18°C (TSD p. 27). However, for the rest of the world, the GISS UHI adjustments have the wrong sign. Id. At

47-50. As summarized by D’Aleo & Watts, there is compelling evidence that the 20th century surface temperature record has been improperly adjusted downward during the warming of the 1930’s, and improperly adjusted upward (or not adju sted for UHI) in the

late 20 th century warming. These improper adjustments and failures to adjust impart a spurious warming signal to the 20 th century temperature record and render it scientifically invalid and unreliable for use in the EPA’s Endangerment Finding.

Response (1-67) : The changes between USHCN Version 1 a nd Version 2 are well documented. This documentation shows that the changes between the two versions in the past 50 years are not related to any changes in how the USHC N versions address the UHI effect (although the UHI adjustment change is important pre- 1960). In their analys is, the petitioners do

not account for the valid corrections to the data for dates after 1995 due to a lack of correction for known instrumentation changes. Furthermore, the petitioners make assertions about NASA adjustments that are not supported by the underlying document they cite, and that show a misunderstandi ng of the purpose of the NASA algorithms.

110Figure 11 in Menne et al. (2009) shows an anal ysis of the differences between the various

USHCN versions.

The changes between the two versions after 1995 are a result of th e fact that USHCN Version 1 had not updated its da ta to correct for changes in measurement instrumentation

at some weather stations after that date.

An analysis of gradual trends (like those e xpected from the UHI effect) by Menne et al. (2009) found that in some cases the fully adju sted HCN Version 2 did remove trends at the station when compared with its neighbori ng stations (including a specific example of Reno, Nevada). Additionally, when comp aring the HCN network with the larger Cooperative Observer Program (COOP) Networ k, the analysis found th at trends in the HCN network were more likely to be cooler than warmer than the trends in the COOP network. Finally, Menne et al . calculated a trend from the 30% of stations that were identified as being most urbanized and found that the trend from these urbanized stations was actually slightly smaller than the trend fr om the remaining stations. These analyses suggest that the USHCN Version 2 met hodology is appropriately accounting for UHI

trends.

With regards to the assertion that ou tside of the United States the NASA UHI adjustments “have the wrong sign,” the pe titioners ignore the clearly documented methodology regarding the NASA adjustments, and they make unsupported extrapolations of the non-peer-reviewed literature that they are quoting.

A discussion of the data sources and routines used by NASA to produce the GISS temperature record can be accessed on th e NASA website (NASA 2010b). As stated on this site, the urban homogenization adjust ments are designed to address a changing

urban environment—whethe r “warming or cooling”:

111The goal of the homogenization effort is to a void any impact (warming or cooling) of the changing environment that some stations expe rienced by changing the long term trend of any non-rural station to match the long term tr end of their rural neighbors, while retaining the short term monthly and annual variations. If no such neighbors exist or the overlap of

the rural combination and the non-rural record is less than 20 years, the station is completely dropped; if the rural records are shorter, part of the non-rural record is dropped.

What this documentation states is that NASA’s methodology replaces the long-term trend of any “urban” station (as identified by ni ghtlights) with the tr end of the neighboring rural stations, regardless of whether these rura l stations are warming fa ster or slower than the urban station. If there are no neighboring rural stations, the urban station’s trend is not used at all. Therefore, th e existence of some stations that are adjusted to have a larger warming trend is consistent with the documentation.

The implication by the petitioners that all of the NASA adjustments outside the United States lead to greater warming than the una djusted data would s how is without support: the literature on which petitioners rely s hows only one example of a station that was adjusted to show greater warming in order to agree with neighboring rural stations, along with a hypothetical example wh ere the methodology could poten tially result in a warming adjustment to an urban station that would be problematic if the rural stations all had artificial warming.

Several analyses have been replicated for di fferent subsets of the data: stations ranked highly by surfacestations.org compared with stations ranked poorly (Menne et al., 2010), stations that drop out early co mpared with stations that ar e still reporting (Clear Climate Code, 2010), rural stations comp ared with urban stations (M enne et al., 2010), and so forth. Every one of these analyses that we are aware of that uses appropriate methodologies (e.g., anomaly and spatial inte rpolation techniques and, in the United States, corrections for time of observation bias changes) has resulted in similar trends over the century for the United States and fo r the globe with only small differences from analysis to analysis.

With regards to the differences between th e United States temperature record in the NOAA and NASA analyses, the petitioners’ co mments are not new: see Response 2-28 in the RTC. Note that the discrepancy be tween NASA and NOAA discussed in Response

2-28 is much smaller now that NASA ha s updated to using USHCN Version 2. NASA previously used Version 1 without the UHI adjustment, and now uses Version 2 as an input. As noted above, Version 2 includes important corrections for stations that changed measurement instruments after 1995. The upda ted trends for U.S. data in the two datasets are 1.28°F/century for NOAA and 1.12°F/century for NASA from 1901 to 2008. For 1950 to 2008, the trends are 1.50 and 1.39 °F/ century for the two temperature records respectively. The smaller trend in the NASA temperature record is due to the nightlight

based urban correction routines.

We find that while NASA uses a nightlights map and an adjustment methodology for the United States that produces a smaller trend, it is not clear that this is to be preferred over

112the NOAA approach. It might produce m ore r ealistic temperature estimates for some stations, but might over-correct for urban effects for other stations. Also, the NOAA algorithm has the advantage of using the larg er COOP database for its closest neighbor

calculations. In the case of Central Park specifically, NASA’s nightlight adjustment

routine does result in a smaller trend than NOAA uses in its USHCN temperature record. Recall, however, that it is not the heat island effect in Manhattan that is in question, but rather the change in the heat island effect over time that is important. NASA uses more

distant HCN stations to determine such tr ends and the appropriate correction, whereas NOAA uses a larger number of nearby C OOP stations to determine appropriate “changepoint” corrections. (The HadCRUT temperature record does not include the Central Park station, as it does not use the USHCN dataset.)

In sum, the petitioners have not shown ina ppropriately manipulated data in terms of either the U.S. or global temperature record s. The findings of a warming temperature trend in the United States and the globe over both the past 50 years and the past century remains robust, as shown by different methodol ogies used by different groups, as well as analyses that use only subsets of the data (s uch as only those stati ons that are not near brightly lit areas as defined by nighttime satellite measurements).

Comment (1-68) : The Southeastern Legal Foundation, in their Th ird Amendment to Petition, discusses the surfacestations.org project and the related cri tiques of the USHCN network and the U.S. temperature record:

Anthony Watts’ project, surfacestations.org, has surveyed 1067 of 1221 (87.4%) surface

stations in the USHCN network. Stations ar e evaluated for the quality of their location according to criteria developed by the Climate Reference Network (“CRN”) Site Information Handbook, which specif ies the requirements for es tablishing and maintaining a

weather instrument site. Id. at 32. 8 Deviations from the siting standards introduce a range of error in the measurements according to a scale set forth in the handbook. The error scale runs from less than 1° C for stations classified as CRN class 1 or 2, up to greater

than 5° C for stations rated CRN class 5. Id. 28-33. For the sta tions surveyed the SurfaceStations.org volunteers determined that 90% were sited in ways that result in errors exceeding 1° C according to the handbo ok’s error scale. In the following chart, these stations are categorized by where they fall in the CRN handbook’s error scale:

113Since the asserted warming trend over the 20 th century is 0.74 ± 0.18°C (TSD p. 27), the petitioner claims that the error swamps the signa l. On this basis, th e petitioner asserts that the data are invalid and unreliable and cannot be relied on for the Endangerment Finding.

Response (1-68) : The petitioner cites a study that has determin ed that a large number of stations do not match the best criteria as developed for th e Climate Reference Network. However, the petitioner does not show that the identified siting issues cont ribute to a systematic bias.

The error scale used covers bot h positive and negative error. Errors that vary randomly

from one station to another would not be expected to bias large-scale temperature records. In addition, these errors refer to e rrors in absolute temperatures, not in changes in temperature. In contrast, researchers at NOAA have performed analyses that show the

difference between trends calculated from sta tions that have been identified as “wellsited” compared to trends calculated from st ations that have been identified as “poorly sited.” A key figure from Menne et al. ( 2010) (Figure 7, provided below) compares various U.S. temperature records derived by using all the stations, only stations using “good” siting, only stations using “poor” si ting, and only stations using the new US Climate Reference Network (USCRN). USCR N was developed over the past few years with the goal of having stations designed for the purpose of long-term climate monitoring, in contrast to the current network of stations primarily designed for weather monitoring. These USCRN stations are all desi gned for the purpose of long-term climate monitoring. Note that all four sets of stations give almost identical trends (for USCRN, only over the recent years that it has been operational).

114The assumption by the petitioner than an error of 1 degree or more at individual stations “swamps the signal” is also incorrect based on basic statistics. Because there are a large

number of measurements at a large number of stations, the statistical error is much smaller than the error for a single measurement at a single station.

See also Response 1-67 in this document rega rding the surfacestati ons.org project.

Therefore, the conclusion of the Watts su rfacestation.org project th at, using one method of rating stations, only a small subset of the U.S. temperature stations are well sited does not demonstrate that the overall temperature r ecord is biased or unreliable. In fact, analysis using only the subset of stations determined as “good” by Watts, as well as analysis using the new Climate Reference Netw ork stations, found very similar trends to the analysis using all the stations, demons trating that the conclusions about U.S. temperature trends are robust.

Comment (1-69) : The Southeastern Legal Foundation in their Fifth Amendment to Petition and in their Petition to Stay refer to a study by Edward Long (2010) stating:

115On February 25, 2010, Edward R. Long, Ph.D. 10 published a paper through the Science and Public Policy Institute analyzing the effect of adjustments to the temperature record

for the continental United States that are made in the NCDC temperature record for rural

and urban stations. 11 For the rural stations in the study, the raw data showed a linear trend of 0.13o C per century, while for urban st ations the raw data showed a trend of 0.79o C per century. Id. at p. 8-9. The long te rm trends were very similar until about 1965,

when the trend in the urban raw data increases f aster than in the rural data. Id. at 9-10.

NCDC’s adjusted data for rural stations s how a trend of 0.64 o C per century, compared to 0.13 o C per century for the raw data. In other words, the NCDC adjustment increased the rural trend by nearly five times. Id. at 11. The adjusted data for urban stations show a trend of 0.77o C per century, compared to a raw urban trend of 0.79o C per century. Id. “Thus, the adjustments to the data have increased the rural rate of increase by a factor of 5 and slightly decreased the urban rate, from that of the raw data.” Id. This has the effect of hiding urban heating, and permitting the warming present in the adjusted data to be attributed not to urban warming, but to c limactic warming. As Long concludes, “The consequence, intended or not, is to report a false rate of temperature increase for the Contiguous U.S.” Id. at 13. The EPA should not base economically devastating regulations, or any regulations, on false reports, and should reconsider the Endangerment Finding to make sure that it has not done so here.

Response (1-69) : The Long study does not demonstrate inapprop riate adjustment for rural temperature stations, because this study did not take into account the appropriate “time of observation bias” adjustments or adjustments for changes in measurement instru ments. Because of these flaws in the Long analysis, the conclusi ons by Long are without scientific merit. As demonstrated in previous responses, U.S. trends calculated usi ng only “good” stations or only Climate Reference Network stations show very similar trends to the trends calculated using the full set of data. S ee also Response 1-66 on the Long study and other

UHI issues in this section.

1.4.3.3 Issues Raised in Additional L iterature Provided by Petitioners

Comment (1-70) : The Coalition for Responsible Regulation cite d two papers that they state show that replication of temperature records is difficu lt, and that therefore, EPA’s Endangerment Finding does not meet the requirements of the Data Quality Act. Regarding these two papers, the coalition states, “One study, noti ng that the raw temper ature records in the USHCN are adjusted substantially to account for a variety of potential contaminants, concluded the effects of such adjustments ‘produce a significantly more positive, and likely spurious trend in the USHCN data’” (Balling and Idso, 2002). The other study concluded “that the inability to replicate th e [Northern Hemisphere surface thermometer temperature] trend was likely a result of ‘dat a padding’ used to smooth and filter data” (Soon et al., 2004).

Response (1-70) : EPA has reviewed the petitioners’ submission of Balling and Idso ( 2002) and Soon et al. (2004) and finds that it was not impracticab le to raise the obj ection during the public

116comment period and that the reasons for th e objection did not ar ise between June 24, 2009, and February 16, 2010. Petitioners could have submitted these studies during the comment period on the proposed Endangerm ent Finding. Although, in most cases, the petitioners provide excerpts from the CRU e- mails in support of th eir assertions, EPA’s review has determined that this evidence does not support their alle gations, and that the information submitted by petitioners on these topics was available before the comment period for the Endangerment Finding. Petiti oners have not shown why it would have been impractical for them to have submitted these studies then. Indeed, similar points were already raised, and responded to, in the RT C. Despite the fact that these objections fail to meet the statutory timeframe for ev idence supporting a petiti on for reconsideration, we briefly explain why, contrary to petitione rs’ allegation, they fail to call into question the Finding.

Balling and Idso (2002) draws conc lusions based on an analysis that is no longer valid, as it relies on the University of Alabama–Hunt sville (UAH) satellite temperature dataset before corrections identified by Ka rl et al. (2006) in CCSP Pr oduct 1.1 were applied to

the satellite record. These co rrections have been accepted by all the researchers involved, including those at UAH, and increased the te mperature trend in the satellite dataset, eliminating many of the discrepancies with th e surface temperature dataset. Additionally,

even before these corrections were identified, Vose et al. (2003) found with respect to Balling and Idso (2002) that “the time of observation bias adjustments in HCN appear to be robust,” contrary to the a ssertions of Balling and Idso that these adjustments were

biased.

As background, Soon et al. critiqued the appl ication of the smoothing algorithm used by Mann and Jones (2003) at the very end of the time period that was analyzed. The algorithm is a 20-year average, and a decision must be made about what temperature to use for the last 10 years. For example, one could choose to reflect the end of the temperature record (making the years after th e end of the record a mirror image of the years before the end of the record), or assume that all years after the last year of the record are equal in temperature to the last year, or assume that the subsequent years continue the trend of the previous years in th e record. Soon et al. fe lt that application of this “data padding” (though they were not ab le to exactly duplicate Mann and Jones) led to unjustifiably high temperatur es at the end of the smoothed temperature record.

A subsequent peer-reviewed rebuttal of S oon et al.’s critique was published by Mann (2004). Mann (2004) states that “Comparis ons that are uninformed (e.g., Soon et al., 2004) by objective evaluation criteria (e.g., MSE [Mean Square Error]), are unlikely to provide useful insights into the relative merits of alte rnative boundary constraints.”

Mann’s contention is that there needs to be an objective way to evaluate which smoothing

routine to use. While he does not claim th at MSE is necessarily the best function, he notes that Soon et al. do not use any objective cr iteria at all. His analysis also suggests that his approach will choose methods that reflect the underlying trends in the data, whereas smoothing that does not use the MSE cr iteria can generate spurious trends.

1171.4.3.4 Petitioners’ Allegations Regarding Data Adjustments at Specific Stations

Comment (1-71) : Petitioners identify several instances of alle gedly flawed data adjustments at specific weather stations, citing the records of some individual stations that they claim show inappropriate manipulation. The Coalition for Responsible Regulation references a nonpeer-reviewed analysis by Eschenbach (2009) as a basis for claiming: “For example, adjustments made by the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) in Darwin, Australia, transformed a temperature trend falling at 0.7°C per century to one that was warming 1.2°C per century.”

The Southeastern Legal Foundation, the State of Texas, and the Coalition for Responsible Regulation makes similar claims regarding stations in New Zealand, stating, “Similar ‘adjustments’ are also evident in one striki ng comparison of raw temperature data with homogenized temperature data ‘adjusted’ by the New Zeala nd national weat her service, the National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research (NIWA),” claiming that the

“New Zealand Climate Science Coalition concluded that all of the ‘adjustments’ made by Salinger and the NIWA served to show inaccu rate increases in warming” (referencing a non-peer-reviewed analysis by Treadgold, 2009).

Response (1-71) : The specific assertions made about the Darw in and New Zealand stations rely upon two non-peer-reviewed analyses that found that temperature adjust ments at various stations caused temperatures to be higher than they otherwise would have been. In the case of New Zealand, the petitioners do not show that the adjustments performed by these organizations were inappropriate, just that the adjustments resulted in a larger warming trend. As we have explained previously, there are several legitimate reasons to adjust temperature records, from time of observat ion changes to moving the location of the

thermometer.

NIWA has published details of its temper ature analysis online (New Zealand NIWA, 2010). Their site includes links both to a se t of 11 stations with no required adjustments

since 1930 and the set of seven stations analyzed by Treadgold. Both sets of stations show warming over the period between 1930 and pr esent. In the latter set, NIWA links to a complete description of the station history of Hokitika, the station with the largest change in trend due to adjustments. NIWA shows that the composite, adjusted Hokitika record is similar to that of two nearby st ations from the unadjusted set during those periods when the stations were all recording da ta. We also note that the raw data (for all 18 New Zealand stations linked to by NI WA) provided to NOAA for the GHCN dataset does not include the homogeneity adjustments fr om the NIWA researchers. The adjusted NOAA temperature record does show a warm ing trend for these stations, however. While the NOAA GHCN adjustments diffe red in some ways from the NIWA adjustments, the largest adjustment made to the Hokitika station by both NOAA and NIWA occurred before 1912, consistent with th is statement from NIWA: “It is noted in the Hokitika station history file (see Appendix 2) that th e maximum temperatures were believed to be about 3°F too high through the period 1894 to August 1912.” Given that

118NOAA uses automated procedures to correct for station move s based on data from neighboring stations, this is strong independent confirmation that the manual adjustments made by NIWA were appropr iate (and vice versa).

Of the other 2 major temperature records, HadCRUT uses most of the same manual adjustments as NIWA. The automated al gorithm used by NASA, on the other hand, is designed to correct for changes in trends at urban stations rather than sharp discontinuities, and therefore does not capture the errors that are corrected by both the NOAA algorithm and the HadCRUT/NI WA manual adjustments.

While NIWA has only addressed in depth one of the seven stations analyzed by Treadgold, based on comparisons to nearby st ations, New Zealand researchers have shown that the adjustments to the other sta tions were appropriat e (New Zealand NIWA, 2010). Additionally, Folland and Salinger (1995) found that the nearby sea surface temperatures also showed similar warming since the beginning of the century, adding further independent confirmation that the adjusted trend used by NIWA, NOAA, and HadCRUT is a good reflection of reality. Th erefore the evidence indicates that NOAA and NIWA both made similar, independent, and appropriate adjustments. Note that this example is also further confirmation of the independence of the adjustment methodologies of the NOAA, NASA, and HadC RUT temperature records addressed in

1.4.3.5.

Regarding the Darwin station, these adjust ments only appear in one of the three temperature records—the adjusted GHCN record from NOAA (HadCRUT uses raw GHCN data, and NASA uses raw data star ting in the 1960s). There is a clear discontinuity at Darwin in 1941 at the time of a major station move when the temperature record apparently dropped by more than half a degree, and it would be expected that adjustments would be required under such circum stances to ensure th at the station trend best represents the real temp erature trend at that location. However, according to a letter by Tom Peterson of NOAA (reproduced in fu ll in Response 1-73 below), the Darwin station might be an example of a “ran dom walk” where a rare combination of circumstances means the automated algorit hm can introduce an erroneous trend. However, a possible error at one station (which only occurs in one out of three datasets) will not materially affect large scale trends. Statistical analysis has showed that:

[t]he difference in trends between homoge neity-adjusted and unadj usted data can be enormous at an individual station and very significant in regional analyses. However, Easterling and Peterson (1995a,b) found that on very large spatial scales (half a continent to global), positive and negative homogeneity adjustments in an individual station’s maximum and minimum temperature time series largely balance out, so when averaged into a single time series, the adjusted and una djusted trends were similar (Peterson et al. 1998).

Thus, it is not surprising that data from one station or regi on would show a large difference between adjusted and unadjusted data . The important point is that when the stations and regions are combined for a gl obal analysis, these kinds of effects are

balanced out and do not introduce bias in the overall result.

119Therefore, we find that the pe titioners have not shown evid ence that the adjustments in New Zealand were inappropriate, or shown that the adju stments at Darwin biased larger scale temperature reconstructions. We also note that the three temp erature records used different methods to determine the appropriate adjustments: in the case of New Zealand, NOAA and HadCRUT used independent methods (one manual and one automatic) and found similar adjustments needed to be made , whereas in the case of Darwin NASA and

HadCRUT both used the raw data with no adjustments (though different time periods of useable data).

Comment (1-72) : The Coalition for Responsible Regulation pr ovides a number of references (Exhibits K through V) to support their statement that “There are numerous and recently-released studies documenting significant warming biases in the temperature databases that, in light of the Disclosures [i.e. the CRU emails], rev eal the fruit of this manipulated process.”

Exhibits K through V are Balling and Idso, 2002 ; Christy et al., 2006; Christy and Norris, 2009; D’Aleo, 2009; D’Aleo, 2010; Davey and Pielke, 2005; Dave y et al., 2006; Hale et al., 2006; Pielke et al., 2007a; Pielke et al ., 2007b; Soon et al., 2004; and Watts, 2009.

Response (1-72) : EPA has reviewed the petitioners’ submission of these 12 studies and finds that for many of these submissions it was not impracticable to raise the object ion during the public comment period or that the reasons for the objection did not aris e between June 24, 2009, and February 16, 2010. Petitioners could have submitted most of these studies during the comment period on the proposed Endangerment Finding. Although, in most cases, the petitioners provide excerpts from the CRU e- mails in support of th eir assertions, EPA’s review has determined that this evidence does not support their alle gations, and that the information submitted by petitioners on these topics was available before the comment period for the Endangerment Finding. Petiti oners have not shown why it would have been impractical for them to have submitted these studies then. Indeed, similar points were already raised, and responded to, in the RT C. Despite the fact that these objections fail to meet the statutory timeframe for ev idence supporting a petiti on for reconsideration, we briefly explain why, contrary to petitione rs’ allegation, they fail to call into question the Finding.

Most of the 12 references provided to s upport the statement by the petitioners that “document significant warming biases” are not new. Three referen ces (Christy et al., 2006, 2009; Pielke Sr. et al., 2007a ) were explicitly addressed in the Volume 2 of the RTC document (Responses 2-28 and 2-29), wh ich found that these effects would be negligible on hemispheric and continental scal e averages. Below is EPA’s response from

RTC Volume 2:

EPA has reviewed additional literature s ubmitted by commenters on this issue (e.g., Christy et al., 2006, 2009; Lin et al., 2007; Pielke Sr. et al., 2007, Ren et al., 2007; Walters et al., 2007), which documents effects that may result in biases at individual stations. CCSP (2006) also addresses this issue, and finds: “To the effect that these effects could be

120large enough to have a measurable influence on global temperature, these changes will be detected by the land-based surface network [whi ch corrects for these effects].” The large

number of stations in land-based surface networks greatly facilitates temporal homogenization, since a given station may have several “near-neighbors” for “buddy checks” where adjustments and/or change poi nt algorithms can be employed per the previous response 2-28 (CCSP, 2006). In a comp rehensive reassessment of errors in the HadCRUT temperature record, Brohan et al. (2006) conclude: “Since the mid-20th century the uncertainties in global and hemispheric mean temperatures are small and the temperature increase greatly exceeds its uncertainty.”

Through our review of the data sets and th e literature, EPA concurs with IPCC (Trenberth et al., 2007) and CCSP’s overall assessment that the effects of urbanization and land use changes on the land-based temperature record are negligible as far as hemispheric- and continental-scale averages are concerned b ecause the very real but local effects are

avoided or accounted for in the datasets used.

Three more references (Davey and Pielke, 2005; Hale et al., 2006; and Pielke et al., 2007b) were not raised during public comment, but we find that they are variations on the

same issues of effects at indi vidual stations that may resu lt in bias at the individual stations and responded to with respect to the Christy and Pielke studies discussed in the RTC document (as quoted above). Thus, these references do not lead to any changes in EPA’s conclusions on the robustness of gl obal and continental- scale averages.

Davey et al. (2006) is a study of the use of a different metric (equivalent temperature) that takes into account how the heat capacity of air depends on humi dity and explores the implications of weighting temperature meas urements by this heat capacity. However, while this is an interesting academic exercise, the current standard metric is the average surface temperature, and this study does not de monstrate any biases in the measurement of this standard metric. The equivalent temperature trends found in Davey et al. (2006) are actually larger (averaged over the y ear) than the comparable, standard surface temperature trends for the region examined.

Two more references (Soon, 2004; Balling, 2002) have been superseded in the literature or depend on obsolete data, as discussed in Response 1-70.

The only new material (D’Aleo, 2009, 2010; Watts 2009) addressed the U.S. surface temperature record and are very similar to D’Aleo and Watts (2010) and share the same,

fundamental flaws that were discussed in many responses in Section 1.4 (such as Response 1-62).

Therefore none of the 12 exhibits submitted by the petitioner support the contention that there are “significant warming biases” in the U.S. or global surface temperature records,

and most of them do not meet the statutor y timeframe for evidence supporting a petition

for reconsideration.

121Comment (1-73) : The Southeastern Legal Foundation c ites Eschenbach (2009), stating:

A similar instance of chicanery arose with the manipulation of the Australian climate data. The HARRY_READ_ME.txt file makes numerous references to manipulating the Australian data, but one must examine the data itself to fully understand what the Climategate crew was doing. While it concerns a single location, the adjustments to data from Darwin, Australia, admit no legitimate explanation.

The petitioner quotes Willis Eschenbach:

Those, dear friends, are the clumsy fingerprints of someone messing with the data Egyptian style ... they are indisputable evid ence that the “homogenized” data has been changed to fit someone’s preconceptions about whether the earth is warming. One thing is clear from this. People who say that “Climategate was only about scientists behaving badly, but the data [are] OK” are wrong. At least one part of the data is bad, too. The Smoking Gun for that statement is at Darwin Zero. 20 [Footnote 20: Id. ]

The Coalition for Responsible Regulation al so cites the same Web page (Eschenbach, 2009) as further support for their statement that “There are numerous and recentlyreleased studies documenting significant warm ing biases in the temperature databases that, in light of the Disclosures, reveal the fruit of this manipulated process.”

Response (1-73) : EPA responds to the allegations regarding data adjustments in Response 1-71. There is a

clear rationale for at least one adjustment to the Darwin sta tion because of a major station move in 1941. Because the adjustments by NOAA use an automated procedure based on nearest neighbor and other calc ulations, there is no opportun ity for human “chicanery” or “messing with the data.” Note that we are unclear as to what is meant by messing with

the data “ Egyptian-style. ”

Additionally, as shown in Response 1-66, the sum total effect of all land-based adjustments by NOAA on trends in the global GHCN temperature record are very small (as discussed in Subsection 1.3.2, ocean data adjustments result in a smaller warming trend). For the continental United States, the time of observation bias correction (to correct for the shift in temperature measurem ent from the afternoon to the morning) and the corrections due to changes in measurem ent technology do result in a warmer trend than the raw data would suggest, but these co rrections are essential for proper analysis, not “chicanery.”

Tom Peterson from the NCDC at NOAA responded to a request for information from the author of the “smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero” post, posted in the comments at Watts (2010) and reproduced here:

Dear Willis Eschenbach,

I received your questions today. They are quite detailed and would take some digging through files from the mid to late 1990s for me to answer all of them. This would take time

122I don’t have right now (I actually should be on annual leave right now, but had a few things I wanted to get done before I take off for the rest of the year in a few hours). So let me respond in general terms first a nd provide you with some articles to make sure we’re both starting from the same page.

One of the problems we were trying to addr ess in some of the procedures we developed back in the mid-1990s was how to take advantag e of the best climate information we had at each location at each point in time. We had sp ent a great deal of time and energy digitizing European colonial era data (article sent) wh ich went a great deal towards making global data prior to 1950 more global (see http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/col.gif for a movie loop of the stations we digitized or acquired for GHCN by this project). This means that in some parts of the world, we might have more stations available to build a reference series from prior to the country’s independence than afterwards. To utilize data that did not span the whole period of record, we used what we called the first difference method (article sent). Using this approach we built a referen ce series (article sent) one year at a time.

There were two concerns about this approach. The first was how to make sure we didn’t incorporate a change in station location (etc.) artifact into the reference series. That aspect was done by using the 5 highest correlated stations for the reference series and removing the value from the highest and lowest of the 5 highest correlated first difference values for that year based on the assumption that the mean of the three center most values provided a robust measure of the climate signal and if a station moved up or down a hill, its value would likely be the highest or lowest due to the impact of the station move that year. (This last part was a later addition and is explai ned in the homogeneity review paper (paper sent).)

The homogeneity review paper explains th e reasons behind adopting this complex reference series creation process. It did ind eed maximize the utilization of neighboring

station information. The downside was that there was a potential for a random walk to creep into the reference series. F or exampl e, if the nearest neighbor, the one with the highest correlation, had a fairly warm year in 1930, its first difference value for 1930 would likely be fairly high. The first difference value for 1931 would therefore likely be low as it probably was colder than that experienced in that very warm year preceding it. So the reference series would go up and then down agai n. The random walk comes in if the data for 1931 were missing. Then one gets the warming effect but not the cooling of the following year. The likelihood of a warm random walk and a cold random walk are equally possible. Based on the hundreds of reference series plots I looked at during my mid-1990s evaluation of this process, random walks seemed do be either non-existent or very minor. However, they remained a possibility and a concern.

Partly in response to this concern, over the course of many years, a team here at NCDC developed a new approach to make homogene ity adjustments that had several advantages over the old approaches. Rather than buildi ng reference series it does a complex series of pairwise comparisons. Rather than using an adjustment technique (paper sent) that saw every change as a step function (which as the homogeneity review paper indicates was pretty standard back in the mid-1990s) the ne w approach can also look at slight trend differences (e.g., those that might be expected to be caused by the growth of a tree to the west of a station increasingly shading the sta tion site in the late afternoon and thereby cooling maximum temperature data). Th at work was done by Matt Menne, Claude Williams and Russ Vose with papers publishe d this year in the Journal of Climate

123(homogeneity adjustments) and the Bulletin of the AMS (USHCN version 2 which uses this technique).

Everyone here at NCDC is very pleased with their work and the rigor they applied to developing and evaluating it. They are currently in the process of applying their adjustment procedure to GHCN. Preliminary evaluati on appears very, very promising (though of course some very remote stations like St Helena Island (which has a large discontinuity in the middle of its long record due to moving downhill) will not be able to be adjusted using this approach). GHCN is also undergoing a major update with the addition of newly available data. We currently expect to rel ease the new version of GHCN in February or March along with all the processing software and intermediate files which will dramatically increase the transparency of our process and ma ke the job of people like you who evaluate and try to duplicate surface temperature data processing much easier.

I hope this email and the series of articles I am sending will answer some of your questions at least (e.g., in the homogeneity review pa per it clearly states that the first difference

correlation threshold of 0.8 is between the candi date station and the final reference series, not the individual stations that make up the reference series). They are likely to also stimulate some additional questions. So if it is all right with you, I won’t follow up on your questions when I return in January but ra ther will wait until you send in a new set of questions or just send these old ones back to me.

We’re doing a lot of evaluation of our new appr oach to adjusting global temperature data to remove artificial biases but additional eyes are always welcome. So I would encourage you to consider doing additional GHCN evaluations when we release what we are now calling GHCN version 2.5 in, hopefully, February or March of 2010.

Happy Holidays,

Tom Peterson

This letter demonstrates th e care and rigor used by the researchers at NOAA when considering possible problems involved in the methodologies being used to construct global surface temperature records. Even t hough the researchers had determined that problems such as “random walks” were “non-e xistent or very minor,” they were working to develop a new methodology that would be superior and would not include the possibility of these errors. Importantly, such “random walks” would be, as the name suggests, random—as likely to be a random walk warmer as cooler—and therefore very unlikely to be a source of large scale bias, ev en if a spurious trend on a local scale might be introduced. Darwin might actually be an example of such a “random walk” where missing data, a lack of nearby ne ighbors, and the fact that Da rwin included a lot of data

from the colonial era and therefore had more da ta in the past than in more modern times,

could have led to a rare case of the automa ted procedure introducing a spurious warming. However, on the global scale Darwin is a very small contributor, and there is no evidence that the algorithm performed similarly elsewh ere. Neither NASA nor CRU use the same algorithm as NOAA, and therefore this poten tial spurious warming is not included in either of those records. Yet the larg e-scale trends of the NASA and HadCRUT temperature records are consistent with the large-scale trends of the NOAA temperature record, demonstrating the robustnes s of large-scale trends to erro rs in individual stations.

124Additionally, note that the “Dar win” adjustments highlighted by the petitioner are from NOAA, not CRU, and have nothing to do w ith the HARRY_READ_ME file which was

about the C RU TS (time series) dataset a nd not the HadCRUT temperature record.

Comment (1-74) : The Southeastern Legal Foundation cites a document by Richard Treadgold of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (Treadgol d, 2009) to support their contention that there is data manipula tion to show warming:

Other instances of such data manipulation are also beginning to surface. For example, new information published November 25, 2009 al so shows an eerily similar pattern of “adjustments” was made to raw temperature data in New Zealand – downward adjustments in the early 20 th century and upward adjustments from the middle of the 20 th century
onward. 23 While the information on the New Zealand temperature adjustments was not part of Climategate, it is new, and it adds to the pattern of similar manipulations - downward adjustments in the first part of the 20 th century and upward adjustments in the latter half - yielding a warming trend over the last century that is almost entirely fictitious. EPA should evaluate this controversy to determine whether these recently revealed “adjustments,” like those of Climategate, indicate more of the same collusion, manipulations, and chicanery. 24

The Southeastern Legal Foundation also states (in a footnote to the above paragraph): “Without belaboring the point, ye t another curious manipulation occurs in the context of

the USHCN dataset. See ‘Difference Between Raw and Fi nal USHCN Data Sets,’ found at: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urbraw_pg.gif (last visited D ecember 23, 2009). Absent Climategate, one might assume the adjustments were legitimate. In light of th e extensive (and ever expanding) evidence of improper manipulations, however, one must wonder.”

The Southeastern Legal Foundation raises sim ilar questions about New Zealand in their Third Amendment to Petition, citing D’Aleo and Watts (2010). The State of Texas claims that “the CRU created an exaggerated appearance of 20 th century warming in New

Zealand” and cites the USHCN graphic discussed by th e Southeastern Legal Foundation to support the statement “The CRU manipulated the raw data to show lower temperatures

for New Zea land in the early century.” The Coalition for Responsible Regulation also cites Treadgold about the New Zealand Temperature record.

Response (1-74) : As discussed previously (see Response 1- 71), EPA has evaluated claims concerning adjustments to data in New Zealand, and c oncluded that the adjustments by NIWA are in line with the station records and nearby station tr ends. Note that in almost all the stations the majority of the adjustments come befo re 1950. Therefore, the adjustments do not influence any warming trends after 1950. In addition, the State of Texas and the Southeastern Legal Foundation cite the graph “Difference Between Raw and Final USHCN Data Sets” in support of their conten tions about the New Zealand data. This graph documents the NOAA adjustments that correct for variati ons in the time of observation and changes in temperature measurement instruments for the U.S. temperature record. Petitioners do not expl ain or present argument to show why the

125adjustments are inappropriate. Also, this graph is not pertinen t to the cla ims of inappropriate manipulations by CRU to the New Zealand data.

Comment (1-75) :
The Southeastern Legal Foundation, in their Th ird Amendment to Petition, references a blog discussion of Nordic temperature reconstructions:

Their fifth case study is by Willis Eschenbach 10 recounting the attempts by Professor Wibjorn Karlen to replicate the IPCC’s temp erature analysis for the Nordic region. See

Id. at 79; available at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/ 29/when-results-go-bad/ (last visited Feb. 10, 2010). Eschenbach was drawn to the subject by the inclusion in the Climategate e-mails of corres pondence between Professor Karlen and Phil Jones, former Director of the CRU, which follows the now fa miliar pattern of Jones willfully obstructing legitimate scient ific inquiry. The IPCC shows substant ial increases in temperature in the

late 20 th century, to 0.5 C above the levels of the 1930s in the Nordic region. Karlen could not replicate the assertion by the IPCC that the recent warming exceeded that of the 1930s, either in the Nordic regions or in ma ny other regions of the world, and sought clarification from Jones and Trenberth. They did little more than refer him back to the IPCC reports from which the question arose in the first place. Karlen’s analysis, replicated by Eschenbach, shows the same pattern of suppressing the warming of the 1930’s and inflating the warming of the late 20 th century that is seen in surface temperature record discussed above. Eschenbach’s analysis of the Climategate e-mails concludes that Karlen made legitimate inqui ries and “got incomplete, incorrect and very misleading answers.” Id.

Response (1-75) : The analysis by the IPCC was of the “NEU” region (Northern Europe), which included 48N to 75N, and 10W to 40E. Therefore, in addition to the Nordic region analyzed by Karlen, the IPCC region included Ireland, the Un ited Kingdom, half of France, Germany, Belarus, and several other nations. Thus th e Karlen and Eschenbach analysis covers a different geographic region, which they failed to account for. In addition, they appear to have used a flawed methodology as there is no evidence that either Ka rlen or Eschenbach performed any kind of spatial in terpolation. Instead it appears that they used the flawed approach of taking a straight average of station anomalies (which is not the appropriate method to use unless the stations are perfec tly evenly distribute d geographically, which they are not). Additionally, Eschenbach used a 17-year Gaussian average to compare against an IPCC figure that is clearly labeled as using decadal averages. Therefore, the Eschenbach analysis was of a different region, using a different (and inferior) methodology for combining weather station data, and using different temporal averaging. These reasons explain why the results of Esch enbach differ from those of the IPCC, and do not support petitioners claim that the tre nd was manipulated, thus “inflating” the late

20 th -century warming.

The assertion by Eschenbach that Karlen r eceived “incomplete, incorrect and very misleading answers” is not supported by the record, which showed two researchers (Trenberth and Jones) taking th e time to answer repeated questions from an emeritus

126professor from Sweden. The final e-mail cite d by Eschenbach was from Phil Jones to Karlen, dem onstrating the completeness and help fulness of these researchers in contrast to the assertions by the petitioners:

[Jones] Fennoscandia is just a small part of the NH. When I’m back next week, I’ll be able to calculate the boxes that encompass Fennoscandia, so you can compare with this region. As you’re aware Anders did lots of the update work in 2001-2002 and he included all the NORDKLIM data. I can send you a list of the Fennoscandian data if you

want – either the sites used or their data as well. 49

Therefore, it is clear that the analysis by Eschenbach was a flawed and inappropriate comparison, and that Trenberth and Jones, in co ntrast to the asserti ons of the petitioners, were attempting to be helpful in their answers.

1.4.3.5 Allegations Regarding the Independ ence of NOAA, NASA, and HadCRUT Temperature Records

Comment (1-76) : Some petitioners claim that the NOAA and NASA temperature records are not independent from the HadCRUT temperature record because they share the same raw data. The Commonwealth of Virginia st ates, “If NASA and NOAA used the same raw data as CRU, and if they have reached conc lusions similar to those of CRU, then a finding of data unreliability with regard to the CRU Data may indicate systemic problems with all three of the data sets upon which EPA relied in promulgating its Endangerment Finding.” The Competitive Ente rprise Institute cites D’Aleo and Watts (2010) as stating, “Since all three use the same data, all three have experienced the same degradation in data quality in recent years” (referring to the station dropout issue). Pacific Legal Foundation refers to the EPA RTC document, stating, “Curiously, EPA admits that the

NOAA and NASA datasets show similar trends and were developed at least in part through similar methodologies to those em ployed by CRU. By making this admission, EPA unintentionally leads us to the inexorab le conclusion that, if the CRU Data are methodologically problematic, the NOAA and NASA data may share such methodological problems. See EPA’s Response to Public Comments, Vol. 2, 2-28” and that therefore “any finding that the CRU Data and its conclu sions are unreliable should

lead to a review of the NOAA and NASA data sets as well.”

Response (1-76) : We agree that these three major temperature records rely on a large amount of raw data obtained from GHCN, although the HadCRUT temperature record, in particular, integrates additional data obtained from other, independent sources. However, the petitioners have not demonstrated any major fl aws in the raw data. The allegations that station dropout was inappropria te or would bias the data are unfounded as described in Response 1-62 of this document. A number of analyses using different subsets of data have produced similar global temperature tren ds to the whole set of data. See the

49 E-mail file 1221683947.txt, (Septe mber 17, 2008), page 1554, lines 25-29 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf

127description of the Jones pape r (Jones, 1994) in the previous section, which found that 100 well-placed stations were sufficient to determ ine a global temperatur e trend, the Menne et al. (2010) paper that showed that subsets of th e U.S. data that had been rated more highly by surfacestations.org also led to the same tr end as the whole set of data, and the Clear Climate Code project (Clear Climate Code, 2010) which demonstrated that the dropped stations and remaining stations have si milar trends in overlapping periods.

The processing of the GHCN and other data by the three groups is independent. HadCRUT used significant manual processing of the data; NOAA uses an automated adjustment procedure that corrects for discontinuities; and NASA uses an automated adjustment procedure that changes trends in ur ban stations to match nearby rural stations. The three groups use different procedures to extrapolate temperatures to data sparse regions, and different sources of ocean sea surface temperature data. Therefore, the similarities of the final temperature trends resulting from the processing of the raw data between the three groups provide additional c onfidence in those processing routines. Additionally, the GHCN data are available online, so it is possible for independent parties to test their own algorithms for producing global temperature records from the raw data. Petitioners and others have not done so, and instead rely on arguments and claims, discussed above, that do not support the broa d conclusions they draw. Finally, the temperature trends derived from these datase ts are consistent w ith modeling, satellite data, and various observational indicato rs, further supporting their reliability.

Comment (1-77) : Peabody Energy, the Southeastern Legal Foundation (in their Third Amendment to Petition), and the Competitive Enterprise In stitute all argue that the “similar trends” between the three major surface temperature records are not sufficient if the three datasets are not independent and are, in the words of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, “extensively compromised.” Peabody Energy states:

EPA says that the NOAA and NASA surface temp erature records show “similar trends”

as the HadCRUT3 data set and hence the IPCC’s and EPA’s reliance on the HadCRUT3

records is not unreasonable. 246 This contention does not hold up. The HadCRUT3 data was relied on extensively by the IPCC and in numerous studies cited by both the EPA

and all of the “assessment literature” that EPA c ites. It is not enough for EPA to say that

the HadCRUT3 data reveals “similar trends” as other data. The specific amount of warming that occurred during the last several decades of the 20 th century, and how that warming compares to other periods in the temperature record, was obviously critically important in all of these studies. Many of these studies involved complex statistical analyses of the underlying data. Those studies may have yielded different results had they used the NASA or NOAA data instead of the HadCRUT3 data.

Moreover, there are now significant questions about whether the NASA and NOAA temperature records are truly independent of th e HadCRUT3 data set. In this regard, the investigation of the Science and Technology Committee of th e United Kingdom Parliament that was recently initiated to investigate CRU’s conduct includes investigation into the question of “How independent are the other two international data sets?” 247 This is a critically important question given EPA’s vi ew, based on the IPCC, that the rate and extent of warming in the last several decades of the 20 th century is the key “fingerprint”

128of an anthropogenic GHG cause. If that warm ing has been overstated in all three data sets, then the “fingerprint” disappears, or gr ows more faint even if all three data sets show “similar” warming.

Response (1-77) : As EPA shows throughout these responses, the petitioners have not demonstrated that there are flaws in the global temperature data sets that would call into question the clear warming trends. In addition, these issues we re raised during notice and comment on the Endangerment Findings, and EPA responded in Volume 2 of the RTC document. The

full statement from RTC 2-29 was:

EPA has concluded that the three primary global surface temperature records (NOAA, NASA, and HadCRUT) are reliable and credible. We note that these datasets have been widely reviewed and assessed within the climate change research community, and that while they are distinct and use different approaches, there is good agreement in the overall trend (as described in response 2-28).

EPA did not state that the similar trend wa s the only basis for concluding that the HadCRUT temperature record was reliable. EPA also recognizes that each temperature record includes possible errors as discussed both in the RTC and in this RTP Document. However, potential errors are reflected in th e uncertainty assessments developed for these datasets, such as the Brohan et al. (2006) figure reproduced in Subsection 1.3.2, and are small compared with the overall trend. The petitioner provides no evidence that any study would have yielded subs tantially different conclusi ons had it used the NOAA or NASA temperature records instead of HadCRU T. Indeed, many studies do use these

other datasets.

Additionally, the British H ouse of Commons Science and Technology Committee report (2010), referred to by the petitioner, has been released. With respect to the independence of these datasets, it states:

48. In its memorandum UEA explained the di fferences between the methodologies used by three basic datasets for land areas of the world, NOAA, NASA and CRU/UEA:

All these datasets rely on primary observations recorded by NMSs [National Meteorological Services] across the globe.

GISS and NCDC each use at least 7,200 stations. CRUTEM3 uses fewer. In CRUTEM3, each monthly temperature value is expressed as a departure from the average for the base period 1961–90. This “anomaly method” of expressing temperature records demands an adequate amount of data for the base period; this limitation reduces the number of stations used by CRUTEM3 to 4,348 (from the dataset total of 5,121). The latest NCDC analysis [...] has now moved to the “anomaly method” though with different refinements from those of CRU.

NCDC and GISS use different approaches to the problem of “absolute temperature” from those of CRUTEM3. The homogeneity procedures undertaken by GISS and NCDC are completely different from those adopted for CRUTEM3. NCDC has an

129automated adjustment procedure [...], wh ilst GISS additionally makes allowances for

urbanization effects at some stations.

49. In our call for evidence we asked for submissions on the question of how independent

the other international data sets are. We ha ve established to the extent that a limited inquiry of this nature can, that the NCDC/NOAA and GISS/NASA data sets measuring temperature changes on land and at sea have a rrived at similar conclusions using similar data to that used by CRU, but using inde pendently devised methodologies. We have

further identified that there are two other da ta sets (University of Alabama and Remote Sensing Systems), using satellite observations th at use entirely different data than that used by CRU. These also confirm the findings of the CRU work. We therefore conclude that there is independent verification, th rough the use of other methodologies and other sources of data, of the results and conclusi ons of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

50. The fact that all the datasets show broa dly the same sort of course of instrumental temperature change since the nineteenth cen tury compared to today was why Professor John Beddington, the Government Chief Scien tific Adviser, had the confidence to say that human induced global warming was, in terms of the evidence to support that hypothesis, “unchallengeable”:

I think in terms of datasets, of the way in which data is analysed, there will always be some degree of uncertainty but when you get a series of fundamentally different analyses on the basic data and they come up with similar conclusions, you get a [...] great deal of certainty coming out of it.

51. Even if the data that CRU used were not publicly available—which they mostly are—or the methods not published—which they have been—its published results would still be credible: the results from CRU agree with those drawn from other international data sets; in other words, the analyses have been repeated and the conclusions have been verified.

Therefore, EPA finds that the three ma jor global surface temperature records use independent methodologies, though they do share a large quantity of the same raw data.

Because the results are robust to different choi ces of and adjustments to the raw data, and because there are additional data (from satell ites, oceans, ice sheets, ecosystem shifts, and so forth) that are consistent with these surface temperature reco rds, there is great confidence in the major conclusions based on these records of historical temperature change (within the acknowledged uncertainty lim its). Petitioners inappropriately look at the overlap of underlying raw da ta in isolation, and draw co nclusions about the resulting temperature records based on this. EPA’s c onfidence in the results shown by the various global surface temperature records is based on considering all of the evidence, including

the differences and similarities in the an alyses performed by NOAA, NASA, and CRU, and the consistency with other records of warming, as discussed above.

Comment (1-78) : The State of Texas quotes EPA as stating that "The NOAA global surface temperature dataset (Smith et al., 2008) employs the sa me methodology for addressing urbanization as

is used in the HadCRUT." and draws the conc lusion that “two of the three temperature

130sets that EPA relied on to reach its Enda ngerm ent Finding were homogenized based on

CRU mathematical models.”

Response (1-78) : EPA has already addressed these issues in Responses 1-76 and 1-77 above, as well as

other UHI issues in Subsection 1.3.4. Wh ile NOAA does use urbanization uncertainty estimates based on the methodology developed by CRU, that urbanization estimate is only a small part of the full analysis, and not used for the U.S. portion of the temperature record. Therefore, it is not co rrect to state that two of the three temperature sets that EPA relied on were homogenized based on CRU mathematical models.

1.4.3.6 Additional Issues Regarding Allegat ions of Manipulation of Data

Comment (1-79) : The Coalition for Responsible Regulation cl aims that there was another type of “manipulation of data to produce the outco me IPCC authors wanted” related to the temperature data. In support of their assertion that “Emails contained in the Disclosures

confirm certain scientists’ efforts to ‘a rtificially adjust’ data through active collaboration,” the Coalition for Responsible Regulation provides the following evidence:

Sept. 27, 2009 (Tom Wigley, of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, (UCAR) strategizing “to partly explain the 1940s warming blip,” and noting that “if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 de gC, then this would be significant for the global mean - but we’d still have to explain th e land blip . . . It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with `why the blip’.”)

Response (1-79) : We first note that this quote is clearly not related to the IP CC AR4. In the e-mail, Wigley explicitly states that he was working on a report that he was “writing for EPRI” (the Electric Power Research Institute). 50 There is no evidence that the analysis was performed or that it was used in IPCC reports , or how it was a “manipulation of data to produce the outcome IPCC authors wanted.”

In addition, there is a known issue with the s ea surface data in the 1940s that was recently highlighted by Thompson et al. (2008). This is based on the shift from recording sea surface temperature mainly by U.S. vessels (already using modern engine intake measurements) to a higher percentage of UK vessels (still using the older bucket measurements) after the end of World War II. The e-mail from Wigley does not make clear whether this is or is not the attempt of a modeler to assess pot ential implications of correcting for known biases in the instrumental ocean record in the 1940s. The language from Wigley suggests that he is interested in an explanation for th e existence of a “land blip” in addition to the ocean blip. This ma kes sense in the context of the Thompson et al. paper. This paper explains the ocean blip as being the result of an artificial bias of

50 E-mail file 1254108338.txt, (Sep tember 27, 2009), page 1743, lin e 15 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf

131shifting to U.S. ships during World War II, but this explanation of bias would not explain a blip in land temperatures. Therefore, a full explanation of the historical temperature record would require some other rationale for the “land blip,” whether an actual temperature event due to natura l variability, or another artifi cial bias due to some other issue involved with temperature records duri ng World War II. It is normal science to

work to understand the minor variations or wiggles in the temper ature record. In addition, Wigley’s language does not appear to be the language of someone trying to “artificially adjust data” for a deceitful purpose. Note that Wigley specifically is not suggesting any adjustments to the land record of that time period. Therefore, the petitioners’ evidence is too va gue and uninformative to suppor t a claim of improper data manipulation particularly in the context of IPCC assessments.

Comment (1-80) : The Coalition for Responsible Regulation quote s a number of e-mails in support of their contention that scientists “artificially adjust” data:

The pressure to conform to a perceived “global warming” consensus also led to manipulation of data to produce the outcome IPCC authors wanted. Emails and computer

code contained in the Disclosures reveal that scientists at CRU manipulated their temperature databases and their findings with undisclosed, unverified and arbitrary adjustments. See supra, Section III(A) and (B). Emails contained in the Disclosures

confirm certain scientists’ efforts to “artificia lly adjust” data through active collaboration to “reduce the positive slope,” “reduce the o cean blip,” and “contain the medieval warm period.” See, e.g., Exhibit A, 843161829.txt, Sept. 19, 1996 (Gary Funkhouser, of the University of Arizona, writing to Briffa, "I r eally wish I could be more positive about the Kyrgyzstan material, but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that"); 51 Exhibit A, 1163715685.txt, Nov. 16, 2006 (Briffa noting that “the PC1 time series in the Mann et al. analys is was adjusted to reduce the positive slope in the last 150 years,” and that “this ad justment was arbitrary and the link between Bristlecone pine growth and CO2 is , at the very least, arguable.”); 52 Exhibit A, 1254108338.txt, Sept. 27, 2009 (Tom Wigley, of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, (UCAR) strategizing "t o partly explain the 1940s warming blip,” and noting that “if we could reduce the ocean b lip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean - but we’d still ha ve to explain the land blip . . . It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with ‘why the blip’.”); 53 Exhibit A, 1059664704.txt, July, 31, 2003 (Mann sending calibration residuals to Tim Osborn, at CRU, and acknowledging that some are “pretty red,” and asking Osborn not to “pass this along to others without ch ecking w/ me first. This is the sort of ‘dirty laundry’ one doesn’t want to fall into the hands of those who might potentially try to distort things...”); 54 Exhibit A, 0939154709.txt, Oct. 15, 1999 (Osborn discussing how

51 E-mail file 0843161829.txt, (September 19, 1996), page 11, lines 12-14 and 15-16 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf

52 E-mail file 1163715685.txt, (November 16, 2006), page 1239, lines 9-10 and 15-16 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf

53 E-mail file 1254108338 .txt, (September 27, 2009), page 1742-1743, line 45-46 and 6-7 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf

54 E-mail file 1059664704.txt, (July 31, 2003), page 558, line 23-25 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf

132data are truncated to stop an apparent co oling trend that appears in the results); 55 Exhibit A, 1054736277.txt, June 4, 2003 (Mann noting “it would be nice to try to ‘contain’ the putative ‘MWP’ [Medieval Warm Period]”). 56

Response (1-80) : EPA responds to these allegations of data manipulation in Subsection 1.1.4 of this Response to Petitions document. These e-mails are in general quoted out of context and in many cases are examples of scientists fo llowing appropriate procedures of not using data that doesn’t meet proper standards (e.g., Funkhouser) or testing the impacts of hypotheses (e.g., Wigley). Only two quotes were not addressed in those previous sections, and these two quot es are addressed here.

First, with regards to the calibration resi duals mentioned in the e-mail from Mann to Osborn, Mann also states in the same e-mail, “In any case, the incremental changes are modest after 1600--its pretty clear that key predictors drop out before AD 1600, hence the redness of the residuals, and th e notably larger uncertainties farther back...”. This quote

indicates that the redness of the residuals (a term related to the type of noise in the signal: white noise is perfectly random, red noise indicates a “random wa lk” where the signal can drift over time) are already re flected in the fact that the uncertainties presented in the paper are “notably larger” before 1600. Th is is also consistent with the general conclusions of the NRC (2006) and the IPCC (2007c) assessments. In fact, the paper discussed in the e-mail (MBH1999) (Mann et al ., 1999) explicitly discusses red noise in the context of reconstructions, though it does no t present the specific data that Mann is sharing with Osborn. In other words, the e- mail quote is consistent with the published

literature.

The Osborn e-mail discussing data truncation “t o stop an apparent c ooling trend” is a reference to the divergence issue di scussed in Section 1.1 on Paleoclimate Reconstructions and the “Divergence” Issue, and as discussed in that section the divergence issue was well known in the litera ture, and therefore this e-mail is not evidence of inappropriate data manipulation.

1.4.4 Summary

The observed warming of the climate is an im portant factor in the Endangerment Finding. The Finding states, “The global surface temp erature record relies on three major global temperature datasets developed by NOAA, NASA, and the United Kingdom’s Hadley Center. All three show an unambiguous warm ing trend over the last 100 years, with the greatest warming occurring over the past 30 year s.” The Finding notes that this observed warming is observed in surface and ocean temp eratures, melting of snow and ice, rising sea levels, and other evidence as well. Peti tioners do not attempt to review the body of

scientific evidence and show that the conc lusion on warming is inaccurate or more

55 E-mail file 0939154709.txt, (Octob er 15, 1999), page 229, line 32 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf

56 E-mail file 1054736277.txt, (June 4, 2003), page 520, lines 7-8 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf

133uncertain than indicated. Instead they contes t certain individual aspe cts or details of the surface temperature ev idence, and in general rais e objections that fail to take into account the context and reason behind various asp ects of the surface temperature record.

Many of the issues raised by the petitioners ar e not new, and have been addressed within the TSD and RTC documents. Some objections fail to distinguish assessments that evaluate absolute temperature rather than ch anges in temperature. The petitioners, and the researchers on which the petitioners re ly, repeatedly use incorrect methodology to make their claims. They average temperatur es between stations without using anomalybased methods that properly take into account the change in temperature rather than the absolute temperature, and they average togeth er stations without methods that account for the geographic distribution of these stations. These basic and fundamental flaws underlie many of the petitioner’s arguments.

Other objections misconstrue th e underlying studies. In se veral cases petitioners object that various adjustments to the raw data have an effect of changing the data, but they fail to consider that adjustments to the data are appropriately performed for the purpose of having an effect: to account for circumstan ces that otherwise w ould interfere with accurately isolating and determining a tre nd in surface temperature. For example, adjustments are made to account for the effect of a change in the measurement devices, so that such changes do not interfere with accurately assessing any change in the actual surface temperature. Petitioners fail to address the reasons behind the adjustments and fail to explain or show that th e types of adjustments are not appropriate. Petitioners also fail to account for the various analyses whic h generally show that the same temperature trends result on a global scale using the adjusted or unadjusted temperature data,

Likewise petitioners fail to account for the va lid data-driven reasons that have led to a

reduction over time in the number of weathe r stations used for the surface temperature analysis, fail to explain or show that the reductions have biased the temperature record, and overstate the magnitude of the reduction in some cases. Petitioners fail to account for the analyses that show even a limited number of stations can pr ovide a robust global temperature trend, and the same trends are in dicated using only those stations that were not reporting data after 1992 or the stations that were re porting data the entire time.

Petitioners fail to explain why consistency be tween all three separate surface temperature records, as well as consistency between th e three surface temperature records and other evidence of warming, such as satellite data, ocean temperature data, physical evidence of the effects of warming, should not be seen as confirmation of the evid ence of warming. Petitioners instead appear to assume that a ll of this evidence must be wrong because they allege some of it is, and implicitly suggest EPA do the same.

Overall, petitioners’ arguments about the por tions of the evidence they focus on fail to withstand scrutiny. They also fail to evalua te and take into a ccount the entire body of evidence before EPA. The arguments made by petitioners do not change EPA’s views on the validity and reliability of the three majo r surface temperature reco rds, or the overall

134body of evidence supporting the basic conclusion that there is an unambiguous warming trend over the last 100 years, w ith the greatest warm ing occurri ng over the past 30 years.

1.5 Implications of New Studies and Data Submitted by the Petitioners

1.5.1 Overview

Several petitioners identify new scientif ic studies and data published since the Endangerment Finding was finalized, which they claim require EPA to reconsider our Finding. Some petitioners also argue that EPA ignored or misinterpreted scientific data that were significant and availa ble when the Finding was made.

EPA has reviewed the new literature provided by petitioners. In many cases, we note that the issues raised by the petiti oners are not new, but were in fact raised and addressed during notice and comment on the Endangerment Findings. In other cases, petitioners have misinterpreted or misrepresented th e meaning and significance of the scientific literature, findings, and data th ey cite. Finally, there are instances where the petitioners have failed to take into account relevant other new studies in making their arguments.

The following issues are addressed in this section:

 Implications of a new study on stratospheric water vapor.

 Implications of material concerning whether CO 2 is well mixed in the atmosphere

and whether the airborne fraction of CO 2 has changed.

 Implications of new tr opical cyclone studies.

 Implications of new data on observational snow cover trends.

 A claim that EPA ignored a satellite dataset.

After reviewing all of these issues, EPA conc ludes that the studies, data, and arguments presented by petitioners do not change the solid scientific basis for the Administrator’s Finding.

1.5.2 Implications of a New Stud y on Stratospheric Water Vapor

Comment (1-81) : Several petitioners (the Competitive Enterp rise Institute, Coalition for Responsible Regulation, Peabody Energy) argue that a ne w study published by Solomon et al. (2010), “Contributions of Stratospheric Water Vapor to Decadal Changes in the Rate of Global Warming,” demonstrates that scientific unders tanding of the causes of climate change is incomplete. This study finds that stratospheric water vapor concentr ations decreased by

about 10% after 2000, and that this decrease slowed the rate of increase in global surface temperature over the period 2000– by about 25% compared with that which would have

occurred due only to CO 2 and other GHGs. According to the Coalition for Responsible Regulation, the study’s findings “indicate that human emissions may have a considerably smaller role in climate change than previ ously thought.” Peabody Energy concludes that

135the study “pro vides another example of how unsettled global warming science actually

is.”

Response (1-81) : This study improves our understanding of how changes in the composition of the stratosphere can act to enhance or dampen GH G-induced climate change. Contrary to the petitioners’ claims, it does not demonstrat e that anthropogenic GHG emissions play a smaller role in climate change. Just as reduc tions in stratospheric water vapor might have acted to decrease warming from 2000 to 2009, the study finds that increases in stratospheric water might have acted to steepen the observed warming trend in the 1990s.

The study’s authors make no claim that global warming science is “ unsettled.” In fact, they introduce the study with the following statement: “Ove r the past century, global average surface temperatures have warmed by about 0.75°C. Much of the warming occurred in the past half-century, over wh ich the average decadal rate of change was about 0.13°C, largely due to anthropogenic in creases in well-mixed greenhouse gases.”

The study improves scientific understanding of effects of changes in atmospheric composition on climatic observations, and it shou ld lead to further improvements in the representation of stratospheric processes in models, allo wing more refined projections of short-term climate behavior. As the study concludes (Solomon et al., 2010): “This work highlights the importance of using observations to evaluate the effect of stratospheric water vapor on decadal rates of warming, and it also illuminates the need for further

observations and a closer examination of the representation of stratospheric water vapor changes in climate models aimed at interpreting decadal changes and for future projections.”

This study does not have meaningful imp lications for the Endangerment Finding, as it

does not cast doubt on the fundamental role th at GHGs have in climate change. As Solomon told the New York Times (Bhanoo, 2010):

This [study] doesn’t alter the fundamental c onclusion that the world has warmed and that most of that warming has to do with greenhouse gas emissions caused by man.

As in almost all areas of scientific endea vor, further research of ten leads to greater understanding, but contrary to the petitioners’ claim, an advance in knowledge does not per se mean the prior knowledge base was any more or less certain or settled. The advance in knowledge needs to be put in context to understand its meaning, and petitioners fail to do that. In this case, the study increases our knowledge of other factors that can amplify or reduce the warming e ffect of GHGs, but it does not change in any way the warming trend that is expected from the GHGs themselves.

1.5.3 Implications of Mate rial Indicating That CO 2 I s Not Well Mixed in the Atmosphere and That the Airborne Fraction of CO 2 Has Not Changed

136Comment (1-82) : One petitioner (the Southeastern Legal Foundation) refers to literature th at it claims alters our understanding of th e distribution of CO 2 in the atmosphere. The Southeastern Legal Foundation challenges the long- held conclusion that CO 2 is well mixed in atmosphere (i.e., that its concentration is about the same everywhere acr oss the globe). It cites a NASA press release (NASA, 2009c, dated Dece mber 15, 2009), which describes findings drawn from data taken from its Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) instrument on the Aqua spacecraft. In this press release, NASA reports:

...data have shown that, contrary to prior assumptions, carbon dioxide is not well mixed in the troposphere, but is rather “lumpy.” Until now, models of carbon dioxide transport

have assumed its distribution was uniform.

The Southeastern Legal Foundation states that the “AIRS satellite has collected data refuting the well-mixed assumption” and that the “well-mixed assumption is indispensible to AGW model of the CO 2 cycle.”

Response (1-82) : We agree with NASA that on shorter time s cales, there is some variability in the

distribution of CO 2 and that it is not uniformly mixed. This has long been known. For example, Seinfeld and Pandis (1998) discu ss hemispheric and seasonal differences in

CO 2 distribution. In fact, we acknowledge this behavior in the RTC (2-8), noting that there is a period of time or a lag before long-lived gases become well mixed in the atmosphere: “all long-lived gases become we ll-mixed at large distances from their sources or sinks over a period of one to two y ears.” It is, therefore, not surprising that there may be some variability in CO 2 concentrations averaged over a month as shown in this NASA image (referenced by the Southeastern Legal Foundation, NASA, 2009b):

137But even this variability is small in magn itude, only on the order of 1.5 to 2% at m ost across this highly sensitive concentration gradient.

CO 2 ’s variability is especially small compared with GHGs that are traditionally described as non-well-mixed, such as tropospheric ozone, the concentration of which typically varies by a factor of 10 as shown in the July 2009 graphic from NASA below (NASA, 2009d), and water vapor, as also shown belo w from May 2009 in a graphic from NASA (NASA, 2009a):

138The relatively low spatial variability in CO 2 shown in the AIRS imagery would even be smaller averaged over a longer time scale. While NASA’s press release does not distinguish between short and long time scales, there is no ambiguity that CO 2 is well

mixed on time scales relevant to the st udy of climate change—decades—as documentedin the assessment literature and discussed by EPA. In referring to the group of wellmixed GHGs, including CO 2 (methane and nitrous oxide), the IPCC (Solomon et al., 2007) states:

Because these gases are long lived, they beco me well mixed throughout the atmosphere much faster than they are removed and their global concentrations can be accurately

estimated from data at a few locations.

When NASA states that research ers had not previously assumed CO 2 is “lumpy” as the AIRS data visualizations demonstrate, it is to highlight the improvements in resolution of

small-scale CO 2 variability made possible by the AIRS data. The data allow scientists to see the very limited variability in CO 2 in much finer detail than before. The fact that this finer detail has not yet been incorporated into CO 2 transport models is not relevant for the projections of climate change on which EPA’ s Endangerment Finding relied. For further

discussion about the relevance of this NASA finding for computer models, see Response

1-84.

Comment (1-83) : Background: The Southeastern Legal Foundation raises an issue concerning our understanding of how CO 2 in the atmosphere cycles th rough the Earth system. As background, some of the CO 2 that is emitted to the atmosphere remains in the atmosphere, and some of it is absorbed by ot her parts of the Earth system, for example,

139the oceans and terrestrial biosphere (vegeta tion and trees) som etimes referred to as CO 2 “sinks.” The portion of CO 2 that remains in the air is known as the “airborne fraction.”

If the airborne fraction of CO 2 increases, the rate of global warming would likely increase. EPA states in Section 6( a) of the TSD (U.S. EPA, 2009):

....for future projections, Meehl et al. ( 2007) found “unanimous agreement among the coupled climate carbon cycle models driven by emission scenarios run so far that future climate change would reduce the efficiency of the Earth system (land and ocean) to absorb anthropogenic CO 2 . As a result, an increasingly large fraction of anthropogenic

CO 2 would stay airborne in the atmosphere under a warmer climate.”

Comment: The Southeastern Legal Foundation di sputes the IPCC’s projection cited by

EPA that the airborne fraction of CO 2 will increase and disputes whether CO2 is wellmixed. Southeastern Legal Foundation claims the airborne fraction will not increase

because the airborne fraction metric has been relatively constant since 1850 according to a study the Southeastern Legal Foundation cites by Knorr (2009). Specifically, Knorr (2009) finds:

It is shown that with those uncertainties, the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has been ... close to and not significantly different from zero.

The Southeastern Legal Foundation concludes that the Knorr study:

... gravely undermines the assumption that CO 2 is long-lived and well-mixed and by the

same token dovetails with NASA’s observations that CO 2 is in fact not well-mixed, and with many experimental proofs that CO 2 has a short residence time.

Response (1-83) : The Southeastern Legal Foundation presents no new evidence to challenge the IPCC’s projections, as summarized by EPA. The Kno rr (2009) finding is not new. Section 6(a) of the TSD, referring to the assessment li terature (IPCC), describes exactly the same

conclusion as found in Knorr:

Historically, the airborne fraction of CO 2 ... has shown no long term trend ... (Denman et al., 2007).

However, there are several scientific probl ems with the Southeas tern Legal Foundation’s conclusion that the Knorr study “grave ly undermines the assumption that CO 2 is longlived and well-mixed.” First, by itself a tre nd in the airborne frac tion of a gas provides no information about its atmospheric lifetim e and whether it is well mixed, and the Southeastern Legal Foundation offers no e xplanation to the c ontrary. Second, as discussed in Response 1-82 above, NASA’s obs ervations do not cha nge the finding that

the CO 2 is well mixed on time scales relevant to the study of climate change. Third, the Southeastern Legal Foundation’s reference to “proofs” that CO 2 has a short residence time, citing work by Segalstad (e.g., Segalstad, 1997), were responded to in Volume 2 of EPA’s RTCs in the endangerment record. After reviewing this public comment, EPA determined (in RTC 2-3) that Segalstad’s work “does not address the lifetime of a change in atmospheric concentration of CO 2 , but rather the lifetime in the atmosphere of an

140individual molecule of CO 2 ” and that these “are two differe nt concepts.” This confusion of residence time and the adjustment time in the atmosphere is discussed at length in O’Neill (1997).

In addition, the latest scientific re search suggests that the airborne CO 2 fraction is likely increasing—consistent with future projections. A recent (December 2009) study (Le Quéré et al., 2009) published in Nature Geoscience updates trends in the sources and

sinks of CO 2 and finds: “In the past 50 years, the fraction of CO 2 emissions that remains in the atmosphere each year has likely in creased, from about 40% to 45%, and models suggest that this trend was caused by a decrease in the uptake of CO 2 by the carbon sinks in response to climate change and variability.”

The Southeastern Legal Foundation does not ack nowledge or take into account this new study.

Comment (1-84) : Southeastern Legal Foundation suggests that the current computer models on which EPA relies are based on assumptions that are challenged by the NASA finding regarding CO 2 not being well mixed and the Knorr study disc ussed above (in Response 1-82 and 1-83).

It concludes: “These results contradict the IPCC’s version of the carbon cycle, on which

the climate models and claims of catastr ophic AGW are based” and that EPA should, therefore, reconsider it s Endangerment Finding.

Response (1-84) : As described above (in Response 1-82), the NASA finding does not refute the wellestablished conclusion that CO 2 is well mixed on time scales relevant to the study of climate change. Moreover, the primary fi nding of the Knorr (2009) study cited by the Southeastern Legal Foundation pe rtaining to trends in the CO 2 airborne fraction is not new and was already reflected in EPA’s TSD. The information presented by the Southeastern Legal Foundation does not change or undermine either the view that GHGs are long lived and well mixed, in the time scales relevant to climate change projections, or the basis for scientific projections suggesting the airb orne fraction of CO 2 will increase as the climate warms. And, in fact, anothe r peer-reviewed study (Le Quéré et al., 2009) presents contrasting results fi nding an increase in the air borne fraction in the past 50

years.

Significantly, the same NASA press release th at the Southeastern Legal Foundation cites concerning the short term “lumpy” distribution of CO 2 provides validation for the climate models results cited by EPA in th e TSD which project substantial CO 2 -induced warming (NASA, 2009c):

“AIRS temperature and water vapor observa tions have corroborated climate model predictions that the warming of our climat e produced as carbon dioxide levels rise will be greatly exacerbated -- in fact, more than doubled -- by water vapor,” said Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist at Texas A& M University, College Station, Texas.

141Dessler explained that most of the warming caused by carbon dioxide does not come directly from carbon dioxide, but from effects known as feedbacks. Water vapor is a particularly important feedback. As the climate warms, the atmosphere becomes more humid. Since water is a greenhouse gas, it ser ves as a powerful positive feedback to the climate system, amplifying the initial warming [caused by CO 2 ]. AIRS measurements of water vapor reveal that water greatly amplifies warming caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide. Comparisons of AIRS data w ith models and re-analyses are in excellent
agreement.

In summary, the Southeastern Legal Foundati on’s evidence and arguments do not change the validity of EPA’s characterization of CO 2 and/or the carbon cycle, or their representation in climate mode ls whose results were cited in support of the Endangerment Finding.

1.5.4 Implications of New Tropical Cyclone Studies

Comment (1-85) : Two petitioners (the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Southeastern Legal Foundation) present new studi es that provide new and/ or updated information on 1) historical trends in tropical cyclone activity, including freque ncy and intensity, and 2) whether these trends can be attributed to anthropogeni c GHGs. The petitioners claim

that the conclusions of these studies cast doubt on EPA’s char acterization of these issues in the Endangerment Finding and therefore require a reconsider ation of the Finding.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute provide s a study by Hatton (2010) titled, “Has the Intensity and Frequency of Hurricanes In creased?” This non -peer-reviewed study analyzes trends in hurricane data from 1999 to 2009 tested against the period from 1946 to 2009. It finds “that hurricane intensity a nd frequency is significantly higher in this period [1999–2009] in the North Atlantic. However in the Eastern Pacific, Western Pacific, and Northern and Southern Indian oceans, there is no evidence of significant change.” The Competitive Enterprise Institute states that this finding “undermines EPA’s own claims regarding the supposedly incr eased risk of storms and hurricanes.”

Southeastern Legal Foundation presents a peer-reviewed study fr om Knutson et al. (2010). This study, developed under the auspic es of the WMO, evaluates the current state of knowledge of tropical cyclones and climate change. The Southeastern Legal Foundation highlights two key findings from the study:

1) “In terms of global tropical cyclone fr equency, it was concl uded that there was no significant change in global tropical storm or hurricane numbe rs [i.e. frequency] from 1970 to 2004, nor any significant change in hurricane numbers [i.e. frequency] for any individual basin over that peri od, except for the Atlantic...”

2) “....we cannot at this time conclusively identify anthropogenic sign als in past tropical cyclone data.”

142On the basis of these findings, the Southeas tern Legal Foundation argues, “EPA should

reconsider its conclusions that GHGs endanger huma n health and welfare.”

Response (1-85) : We have reviewed both of the studies and considered their implications for EPA’s characterization of trends in tropical cycl one activity, including fr equency and intensity, and our ability to attribute th e trends to anthropogenic GHGs.

With respect to observed trends in freque ncy and intensity of tropical cyclones, the findings in these two studies are, in f act, consistent with EPA’s TSD and the Endangerment Finding. The TSD states in Sectio n 4(k), “Kunkel et al . (2008) refer to a study that was not able to corroborate the presence of upward intens ity trends over the

last two decades in ocean basins other than the North Atlantic” a nd “there is no clear trend in the annual numbers [i.e. frequency] of tropical cyclones [globally]...”. Specific to trends in the North Atlantic, the TSD stat es in Section 4(l): “I PCC (2007b) and Karl et al. (2009) report observational evid ence of an increase in intens e tropical cyclone activity in the North Atlantic (where cyclones develop that affect the U.S. East and Gulf Coasts) since about 1970, correlated with increases of tropical sea surf ace temperatures of nearly 2oF (1oC) in the main Atlan tic hurricane development region (Karl et al., 2009). The strongest hurricanes (Category 4 and 5) have, in particular, in creased in intensity (Karl et al., 2009).”

EPA’s characterization of whether any tre nds in tropical cyclone activity (either frequency or intensity) coul d be attributed to anthropogenic GHGs, drawn from the IPCC, does differ slightly from the Knuts on et al. study (the Hatton study does not address attribution). Knutson found no conclusi ve evidence of an anthropogenic signal in observed hurricane activity to date, and lik e Knutson, the TSD did not claim any such conclusive evidence. Instead, the TSD states in Section 5(a) that it is “more likely than not that anthropogenic influence has contributed to increase in the frequency in the most intense storms.” After that statement, EP A provided the following caveat, reflecting the uncertainty in science regard ing attribution, stating:

... the IPCC (Hegerl et al., 2007) cautions that detection and attribution of observed changes in hurricane intensity or frequency due to external influences remains difficult

because of deficiencies in theoretical understa nding of tropical cyclones, their modeling, and their long-term monitoring.

Importantly, given this uncertainty, EPA di d not refer to any anthropogenic signal in historical tropical cyclone trends in the Findings themse lves (nor in the Executive Summary of the TSD) and instead focused onl y on the limited evidence of a directional trend in the Atlantic, and more importantly on increasing future risks (Section I.A. of the Findings):

The conclusion in the assessment literature th at there is the potential for hurricanes to become more intense (and even some evidence that Atlantic hurricanes have already become more intense) reinforces the judgment that coastal communities are now

143endangered by human-induced climate change, a nd may face substantially greater risk in

the future.

The risk of stronger hurricanes in the future is echoed by the Knutson et al. (2010) study,

which finds:

...future projections based on theory and high -resolution dynamical models consistently indicate that greenhouse warming will cause the globally averaged intensity of tropical cyclones to shift towards stronger storms...

In summary, the new studies presented by petitioners are consistent with EPA’s

characterization of observed tr opical cyclone trends. Th e Knutson et al. (2010) study reaches a slightly revised conclusion on an anthropogenic GHG signal to date, but the revision is not meaningful considering EPA’s qualified discussion of the issue and the

similarities in EPA’s and K nutson et al.’s characterization of future projections.

1.5.5 Implications of New Studies on the Statistical Significance of Increases

in Antarctic Sea Ice

Comment (1-86) : The Southeastern Legal Foundation discusse s two studies (Comiso and Nishio, 2008; Turner et al., 2009), which it alleges find that the observed increase in Antarctic sea ice is statistically significant. The petitioner argues th at this finding is contrary to information in the record for EPA’s Endangerment Finding, as well as information contained in the IPCC AR4. It states: “If the increase [in Antarcti c sea ice] is statistically significant, then it is yet another empirical refutation of the IPCC models, which predict a loss of sea ice in the Antarctic.” It ultimately concludes:

EPA has contradicted the literature and mischar acterized the statistical significance of the trend in Antarctic sea ice extent increase. It appears that this mischaracterization permits EPA to claim that the model projections have not been refuted and remain “robust” even though any fair analysis shows they have been at best undermined and at worst falsified.

Response (1-86) : EPA has reviewed the petitioner’s submission of Comiso and Nishio (2008) and Turner et al. (2009) and finds that it was not impracticable to raise the objection during the public comment period and that the reasons fo r the objection did not arise between June 24, 2009, and February 16, 2010. Nonetheless, we have reviewed these arguments and responded.

The first study by Comiso and Nishio (2008) computes a positive trend in Antarctic sea extent of 0.9 ± 0.2% per decade since the late 1970s, but contrary to the assertion of the Southeastern Legal Foundation, the study does not assess statistical significance. The second study, Turner et al. ( 2009), states, “the annual mean extent of Antarctic sea ice has increased at a statistically significant rate of 0.97% per decade since the late 1970s.” In other words, both studies compute a si milar trend, and one assesses statistical significance while the other does not.

144In Section 4(i) of the TSD, EPA cites U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Ce nter (NSIDC) data indicating that for the period 19 79–2008, Antarctic sea ice had undergone a not statistically significant incr ease of 0.9% per decade (U .S. EPA, 2009). Although the

conclusion about statistical si gnificance differs from Turner et al. (2009), the magnitude of the trend reported by EPA is very simila r, and the NSIDC trend reported by EPA is identical to the trend found in Comiso and Nishio (2008).

Therefore, EPA’s TSD and the studies refe renced by the Southeas tern Legal Foundation all portray Antarctic sea ice as increasing at about the same rate. The only difference

between the TSD and one of the studies refe renced by the Southeastern Legal Foundation

is in the characterization of statistical significance in Turner et al. (2009). This narrow and limited basis does not support the Petitioner’s sweeping and unsupportable

conclusion.

The fact that studies reach different conclu sions regarding statisti cal significance in observed trends does not imply that mode l projections have been “refuted,” “undermined,” or “at worst falsified,” especial ly when the trends do not materially differ in either direction or magnitude. Furtherm ore, the statistical significance of observed trends is not a criterion require d for validation of models. Of particular importance is that EPA’s reporting of Antarctic sea trends is substantively cons istent with the literature.

Although EPA did not rely on the IPCC (2007a) for this discussion in the TSD, the Southeastern Legal Foundation makes much of the fact that the newer literature also differs from the IPCC’s coverage of this issu e. It claims that the IPCC’s finding that Antarctic sea ice trends are not statistically si gnificant is “an outlier that is inconsistent with the peer reviewed lite rature”—specifically referring to literature published after publication of the IPCC AR4. But given that the one study (Turner et al., 2009) referenced by the Southeastern Legal Founda tion (finding statistical significance) was not

available to the IPCC when it did its assessmen t, its claim that the IPCC’s treatment of

the issue is inconsistent with more recent literature has little relevance. EPA relied on the latest available data and analysis from NSIDC rather than the IPCC.

Separate from its discussion of the new lite rature, the Southeastern Legal Foundation—in a footnote—refers to a blog post (Knappenbe rger, 2010) that alleges that the IPCC’s treatment of the issue was incomplete based on literature that was available at the time of its assessment. But again, this is not releva nt to EPA’s treatment of the issue because EPA relied on the more current analysis by NSID C, which is consistent with the latest literature on the issue, aside from statistical significance as discussed above.

Finally, it is important to put this issue into context. Antarctic sea ice is one climate

indicator referenced in the TSD but not explicitly referred to in the Findings themselves. Given the multiple lines of evidence presented in the TSD, a small, and in this context trivial change in the statistical characterization of one of nu merous physical indicators of warming does not materially impact the Endangerment Finding. The TSD appropriately

states that Antarctic sea ice is increasing. The fact that as more studies are published it

145may now be possible to ascribe “s tatistical signif icance” to this increase is not of material impact for the Endangerment Finding.

1.5.6 Implications of Recent Data on Observational Snow Cover Trends

Comment (1-87) : One petitioner (the Southeastern Legal Founda tion) argues that recen t trends in winter snow cover over the Northern Hemisphere a nd North America are at odds with future model projections. It notes that since 1989, there has been virtually no trend in snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere and that wi nter snow extent in North America has been increasing over this period.

To support its arguments, the Southeastern Legal Foundation relies primarily on two snow cover data time series (Goddard 2010a, 2010b) published on the blog WattsUpWithThat.com. These time series e xhibit data from the Rutgers University Global Snow Laboratory (GSL). The first tim e series the petitioner displays shows an increasing trend in North Amer ican winter snow cover exte nt (e.g., for the months of December to February) from 1989 to 2010 (source of image: Goddard, 2010a) (SLF Graph #1).

SLF Graph #1

The second time series the petitioner displa ys shows the annual Northern Hemisphere snow cover since 1989, which shows “virtually no trend” according to the Southeastern Legal Foundation (source of imag e: Goddard, 2010b) (SLF Graph #2).

146SLF Graph #2

On the basis of these graphs, the petiti oner concludes that “the IPCC and the EPA predicted reduced snow fall and reduced s now cover due to AGW [anthropogenic global warming]” and that this is “yet another in stance of the failure of model predictions.”

Response (1-87) : The Rutgers GSL is a credible and legitimate source of data on snow cover, and numerous peer-reviewed studies have used Rutger’s GSL data, including some that were cited by the IPCC. However, the Southeas tern Legal Foundation r eaches inappropriate and flawed conclusions based on these gra phs, as the conclusions are biased by the selective time periods analyzed.

Southeastern Legal Foundation’s North Amer ican Winter Snow Cover Extent Graph (SLF Graph #1)

The North American winter snow cover gr aphic presented by the Southeastern Legal Foundation and shown above only samples the period 1989–2010, yet Rutgers GSL data date back to 1967. Using GSL data for th e entire period of record (1967–2010, source: Rutgers, 2010a), EPA produced the following graph (EPA Graph #1 57 ):

57 For underlying data, see file North American Winter Snow Cover Extent.PDF in Docket ID No. EPAHQ-OAR-2009-0171

147EPA Graph #1

North America Winter (Dec-Feb) Snow Cover Extent 1967-2010

15000000 15500000 16000000 16500000 17000000 17500000 18000000 18500000

1967 1972 1977 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007

YearSquare Kilometers

An examination of this graph of the entire dataset (EPA Graph #1) makes it clear that Southeastern Legal Foundation relies upon a graph (SLF Graph #1) that presents an exaggerated upward snow cover extent tr end during the winter months by using unrepresentative start and end dates. The SL F Graph #1 start and end dates coincide with relatively small (1989) and large (2010) snow cover extents. The full time series we produce above shows a much smaller upward trend. The small l ong-term increase we show is broadly consistent with our statement in the TSD on this issue. In Section 4(j) of the TSD, citing the IPCC, we state thatover North America “from 1915 to 2004, snowcovered area increased in November, December, and January due to increases in precipitation” (U.S. EPA, 2009).

It is also important to rec ognize that snow cover trends in one season over one continent are not representative of snow cover trends in other seasons, on an annual basis, or in other parts of the world. In fact, one impact of climate change is expected to be an increase in snow cover in many areas due to increases in precipitation, which have been

observed as noted above. As the TSD notes in Section 5(a): “...heavy precipitation events averaged over North America have in creased over the past 50 years ... consistent with the observed increases in atmospheric wa ter vapor, which have been associated with human-induced increases in GHGs.” In contrast, in the warmer seasons of spring and summer, when cold air is more limited, warm ing has tended to depl ete snow cover, and there has been little trend (slightly positive) during fall. The graph below, which EPA produced (EPA Graph #2 58 , data source: Rutgers, 2010a), shows long-term North America snow cover extent by season and on an average annual basis.

58 For underlying data, see file North American Snow Cover Extent.PDF in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR2009-0171

148EPA Graph #2

North American Snow Cover Extent 1972*-2010

2000000 4000000 6000000 8000000 10000000 12000000 14000000 16000000 18000000 20000000

1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008

YearSquare Kilometers

Annual

Winter

Spring

Summer

Fall

*Whereas winter snow cover data are av ailable from GSL beginning in 1967, annual snow cover data begin in 1972.

This graph (EPA Graph #2) clearly shows that average annual snow cover (blue diamonds) has declined over the long term over North America, with pronounced declines in spring (yellow triangles) and summ er (light blue Xs) and small increases in fall (purple asterisks) and wi nter (pink squares). By fo cusing on just one season and

149arbitrarily using only part of the availabl e dataset, the Southeastern Legal Foundation (SLF Graph #1) provides an incomplete an alysis, which does not change or underm ine projections for future declines in snow cover over North America.

Southeastern Legal Foundation’s Annual Nort hern Hemisphere Snow Cover Extent Graph (SLF Graph #2)

As with its first graph (SLF Graph #1), the petitioner’s second graph (SLF Graph #2) for the Northern Hemisphere also presents only a portion of the availabl e data. Importantly, its choice of start date (1989) is biased becau se it conceals the long-term decline in snow cover extent evident when analyzing the enti re data series. We graphed the entire Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover extent time series, plotting annual averages to produce the time series below (EPA Graph #3 59 , data source: Rutgers, 2010b).

EPA Graph #3

Annual Average Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover Extent 1972

- 2009

22000000 23000000 24000000 25000000 26000000 27000000 28000000

1972 1977 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007

YearSquare Kilometers

This time series (EPA Graph #3) clearly s hows a long-term decline in annual average Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent, whic h is consistent with model projections for

the future.

59 For underlying data, see file Annual Average Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover Extent.PDF in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171

150The clear conclusion is that the petitioner bases its claim th at the models are wrong on the

use of time series that are biased bo th with respect to the time of year analyzed and

choice of start and end date. Their assertion th at future projections are flawed is based on this inappropriately limited analysis. Th e petitioner’s evidence and arguments do not show that models projecting future decreases in snow cover are flawed. In fact, observed long-term snow cover trends over both North America and the Northern Hemisphere are directionally consistent with future projections. Therefore, the information presented by the petitioner is inaccurate a nd does not support their claims.

1.5.7 Petitioners Claim That EPA Ignored a Satellite Dataset

Comment (1-88) : One petitioner, the Competitive Enterprise In stitute, contends that EPA’s Endangerment Finding ignores satellite datasets, which, unl ike surface datasets, provide comprehensive coverage of the globe. The Competitive Ente rprise Institute specifically refers to the satellite dataset produced by UAH. It states:

This dataset meets the critical principle of science of repeated, independent verification. These data show modest thirty year warming trends in the middle to upper latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, little warming of the tropics and the Southern Hemisphere, and distinct cooling of the Antarctic regi on - hardly the endangering global warming proclaimed by EPA.

Response (1-88) : EPA clearly did not ignore sa tellite datasets, including the UAH dataset. The satellite

datasets are discussed in detail in th e record for the Endangerment Finding. EPA

summarized trends from satellite datasets in both the TSD and RTC document. The TSD contains an entire section ( 4b) in which upper air temperatur es are summarized, and that incorporates the trends from both Remote Sensing System and UAH satellite temperature records. In Section 4(b), the TSD summa rizes the IPCC’s discussion of tropospheric satellite temperature records, wh ich incorporate the UAH dataset:

The satellite tropospheric temperature record is broadly consistent with surface temperature trends. The range (due to different data sets) of global surface warming since 1979 is 0.29°F (0.16°C) to 0.32°F (0.18°C) per decade compared to 0.22°F (0.12°C) to 0.34°F (0.19°C) per decade fo r estimates of tropospheric temperatures measured by satellite.

Furthermore, also in Section 4(b), we update the IPCC’s summary of the satellite temperature record with a summary of the la test satellite temperature data trends in NOAA publications (NOAA, 2009 and Pete rson and Baringer, 2009) through 2009, which also incorporate the UAH data:

For example, in NOAA (2009b) the satellite mid-tropospheric temperature trend computed for 1979–2008 ranges from +0.20 to 0.27°F (+0.11°C to + 0.15°C) per decade compared to the estimate of +0.22 to +0.34° F (+ 0.12°C to + 0.19°C) per decade given in IPCC (2007a). Combining the radiosonde and satellite records of the troposphere, the [NOAA] State of the Climate in 2008 report estimates the trend is +0.261 ± 0.04°F

151(+0.145 ± 0.02°C) per decade for the period 1958–2008 with the range of the trends calculated from the various datasets (Peterson and Baringer, 2009).

In addition, Volume 2 of the RTC document specifically refers to UAH data in four
separate comment responses (2-47, 2-48, 2-49, and 2-51).

The commenter’s assertion about specific regi onal trends in temper atures derived from satellite records (including UAH’s) were also already addressed in the RTC:

 Temperature trends in the trop ics were discussed in RTC 3-7.

 Temperature trends in the Southern Hemisphere relative to the Northern Hemisphere were discussed in RTC 3-5.

 Antarctic temperature trends were discussed in RTC 2-56.

To conclude, the warming observed in the satellite record, including the UAH data, was considered by EPA and supports EPA’s conc lusion that the warm ing of the climate system is “unequivocal” (see th e Findings, Section IV.2.a.).

1.5.8 Summary

None of the issues raised by petitioners pertaining to ne w science or data that EPA allegedly did not address changes or undermines the scientific basis for EPA’s Findings. In many cases, the issues raised by the petitione rs are not new, but were fact raised and addressed during the rulemaking. Petitioners have misinterpreted or misrepresented the meaning and significance of the scientific liter ature, findings, and da ta they cite, made claims that are not supported by the eviden ce they rely on, provided incomplete and biased analyses to support their claims, failed to acknowledge or account for important results, and, at times, ignored EPA’s endangerment record.

Climate science continues to advance and our understanding will continue to improve as new data and studies that are published will continue to add to our understanding of important climate science issues. But rather than challenging the scientific basis for the Endangerment Finding, the new science cited by petitioners does not undermine the key findings and conclusions that were reached in the assessment literature, and the very solid scientific foundation for EPA’s Findings.

152References

Allen, R.J., and S.C. Sherwood (2008). Warming m aximum in the tropical upper troposphere deduced from thermal wind observations. Nature Geoscience 1:399–403.

Balling Jr., R.C., and C.D. Idso (2002). Anal ysis of adjustments to the United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) temp erature database. Geophysical Research

Letters 10. 1029/2002GL014825.

Barker, T., I. Bashmakov, A. Alharthi, M. Am ann, L. Cifuentes, J. Drexhage, M. Duan, O. Edenhofer, B. Flannery, M. Grubb, M. Hoogw ijk, F. I. Ibitoye, C. J. Jepma, W.A. Pizer, and K. Yamaji (2007). Mitigation from a cross-sectoral perspective. Climate Change 2007 Mitigation. Contribution of Wo rking Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Clim ate Change [B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (eds.)], Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

Bhanoo, S.N. (2010). Less Water Vapor May Slow Warming Trends. The New York

Times A16. 28 Jan. 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/science/ea rth/29vapor.html?_r=1. Accessed July 23,

2010.

Briffa, K.R., et al. (1998). Reduced sensitivity of recent tree-growth to temperature at high northern latitudes. Nature 391:678–682.

Brohan, P., J.J. Kennedy, I. Harris, S.F.B. Tett, and P.D. Jones (2006). Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temp erature changes: A ne w dataset from 1850. Journal of Geophysical Resear ch. 111: D12106. doi:10.1029/2005JD006548

CCSP (2008). Climate Models: An Assessmen t of Strengths and Limitations. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Progr am and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research [Bader D.C., C. Covey, W.J. Gutowski Jr., I.M. Held, K.E. Kunkel, R.L. Miller, R.T. Tokmakian, and M.H. Zhang (Authors)]. Department of Energy, Office of Biological and Environmental Research, Washington, DC, USA, 124 pp.

Christy, J.R., W.B. Norris, and R.T. McNide r (2009). Surface temperature variations in East Africa and possible causes. Jour nal of Climate. 22. doi:10.1175/2008JCLI2726.1.

Christy, J.R., W.B. Norris, K. Redmond, a nd K. Gallo (2006). Methodology and results of calculating central Californ ia surface temperature trends : Evidence of human-induced climate change? Journal of Climate.19:548-563.

Clear Climate Code (2010). The 1990s stati on dropout does not have a warming effect. Available at: http://clear climatecode.org/the-1990s-sta tion-dropout-does-not-have-awarming-effect/. Accessed July 28, 2010.

153CRU. (2010) Climatic Research Unit Data Availability. Available at: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/availa bility/. Accessed on July 23, 2010.

Comi so, J. C., and F. Nishio (2008). Trends in the sea ice cover using enhanced and compatible AMSR-E, SSM/I, and SMMR da ta. Journal of Geophysical Research 113, C02S07, doi: 10. 1029/2007JC004257.

D’Aleo and Watts (2010) Surface Temperature Records: Policy Driven Deception? Science and Public Policy Institute. Available at: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.o rg/originals/policy_driven_de ception.html. Accessed July 23, 2010.

D’Aleo, J. (2010). Central Park – Temper atures Still a Mystery. Available at: http://icecap.us/images/uploa ds/CENTRAL_PARK.pdf and http://icecap.us/index.php/go/new- and-cool/central_park_tempe ratures_still_a_mystery/. Accessed July 23, 2010.

D’Aleo, J., (2009). United Stat es & Global Data Integrity Issues. Science and Public Policy Institute, January 27, 2009. Available at http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/DAleo-DC_Brief.pdf. Accessed July 23, 2010.

D’Arrigo, R., et al. (2008). On the “divergence problem” in northern forests: A review of the tree-ring evidence and possible causes. Global a nd Planetary Change. 60:289.

Davey, C.A., R.A. Pielke Sr., and K.P. Gallo (2006). Differences between near-surface equivalent temperature and temperature trends for the Eastern United States, Equivalent temperature as an alternative measure of h eat content. Global and Planetary Change 54:

19–32.

Davey, C.A., and R.A. Pielke, Sr. (2005). Microclimate Exposures of Surface-Based Weather Stations, Implications For The A ssessment of Long-Term Temperature Trends. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society: 497–504.

Douglass, D.H., J.R. Christy, B.D. Pearson, and S.F. Singer (2007). A comparison of tropical temperature trends w ith model predictions. Intern ational Journal of Climatology.

28:1693–1701.

Easterbrook, Don (2009). Portland Geological Society of America Annual Meeting.18-21

October 2009.

Easterling, D.R., and M.F. Wehner (2009). Is the climate warming or cooling? Geophysical Research Letters. 36: L08706. doi:10.1029/2009GL037810.

154Eschenbach, W. (2009). The Sm oking Gun at Darwin Zero. (December 8, 2009). Available at: http://watts upwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-sm oking-gun-at-darwin-zero. Accessed July 23, 2010.

Esper et al. (2010). Trends a nd uncertainties in Siberian indicators of 20th century warming. Global Change Biology.16, 386–398, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.01913.x

Esper, J., and D. Frank (2009). Divergence pi tfalls in tree-ring research. Climatic Change. 94: 261, 262.

Folland and Parker (1995). Correction of inst rumental biases in historical sea surface temperature data. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society. 121: 319–367.

Folland, C. K., and M. J. Salinger (1995). Surf ace temperature trends and variations in New Zealand and the surrounding ocean, 1871–1993, International Journal of Climatology . 15: 1195–1218.

Goddard, S. (2010a). North American snow models m iss the mark – observed trend opposite of the predictions. February 19. Available at: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/19/north -america-snow-models-miss-the-mark/. Accessed July 23, 2010.

Goddard, S. (2010b). Why is Winter Snow Extent Interesting? February 18, 2010. Available at: http://wa ttsupwiththat.com/2010/02/18/why-is-winter-snow-extentinteresting/. Accessed July 23, 2010.

Goetz, J. (2010). Rewriting History, Time and Time Again. Available at: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/04/08/rewritin g-history-time-and-time-again/. Accessed July 23, 2010.

Hadley Centre (2009) HadCRUT3 dataset, http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3//. Accessed September 24, 2009.

Haimberger, L., C. Tavolato, and S. Sperka (2008). Towards elimination of the warm bias in historic radiosonde temperature re cords—some new results from a comprehensive intercomparison of upper-air data . Journal of Climate. 21(18):4587–4606.

doi:10.1175/2008JCLI1929.1.

Hale, R.C., K.P. Gallo, T.W. Owen, and T.R. Loveland (2006). Land use/land cover change effects on temperature trends at U.S. Climate Normals stations. Geophysical

Research Letters. 33.

Hansen et al. (2010). Current GISS Global Su rface Temperature Analysis. Available at: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/paper/ gistemp2010_draft0319.pdf. Accessed July 23,

2010.

155Harriban, R. (2010). Q&A: Professor Phil J ones. Interview by Roger Harrabin. BBC News. British Broadcast Corporation. Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/s cience/nature/8511670.stm. Acc essed July 23, 2010.

Hatton, Les (2010). 1999-2009: Has the intensity and frequency of hurricanes increased? Available at: http://www .leshatton.org/Documents/Hu rricanes-are-not-gettingstronger.pdf. Accessed July 23, 2010.

Hegerl, G.C., et al. (2007). Understanding and Attributing Climate Change. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Ca mbridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY,

USA.

Huybers, P. (2005). Comment on “Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance” by McIntyre and McKitrick [ 2005]. Geophysical Research Letters. 32: L20

705. doi:10.1029/2005GL023395.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2007a). Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

IPCC (2007b). Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contributi on of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Li nden, and C.E. Hanson (eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 7–22.

IPCC (2007c). Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical

Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Four th Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Cha nge [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Ki ngdom and New Yo rk, NY, USA.

IPCC (2001). Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2001. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Ki ngdom and New Yo rk, NY, USA.

The Independent Climate Change Email I nquiry. (2010) Available at: http://www.ccereview.org/About.php. Last accessed July 13, 2010

Jansen, E., J. Overpeck, K.R. Briffa, J.C. Duplessy, F. Joos, V. Masson-Delmotte, D. Olago, B. Otto-Bliesner, W.R. Peltier, S. Rahmstorf, R. Ramesh, D. Raynaud, D. Rind, O. Solomina, R. Villalba, and D. Zhang ( 2007). Palaeoclimate. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M.

156Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt , M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge , United Kingdom and Ne w York, NY, USA.

Jones (1994). Hemispheric surface air temperat ure variations: A reanalysis and an update

to 1993. Journal of Climate. 7:1794–1802.

Jones (1988). Hemispheric Surface Air Temper ature Variations: Recent Trends and an Update to 1987. Journal of Climate. 1:654-660.

Jones and Moberg (2003). Hemispheric and Large-Scale Surface Air Temperature

Variations: An Extensive Revision and an Update to 2001. Journal of Climate. 16:206-

223.

Jones, P.D., D.H. Lister, and Q. Li ( 2008). Urbanization effects in large-scale temperature records, with an emphasis on Ch ina. Journal of Geophys ical Research. 113: D16122, doi:10.1029/2008/JD009916.

Jones, P.D., P.Ya. Groisman,, M. Coughla n, N. Plummer, W-C Wang, and T.R. Karl (1990). Assessment of urbanization effects in time series of surface air temperature over

land. Nature 347:169–172.

Juckes, M.N., M.R. Allen, K.R. Briffa, J. Es per, G.C. Hegerl, A. Moberg, T.J. Osborn, and S.L. Weber (2007). Millennial Temper ature Reconstruction Intercomparison and

Evaluation. Climate of the Past. 591 –609. Available at: http://www.climpast.net/3/591/2007/cp-3-591-2007.pdf. Accessed July 23, 2010.

Karl, T., J. Melillo, and T. Pe terson (eds.) (2009). Global C limate Change Impacts in the United States. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Karl, T.R., S.J. Hassol, C.D. Miller, and W. L. Murray (eds.) (2006). Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Unders tanding and Reconciling Differences. U.S. Climate Change Science Program and S ubcommittee on Global Change Research. Available at: http://www.climatescience.gov/Li brary/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-finalall.pdf. Accessed July 23, 2010.

Karl, et al. (1993). A New Perspective on R ecent Global Warming: Asymmetric Trends of Daily Maximum and Minimum Temperature. Thomas R. Karl, Philip D. Jones, Richard W. Knight, George Kukla, Neil Pl ummer, Vyacheslav Razuvayev, Kevin P. Kaufman (2010). Corrections and Clarific ations. Science 5: Vol. 327. no. 5966, p. 644. doi: 10.1126/science.327.5966.644-d. February 2010.

Kaufman, D.S., D.P. Schneider, N.P. McKay, C.M. Ammann, R.S. Bradley, K.R. Briffa, G.H. Miller, B.L. Otto-Bliesner, J.T. Over peck, B.M. Vinther, and Arctic Lakes 2k Project Members (2009). Recent Warming Reve rses Long-Term Arctic Cooling, Science. 325 (5945), 1236. doi: 10.1126/science.1173983.

157Kennedy, J.J., P.W. Thorne, T.C. Peterson, R. A. Reudy, P.A. Stott, D.E. Parker, S.A. Good, H.A. Titchner, and K.M. Willett, 2010 : How do we know the world has warmed?

State of the Clim ate in 2009. Bulletin of th e American Meteorological Society. Soc. 91 (6), S79-S82. Parliament, 2009.

Knappenberger, C. (2010). Yet Another In correct IPCC Assessment: Antarctic Sea Ice Increase. Available at: http://www.master resource.org/2010/03/ye t-another-incorrectipcc-assessment-antarctic-sea-ice- increase. Accessed July 23, 2010.

Knight, J., J.J Kennedy, C. Folland, G. Harris, G.S. Jones, M. Palmer, D. Parker, A. Scaife, and P. Stott (2009). Do global temper ature trends over the last decade falsify climate predictions? State of the Clim ate in 2008. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. 90(8):S1–S196.

Knorr, W. (2009). Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO emissions increasing? Geophysical Research Letters. 36: L 21710, doi:10.1029/2009GL040613; University of Bristol press release: Controversial new climate change results. November 9, 2009. Available at: http://bristol.ac.uk/ news/2009/6649.html. Accessed July 23, 2010.

Knutson, et al. (2010). Tropical Cyclones a nd Climate Change. Nature Geoscience

3:157–163.

Le Quéré, C., M.R. Raupach, J.G. Canadell , G. Marland, et al. (2009). Trends in the

sources and sinks of carbon dioxide . Nature Geoscien ce. doi:10.1038/ngeo689.

Leake, J. (2009). Climate change data dumped. TimesOnline. Nov. 29. Available at: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/envi ronment/article6936328. ece. Accessed July 23, 2010.

Leduc, G., R. Schneider, J.-H. Kim, and G. Lohmann (2010). Holocene and Eemian Sea surface temperature trends as revealed by alkenone and Mg/Ca paleothermometry. Quaternary Science Reviews 29: 989-1004.

Loehle, C. (2009). A mathematical anal ysis of the divergence problem in dendroclimatology. Climatic Change. 94: 233.

Loehle, C. (2008). A Mathematical Anal ysis of the Divergence Problem in Dendroclimatology. Climatic Change. doi: 10.1007/s10584-008-9488-8.

Loehle, C., and J.H. McCulloch (2008). Co rrection to: A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-tree ring proxies. Energy and Environment 19: 93–100.

Long, E.R. (2010). Contiguous U.S. Temp erature Trends Using NCDC Raw and Adjusted Data for One-Per-State Rural and Urban Station Sets. Available at: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.o rg/images/stories/papers/or iginals/Rate_of_Temp_Change _Raw_and_Adjusted_NCDC_Data.pdf. Accessed July 23, 2010.

158Mann, M. E., R. S. Bradley, and M. K. Hughes (1999). Northern hem isphere
temp eratures during the past millennium: Inferences, uncertainties, and limitations, Geophysical Research Letters. 26(6):759–762, doi:10.1029/1999GL900070.

Mann, M.E. et al. (2008). Proxy- based reconstructions of he mispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia. Proceedings of the National Academy

of Sciences (PNAS): 105 (36).

Mann, M. E. (2004). On smoothing potentially non-stationary climate time series. Geophysical Research L etters. 31: L07214. doi:10.1029/2004GL019569.

Mann, M.E., and P.D. Jones (2003). Global su rface temperatures over the past two millennia. Geophysical Research Letters. 30(15):1820. doi:10.1029/2003GL017814.

McIntyre, S. and R. McKitrick (2003). Correc tions to the Mann et al. (1998) proxy data base and Northern hemispheric average temp erature series. Energy and Environment. 14:

751-771.

Meehl, G.A. et al. (2007). Global Climat e Projections. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt , M. Tignor, and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge , United Kingdom and Ne w York, NY, USA.

Menne, M.J., C.N. Williams, Jr., and M.A. Palecki (2010). On the reliability of the U.S. surface temperature record. Jour nal of Geophysical Research.

doi:10.1029/2009JD013094.

Menne, M.J., and C.N. Williams (2009). Homo genization of temperature series via pairwise comparisons. Journal of Climate 22(7):1700. Available at: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/ monthly/menne-etal2009.pdf. Accessed July 23, 2010.

Mitchell, T.D, and P. Jones (2005). An impr oved method of constructing a database of monthly climate observations a nd associated high-resolution grids. International Journal of Climatology 25. DOI:10.1002/joc.1181 693 - 712 Royal Meteorological Society.

National Aeronautic and Space Administ ration (NASA) (2010a). GISS Surface Tempterature Analysis: Station Data. Available at: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/. Accessed July 23, 2010.

NASA (2010b). GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Sources. Updated July 2, 2010. Available at: http://d ata.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/g istemp.html. Accessed July 23,

2010.

159NASA (2009a). AIRS Total Precipitable Water Vapor (mm) . Digital image. Available at: http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpegMod/PIA12097_modest.jpg. Accessed July 23, 2010.

NASA (2009b). Carbon Dioxide in the Mid-Troposphere. July. Available at: http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/411791mai n_slide5-AIRS-full.jpg. Accessed July 23, 2010.

NASA (2009c). NASA Outlines Recent Breakthroughs in Greenhouse Gas Research. December 15. Available at: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2009-196. Accessed July 23, 2010.

NASA (2009d). OMI/MLS Tropospheric Column Ozone (Dobson Units). Digital image. July. Available at: http://acdb-ext.gsfc.na sa.gov/Data_services/cloud_s lice/gif/Jul09.gif. Accessed July 23, 2010.

National Academies (2009). G8+5 Academies’ joint statement: Climate change and the transformation of energy technologies fo r a low carbon future. Washington, DC. Available at: http://www.na tionalacademies.org/include s/G8+5energy-climate09.pdf. Accessed June 11, 2010.

National Research Council (NRC) (2010). A dvancing the Science of Climate Change. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

NRC (2006). Surface Temperature Reconstructions For the Last 2,000 Years. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

New Zealand National Institute of Wate r & Atmospheric Research (2010). NZ temperature record. March 4. Availabl e at: http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-andpublications/news/all/2009/nz-temp-record. Accessed July 23, 2010.

New, M., M. Hulme, and P. Jones (1999). Representing Twentieth-Century Space–Time Climate Variability. Part II: Developmen t of 1901–96 Monthly Grids of Terrestrial

Surface Climate. Journal of Climate 13: 2217–238. Available at: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520- 0442%282000%29013%3C2217%3ARTCSTC%3E2.0.CO%3B2. Accessed July 23

, 20210.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admini stration (NOAA) (2010a). State of the Climate Global Analysis Annual 2009. Available at: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global&year=2009&month=13&submitted=Get+ Report#gtemp. Accessed July 23, 2010.

NOAA (2010b). Annual Global (Land & Ocean) Temperature Anomaly Relative to 1901-2000 Base Period. Digital image. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Available at:

160http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/re search/2009/decadal-glob al-temps-1880s2000s.gif. Accessed July 23, 2010.

NOAA (2010c). GHCN Monthly Version 2. Available at: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ghcn-m onthly/index.php. Accessed July 23, 2010.

NOAA (2009). State of the Climate Globa l Analysis Annual 2008. Available at: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global&year=2008&month=13&submitted=Get+ Report. Accessed July 23, 2010.

O’Neill, B. (1997). Measuring Time in the Greenhouse. Climatic Change 37: 491–503.

Pearce, Fred (2010). Victory for openness as IPCC climate scientist opens up lab doors, Ben Santer had a change of heart about data transparency despite being hectored and abused by rabid climate sceptics . The Guardian. Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/ 09/ipcc-report-author -data-openness. Accessed July 23, 2010.

Peterson, T.C., and M.O. Baringer (Eds.) (2009) . State of the Climate in 2008. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. 90: S1–S196.

Peterson, T.C., and R.S. Vose (1997). An ove rview of the global historical climatology network temperature data base. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. 78:

2837–2849.

Peterson, Thomas, Harald Daan, and Philip Jo nes (1997). Initial selection of a GCOS

surface network. Bulletin of the Ameri can Meteorological Society. 78: 2145–2152.

Pielke Sr., R.A., C. Davey, D. Niyogi, S. Fall, J. Steinweg-Woods, K. Hubbard, X. Lin, M. Cai, Y.-K. Lim, H. Li, J. Nielsen- Gammon, K. Gallo, R. Hale, R. Mahmood, S. Foster, R.T. McNider, and P. Blanken (2007a). Unresolved issues w ith the assessment of multi-decadal global land surface temperature trends. Journal of Geophysical Research.

112: D24S08. doi:10.1029/2006JD008229.

Pielke, R., Sr., J. Nielsen-Gamm on, C. Davey, J. Angel, O. Bliss, N. Doesken, M. Cai, S. Fall, D. Niyogi, K. Gallo, R. Hale, K.G. H ubbard, X. Lin, H. Li and S. Raman (2007b).

Documentation of Uncertainties and Biases Associated with Surface Temperature Measurement Sites for Climate Change Assessment. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society: 913–928.

Pivovarova, N. (2009). Institute for Economic Analysis (IEA): How warming is made.

The case of Russia. December 15. Available at: http://www.iea.ru/article/kioto_order/15.12.2009.pdf; translation at: http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.co m/2009/12/iea1.pdf. Accessed on July 23, 2010.

161Porter, S.C. (2000). Onset of Neoglaciation in the Southe rn Hemisphere. Journal of Quaternary Science 15: 395–408.

Randall, D.A., R.A. Wood, S. Bony, R. Col m an, T. Fichefet, J. Fyfe, V. Kattsov, A. Pitman, J. Shukla, J. Srinivasan, R.J. Stouffe r, A. Sumi and K.E. Taylor, 2007: Cilmate

Models and Their Evaluation. In: Climate Ch ange 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to th e Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Cha nge [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Ki ngdom and New Yo rk, NY, USA.

Rayner et al. (2005). Improved Analyses of Changes and Uncertainties in Sea Surface Temperature Measured In Situ since the Mid- Nineteenth Century: The HadSST2 Dataset.

Journal of Climate. 19:446-469

Reichler, T., and J. Kim, (2008). How We ll Do Coupled Models Simulate Today’s Climate? American Meteorolog ical Society (AMS) 89: 303–11.

Reuters (2008). Earth still warming. News 24.com. Available at: http://www.news24.com/SciTech/News/Eart h-still-warming-20080111. Accessed on July 23, 2010.

Rutgers University, Global Snow Lab (2010a ). Snow Cover Data for North America. Available at: http://climate.rutgers.edu/ snowcover/files/moncov.namgnld.txt. Last accessed July 23, 2010.

Rutgers University, Global Snow Lab (2010b). Snow Cover Data for Northern Hemisphere. Available at: http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/ files/moncov.nhland.txt. Accessed July 23, 2010.

Rutherford, S., M. E. Mann, T. J. Osborn, K. R. Briffa, P D. Jones, R. S. Bradley, M. K. Hughes. (2005). Proxy-based Northern Hemisphere surface temperature reconstructions: Sensitivity to methodology, predictor network, target season and target domain. Journal

of Climate. 18:2308–2329.

Santer, B.D., et al. (2008). Consistency of modeled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere. International Journal of Climatology . doi:10.1002/joc.1756.

Segalstad, T.V. (1997). Carbon Cycle Modeling and the Residence Time of Natural and Anthropogenic Atmospheric CO2: On the Cons truction of the ‘Greenhouse Effect Global

War ming’ Dogma,’ Global Warming: The C ontinuing Debate. European Science and Environment Forum (ESEF). Cambridge, England: 1998. Available at: http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm. Accessed on July 23, 2010.

Seinfeld, J.H., and S.N. Pandis (1998). At mospheric Chemistry and Physics From Air Pollution to Climate Change. Wile y Interscience, New York, 1326 pp.

162Smith, E.M. (2009). NOAA/NCDC: Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) – The Global Analysis . N ovember 3. Available at: http://chiefio.wordpress.com /2009/11 /03/ghcn- the-global-analysis/. Accessed July 23,

2010.

Solomon, S., et al. (2010). Contribution of Stratospheric Water Vapor to Decadal Changes in the Rate of Global Warming. Science. 327: 1219-1223. doi:

10.1126/1182488.

Solomon, S., G.K. Plattner, R. Knutti, and P. Friedlingstein (2009). Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions. Proceedings of the National Academy of

Sciences 106:1704–1709.

Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, R.B. Alley, T. Berntsen, N.L. Bindoff, Z. Chen, A. Chidthaisong, J.M. Gregory,G.C. Hegerl, M. Heimann, B. Hewitson, B.J. Hoskins, F. Joos, J. Jouzel, V. Kattsov, U. Lohmann, T. Matsuno,M. Molina, N. Nicholls, J. Overpeck, G. Raga, V. Ramaswamy, J. Ren, M. Rusticucci, R. Somerville, T.F.Stocker, P. Whetton, R.A. Wood, and D. Wratt (2007) . Technical Summary. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contri bution of Working Gr oup I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B.Aver yt, M. Tignor, and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge , United Kingdom and Ne w York, NY, USA.

Soon, W., D.R. Legates, and S.L. Baliunas ( 2004). Estimation and representation of longterm (>40 year) trends of Northern-Hemisphe re gridded surface temperature: A note of caution. Geophysical Research Le tters. 31: L03209, doi:10.1029/2003GL019141.

Thompson et al. (2008). A large discontinuity in the mid-twentieth century in observed global-mean surface temperature. Nature 453:646–649. doi:10.1038/nature06982.

Thompson, L.G., et al. (2006). Abrupt tropic al climate change: past and present. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103:10536–10543.

Treadgold, R. (ed.) (2009). Are we feeling warmer yet? November 25. The New Zealand

Climate Science Coalition. Available at: h ttp://www. climateconversation.wordshine. co.nz/2009/11 /are-we-feeling-warm er-yet/. Accessed July 23, 2010.

Trenberth, K. (2010). Brouhaha over Hacked Climate Emails . National Center for Atmospheric Research. Available at: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/st atement.html. Last accessed April 12, 2010.

Trenberth, K.E. (2009). Geoengi neering: What, How and for Whom? Physics Today: 10- 12. The Climate and Global Dynamics Divi sion (CGD)'s Climate Analysis Section. National Center for Atmosphe ric Research, Available at:

163http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/tre nberth.papers/Geoengi neeringPhsToday.pdf. Accessed July 23, 2010.

Trenberth, K. (2008). Testimony before the U.S. Senate Comm ittee on Environment and

Public Works. Available at: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/ TrenberthTestimony0708_v2.pdf. Accessed June 23, 2010.

Trenberth, K.E. et al. (2007). Observations : Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Scien ce Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the In tergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B.Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Un ited Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

Turner, J., J.C. Comiso, G.J. Marshall, T.A. Lachlan-Cope, T. Bracegirdle, T. Maksym, M.P. Meredith, Z. Wang, and A. Orr (2009). Non-annular atmospheri c circulation change induced by stratospheric ozone de pletion and its role in the recent increase of Antarctic sea ice extent. Geophysical Research Letters, 36:L08502. doi:10. 1029/2009GL037524.

UK House of Commons Science and Technol ogy Committee (2010). The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. Eighth Report of Session 2009–10. HC 387-I. Available at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa /cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/38702.htm.

UK Met Office (2010a). A number of corrections have been made to the station data that are used to produce CRUTEM3 and HadCRUT3. Available at: http://hadobs.metoffice.com/crutem 3/index.html. Accessed July 23, 2010.

UK Met Office (2010b). Proposal for a New In ternational Analysis of Land Surface Air Temperature Data, submitted to the World Meteorological Organi zation, Commission for Climatology, Fifteenth Session, Antalya, Turkey, February 19-24, 2010.

UK Met Office. (2010c) Global average land-s urface, sea-surface and combined land and sea-surface temperature (1850-2009). Digital image. Met Office on Climate Change. Available at: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/cl imatechange/science/monitoring/. Accessed July 23, 2010.

UK Met Office (2009). New evidence confir ms land warming record. December 18. Available at: http://www.metoffice .gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20091218b.html. Accessed July 23, 2010.

UK Parliamentary (2009). Select Committee Report. Available at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/387i.pdf. Accessed July 23, 2010.

164U.S. EPA (2009). Technical Support Docu ment for Endangerment and Ca use or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. Washington, DC: U.S. Envir onmental Protection Agency.

University of East Anglia (2010a). Report of the International Panel set up by the University of East Anglia to examine the research of the Climatic Research Unit. Available at: http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/ comm/media/press/CRUstatements/SAP. Accessed July 23, 2010.

University of East Anglia (2010b). Statement from the University of East Anglia in response to “UK scientist hid climate da ta flaws” (Guardian, February 2, 2010).

Available at: http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/guardianstatement. Accessed July 22, 2010.

Vaganov E.A., Hughes M.K., Kirdyanov A.V., Schweingruber F.H., and Silkin P.P. (1999). Influence of snowfall and melt timing on tree growth in subarctic Eurasia. Nature

400:149–151.

von Storch, H., and E. Zorita (2005) Comment on ‘Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance’ by S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick. Geophysical Research Letters. 32, L20 701. doi:10.1029/2005GL022753.

Vose, R. S., C.N. Williams, Jr., T.C. Peterson, T.R. Karl, and D.R. Easterling (2003). An evaluation of the time of observation bias adjustment in the U.S. Historical Climatology Network. Geophysical Research Letters. 30(20): 2046. doi:10.1029/2003GL018111.

Vose, R.S., R.L. Schmoyer, P.M. Steurer, T.C. Peterson, R. Heim , T.R. Karl, and J. Eischeid (1992). The Global Historical Climatology Network: Long-term monthly temperature, precipitation, sea level pressure , and station pressure data. ORNL/CDIAC53, NDP-041, 325 pp. [Available from Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, P. O. Box 2008, Oak Ridge, TN 37831.]

Wahl, E.R. and C.M. Ammann (2007). R obustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes Reconstruction of Surface Temperatures: Exam ination of Criticisms Based on the Nature and Processing of Proxy Climate Evidence. Climatic Change. 85:33–69. doi:

10.1007/s10584-006-9105-7.

Watts, A. (2010). Darwin Zero Before and Af ter | Watts Up With That? Watts Up With That? Available at: http://w attsupwiththat.com/2009/12/20/darw in-zero-before-and-after/. Accessed July 23, 2010.

Watts, A. (2009). Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable? Chicago: The Heartland Institute. 29 pp.

165166 World Meteorological Organization (WMO) (2010). Volume A Report- Canada: Region

IV North and Central America. Available at: http://climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/prods_ servs/wmo_volumea_e.cfm. Accessed July 23,

2010.

WMO (2000). "WMO Statement on the Stat us of the Global Climate in 1999.” WMONo. 913. ISBN 92-63-10913-3. Available at: http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/wcp/wcdmp/statemnt/wmo913.pdf.

Wegman, E.J., D.W. Scott, and Y.H. Said (2006). Ad Hoc Committee Report on the “Hockey Stick” Global Climate Reconstructi on. Report presented to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce, July 14, 2006. Available at: http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/ research/WegmanReport.pdf.

# EPA’s Response to the Petitions to Reconsider the Endangerment
and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean

Air Act

Volume 2: Issues Raised by
Petitioners on EPA’s Use of IPCC

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Atmospheric Programs Climate Change Division

Washin g ton

, D.C.

1TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page 2.0 Issues Raised by Petitioners on EPA’s Use of IPCC.................................................................6

2.1 Claims That IPCC Errors Undermine IPCC Findings and Technical Support for Endangerment ........................................................................................................................6

2.1.1 Overview................................................................................................................. ...6 2.1.2 Accuracy of Statement on Percent of the Netherlands Below Sea Level..................8 2.1.3 Validity of Himalayan Glacier Projection .................................................................9

2.1.4 Characterization of Climate Change and Disaster Losses .......................................12 2.1.5 Validity of Alps, Andes, and African Mountain Snow Impacts..............................20 2.1.6 Validity of Amazon Rainforest Dieback Projection ................................................21 2.1.7 Validity of African Rain-Fed Agriculture Projection ..............................................23 2.1.8 Summary..................................................................................................................33 2.2 Claims That the IPCC Has a Policy Age nda and Is Not Objective and Impartial...............34

2.2.1 Overview................................................................................................................. .34 2.2.2 Background..............................................................................................................3 4 2.2.3 Responses to Arguably New Object ions Raised by the Petitioners.........................39

2.2.3.1 Allegations of Inappropriate Aut horship and Reviewer Roles Among

IPCC Personnel ...............................................................................................39

2.2.3.2 Allegations That Citing One’s Ow n Papers Compromises Objectivity ...........46

2.2.3.3 Allegations That IPCC Is Biased .....................................................................48

2.2.3.4 Allegations That IPCC Lead Autho rs Forced Consensus and Suppressed Dissenting Views ..............................................................................................57 2.2.4 Responses to Allegations Based on Information That Is Not New .........................65

2.2.4.1 Allegations of Inappropriate Co llaborations Among IPCC Authors ..............65

2.2.4.2 Allegations Regarding Insufficient P eer Review Processes for the IPCC .......67

2.2.4.3 Allegations That IPCC Authors Manipulated Deadlines for New

Literature .........................................................................................................68

2.2.4.4 Allegations Regarding the IPCC’s Use of Gray Literature .............................71 2.2.5 Summary.................................................................................................................. 73

References..............................................................................................................................................75

3ACRONYMS °C degrees Celsius °F degrees Fahrenheit AIRS Atmospheric Infrared Sounder AMS American Meteorological Society AOGCM Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models AR4 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report BOM Australian Bureau of Meteorology

CH 4 methane

cm centimeter CCSP U.S. Climate Change Science Program CDIAC Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center CMIP Coupled Model Intercomparison Project

CO 2 carbon dioxide

CRU Climatic Research Unit EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

FOIA Freedom of Information Act GHCN Global Historical Climatology Network GHG greenhouse gases GISS Goddard Institute for Space Studies (NASA) GSL Global Snow Laboratory (Rutgers University) IAC InterAcademy Council IEA Institute of Economic Analysis

IISD International Institute for Sustainable Development IJC International Journal of Climatology IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IQA Information Quality Act LIA Little Ice Age MET United Kingdom Meteorological Office

MWP Medieval Warm Period NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NCAR National Center for Atmospheric Research

NCDC National Climatic Data Center NIWA National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research NMS National Meteorological Station

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NRC National Research Council

NSIDC U.S. National and Snow and Ice Data Center ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency RMS Risk Management Solutions RTC Response to Comments RTP Response to Petitions SAB Scientific Advisory Board SALR saturated adiabatic lapse rate TSD Technical Support Document

4UAH University of Alabama–Huntsville UCAR University Corporation for Atmospheric Research

UHI urban heat island UK United Kingdom USGCRP U.S. Global Change Research Program

USHCN United States Histor ical Climatology Network

W/m 2 watts per meter squared WMO World Meteorological Organization WWR World Weather Reports

52.0 Issues Raised by Petitioners on EPA’s Use of IPCC

2.1 Claims That IPCC Errors Undermine IPCC Findings and Technical Support for Endangerment

2.1.1 Overview

Several petitioners (Peabody Energy, the State of Texas, the Coalition for Responsible Regulation, the Competitive Enterprise Institu te, the Ohio Coal Association, and the Southeastern Legal Foundation) contend that alle ged errors and/or unsupported findings in IPCC reports demonstrate that the sc ience on which the Administrator relied for the Endangerment Finding is uncertain and/or not credible. We ha ve examined each specific instance of error, alleged error, and/or alleged unsupported statem ent in the voluminous IPCC report and we find that the evidence cited by petitione rs does not support this conclusion.

In reviewing the information provided by petitioners, EPA has determined that most—if not all—of the alleged erro rs and/or unsupported statements highlighted by petitioners are not relevant, not truly erroneous or unsupported, an d/or inconsequential to the Administrator’s Finding. In many cases, the petitioners’ interpre tation of both the alleged error (or alleged unsupported statement) and its implications is not supported by the evidence provided. Clearly, the charge that there are or might be errors or unsupported statements in the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) is serious, and we agre e with petitioners that such claims merit thorough review. EPA has done such a review; we find that the documented errors in the AR4 are not significant, and do not call into questi on the fundamental and broad evidence on which the Endangerment Finding rests. Moreover, the o ccurrence of the few documented errors in a study the size of the IPCC report is not unexpected and does not call into question the credibility of the entire report a nd all of its findings.

The Netherlands Environmental Assessment Ag ency (PBL) conducted its own independent assessment of the regional chapters (9 through 16) in Working Group II’s contribution to the AR4, where many of the errors, alleged errors, an d/or alleged unsupported statements have been identified. The report Assessing an IPCC Assessment (PBL, 2010a) finds “no significant errors” in summary conclusions, though it notes that “p rovenance of summary statements needs to become more transparent in future reports.”

PBL (2010a) also states that “examples of ne gative impacts dominate at summary level,” indicating that the IPCC selected a “risk-oriented ” approach in communicating to policymakers. The report states:

The PBL subscribes to the importance of an approach that highlights what may go wrong under unmitigated climate change, but Wo rking Group II Report lacked a clear explanation of the choice of approach and its consequences. Alternatively, it could be argued that policymakers should be presented with a complete picture in the Summary for Policymakers, not just with negative examples (without sugge sting that potential positive effects cancel out potential effects).

6While we cited the IPCC Working Group II Summ ary for Policym akers in the Endangerment Technical Support Document (TSD), we relied most heavily on information from the full chapters in the Working Group II report, specifically Chapter 14 on North America, as well as other assessment literature such as the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP)

assessment Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States (Karl et al., 2009). The Administrator considered both the positive and negative effects of climate change, as the Endangerment Finding states (Section I.A.):

The Administrator is using her judgment, base d on existing science, to weigh the threat for each of the identifiable risks, to weigh the potential benefits where relevant, and ultimately to assess whether these risks and effects, when viewed in total, endanger public health or welfare.

In addition, the Administrator found endangerment based on impacts in the United States alone, with international impacts providing some supporting information, as the Endangerment Finding states (Section III.D):

EPA is not considering interna tional effects to determine whether the health and welfare of the public in a foreign country is e ndangered. Instead, EPA’s consideration of international effects for purposes of determ ining endangerment is limited to how those international effects impact the health and welfare of the U.S. population.

The Administrator looked first at impacts in the United States itself, and determined that these impacts are reasonably anticipated to endanger the public health and the welfare of the U.S. population. That remains the Admini strator’s position, and by itself supports her determination of endangerment.

Despite its few criticisms of th e IPCC, PBL (2010a) concludes:

Our findings do not contradict the main conc lusions of the IPCC on impacts, adaptation and vulnerability related to climate change . There is ample observation evidence of natural systems being influenced by climate change on regional levels. The negative impacts under unmitigated climate change pose substantial risks to most parts of the world, with risks increasing at hi gher global average temperatures.

This conclusion is very consistent with th e conclusion the Administrator reached in the Endangerment Finding, after weighing the balance of evidence.

This section responds to the major arguments of the petitioners on the significance of alleged errors and/or unsupported statements in the IPCC reports, and assesses the implications of these errors and/or unsupported statements for the credib ility and reliability of the major findings and

conclusions of the IPCC and other assessment literature.

72.1.2 Accuracy of Statement o n Percent of the Netherlands Below Sea Level

Comment (2-1) : Peabody Energy and the State of Texas contend th at the IPCC erroneously stated (in Working Group II’s contribution to the AR4) that 55% of the Netherlands is below sea level, whereas the actual number is much lower according to Dutch materials (26%).

Response (2-1) : The statistic quoted in the IPCC AR4 is inaccurate. When this error was identified, PBL (2010b) published a correction:

In the 2007 IPCC report by the Working Gr oup 2 (Climate change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability) a mistake has entered the text that was supplied by the

Netherlands Environmental Asse ssment Agency, regarding th e risks of flooding for the Netherlands. In the chapter on Europe, on pa ge 547, it says that 55 per cent of the Netherlands is below sea level (‘The Nether lands is an example of a country highly susceptible to both sea level ri se and river flooding because 55% of its territory is below sea level’). This should have read that 55 per cent of th e Netherlands is at risk of flooding; 26 per cent of the country is below s ea level, and 29 per ce nt is susceptible to river flooding. Examples of the latter are the near floodings, in the mid-1990s, of areas along the rivers Meuse and Waal – ar eas that are well above sea level.

The IPCC agrees that this statisti c is incorrect in the AR4, and al so notes that the same mistake was made by other reputable groups (Reuters, 2010). For example, the IPCC—in a written statement provided to Reuters—indi cated that a report from the Du tch Ministry of Transport had stated “‘about 60%’ of the country is below s ea level,” and referred to a European Commission study saying “about half” (Reuters , 2010). As noted by the IPCC statement, the error was not made by authors of the AR4, but originated with PBL, which supplied the text. To correct the mistake, the IPCC published an official erratum (IPCC, 2010d):

2) Page 547. Section 12.2.3. Line 20: Delete “below sea level” and replace with “at risk flooding”.

The IPCC was further quoted as saying (Reuters , 2010): “The sea level statistic was used for background information only, and the updated inform ation remains consistent with the overall

conclusions.”

In its independent report Assessing an IPCC Assessment (PBL, 2010a), PBL, which was responsible for th e error, states:

We acknowledge that this error was not th e fault of the IPCC (Coordinating) Lead

Authors or Co-Chairs. The error was made by a Contributing Author from the PBL, and the (Coordinating) Lead Authors [of the IP CC] are not to blame for relying on Dutch information provided by a Dutch agency.

8EPA concludes that this error is mi nor and inco nsequential to the Admi nistrator’s Endangerment Finding. EPA does not refer to or rely on th is statistic in the Endangerment Finding or supporting documents, and this information does not pertain to endangerment of public health and welfare in the United States in any meani ngful way. It does not call into question the integrity of the IPCC, and it has no impact on the scientific support for EPA’s Endangerment Finding. Furthermore, as the error pertains to a statistic outside the Un ited States, it is not relevant to the Endangerment Finding. As not ed in Subsection 2.1.1, the Endangerment Finding states (Section III.D): “The Admini strator looked first at impacts in the United States itself, and determined that these impacts are reasonably anti cipated to endanger the public health and the welfare of the U.S. population. That remains th e Administrator’s position, and by itself supports her determination of endangerment.”

2.1.3 Validity of Himalayan Glacier Projection

Comment (2-2) : Several petitioners (the Coalit ion for Responsible Regulation, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Ohio Coal Association, Pea body Energy, the Southeastern Legal Foundation, and the State of Texas) state that the IPCC erre d in including a projecti on that glaciers in the Himalayas would disappear by 2035, and they claim EPA relied on this projection in the Endangerment Finding. Petitioners argue that this error undermines the credibility of the IPCC reports. The Ohio Coal Association writes: “T he Agency no longer has a basis for unquestioned confidence that the IPCC reports present a fair , unbiased, and accurate assessment of climate science.” Peabody states the error: “...undercuts EPA’s conclusion that the IPCC review process was ‘rigorous’ and shows how reliance on the IPCC led to errors in EPA’s Endangerment Finding.”

Response (2-2) : The IPCC has issued a correction pertaining to this projection for the melting of Himalayan glaciers (IPCC, 2010f):

The Synthesis Report, the concluding documen t of the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (page 49) stated: “Climate change is expected to exacerbate current stresses on water resources from population growth and economic and land-use change, including urba nization. On a regional scale, mountain snow pack, glaciers and small ice caps play a crucial role in freshwater availability. Widespread mass losses from glaciers and re ductions in snow cove r over recent decades are projected to accelerate throughout the 21st century, reducing water availability, hydropower potential, and changing seasonal ity of flows in regions supplied by meltwater from major mountain ranges (e.g. Hindu-Kush, Himalaya, Andes), where more

than one-sixth of the worl d population currently lives.”

This conclusion is robust, appropriate, and enti rely consistent with the underlying science and the broader IPCC assessment. It has, how ever, recently come to our attention that a paragraph in the 938-page Working Group II contribution to the underlying assessment refers to poorly substantiated estimates of rate of recession and date for the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers. In drafting the paragraph in question, the clear and well9established standards of evidence, require d by the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly.

The Chair, Vice-Chairs, and Co-chairs of th e IPCC regret the poor application of wellestablished IPCC procedures in this instance. This episod e demonstrates that the quality of the assessment depends on absolute a dherence to the IPCC standards, including thorough review of “the quality and validity of each source before incorporating results from the source into an IPCC Report”. We r eaffirm our strong commitment to ensuring this level of performance.

First, as described in Response 2-3 below, this error concerns a single study, out of many that support the IPCC’s conclusions regarding glacier recession. Second, EPA does not refer to this projection in the Endangerment Finding or supporting material. We acknowledge that the TSD mentions Himalayan glaciers; Table 16.1 of S ection 16(b) (“Overview of International Impacts”), highlighting “examples” of intern ational impacts, states (U.S. EPA, 2009):

Glacier melt in the Himalayas is projected to increase flooding and rock avalanches from destabilized slopes and to affect water resources within the next two to three decades. This will be followed by decreased ri ver flows as the glaciers recede.

This statement is entirely consistent with the IPCC’s statement in its Synthesis Report (on page 49) (IPCC, 2007b), cited above, which the IPCC not es is “robust, appropriate, and entirely consistent with the underlying science and the br oader IPCC assessment.” EPA did not refer to a

rate of recession or a timef rame in which the Himalayan glaciers would be gone.

This error represents one lapse in the deliberate preparation and review of a multi-volume assessment containing thousands of pages of fi ndings and conclusions. Despite petitioners’ claims to the contrary, the timing of glacier recession in the Himalayas has no impact on the scientific support for EPA’s Endangermen t Finding. As noted in Section 2.1.1, the Endangerment Finding states (Section III.D):

The Administrator looked first at impacts in the United States itself, and determined that these impacts are reasonably anticipated to endanger the public health and the welfare of the U.S. population. That remains the Admini strator’s position, and by itself supports her determination of endangerment.

After careful review, the facts do not substantiate the petitioner s’ assertion that this error

undercuts EPA’s conclusion that the IPCC review process was ‘rigorous’ or that reliance on the IPCC, among other assessments, led to errors in EPA’s Endangerment Finding.

Comment (2-3) : The Southeastern Legal Foundation questions th e IPCC claim that the conclusions regarding Himalayan glaciers presented in the AR4 Synthesi s Report are “robust, appr opriate, and entirely consistent with the underlying science and the broader IPCC assessment” despite the erroneous projection. The Southeastern Legal Foundation states: “The IP CC has now grudgingly retracted

10the claim of imm inent Himalayan glacier melt, though it claims the overall conclusions regarding glacial melt are robust. How th eir conclusions can be fake but accurate is not evident.”

Response (2-3) : Southeastern Legal Foundation is referring to the following conclusions in the IPCC’s 2007 Synthesis Report (IPCC, 2007b, page 49):

Climate change is expected to exacerbate current stresses on water resources from population growth and economic and land-use change, including urbanization. On a regional scale, mountain snow pack, glaciers a nd small ice caps play a crucial role in freshwater availability. Widespread mass losses from glaciers and reductions in snow cover over recent decades are projected to accelerate throughout the 21st century, reducing water availability, hydropower potenti al, and changing seasonality of flows in regions supplied by meltwater from major mountain ranges (e.g. Hindu-Kush, Himalaya, Andes), where more than one-sixth of the world population currently lives.

EPA has reviewed the complete discussion of this issue in the AR4, in the Synthesis Report, and in the contributions of Working Groups I (IPCC, 2007e) and II (IPCC, 2007g). The IPCC cites numerous studies that document Himalaya and other Asian glacier tr ends, projections, and impacts. For example, it references the followi ng findings from a range of studies supporting its

conclusion:

 Glaciers in the Asian high mount ains have generally shrunk at varying rates (from Su and Shi, 2002; Ren et al., 2004; Solomina et al., 2004; Dyurgerov a nd Meier, 2005)—in IPCC Working Group I Chapter 4 (Lemke et al., 2007).

 The entire Hindu-Kush-Himalaya ice mass has d ecreased in the last two decades. Water supply in areas fed by glacial meltwater from the Hindu Kush and Himalayas, on which hundreds of millions of people in China and India depend, will be negatively affected (Barnett et al., 2005)—in IP CC Working Group II Chapter 3 (Kundzewicz et al., 2007).

 The Himalayan glacier Gangotri receded at an average rate of 7.3 meters every year from 1842 to 1935; from 1985 to 2001, it receded at a rate of 23 meters per year (Hasnain, 2002)—in IPCC Working Group II Ch apter 10 (Cruz et al., 2007).

 Reductions in the mass of a sample of Northe rn Hemisphere glaciers (including several in Asia) of up to 60% are projected by 2050 (S chneeburger et al., 2003)—in IPCC Working Group II Chapter 3 (Kundzewicz et al., 2007).

 Rapid melting of glaciers can lead to flooding ofrivers and the formation of glacial meltwater lakes, which may pose a serious risk of outburst floods (Coudrain et al., 2005)—in IPCC Working Group II Chapter 3 (Kundzewicz et al., 2007).

Thus, EPA finds that the single faulty projecti on highlighted by petitione rs does not compromise

the IPCC’s overall assessment of observed glacier loss, projected gl acier loss, and the impacts of glacier loss on water resources in the Himalayas. Numerous studies docu ment a general decline in Himalayan glacier mass, project substantial fu ture declines, and discus s the impacts of these

11changes on water resources and society, which is consistent with the conclusions drawn by the IPCC. The petitioner’s claim implies that the IPCC conclusion in the Synthesis Report depends upon a single study, without which we are uncertain as to the fate and timing of Himalayan glacier melt. The full discussion of this i ssue by the IPCC clearly demonstrates that the petitioners’ argument is flawed and that th e IPCC’s conclusions are well-supported by the

scientific literature.

2.1.4 Characterization of Climate Change and Disaster Losses

Comment (2-4) : Some petitioners raise concerns with certain aspe cts of the IPCC’s treatment of climate change and natural disasters. The Southeastern Legal Foundation asserts that th e IPCC mischaracterized the findings of a non-peer-reviewed study (Mui r-Wood et al., 2006) on climate change and disaster losses. It states that the IPCC repor ted that global warming wa s causing an increase in losses from weather disasters of 2% per year, ev en after controlling for economic growth, citing the Muir-Wood study even though that study ha d actually found no trend. Along with the Southeastern Legal Foundation, the Competitive Enterp rise Institute refers to an article in the Sunday Times (Leake, 2010b) indicating th at the IPCC wrongly linked climate change to natural

disasters. Southeastern Legal Foundation finds:

The EPA Endangerment Finding relies heavily on the assertion that AGW [anthropogenic global warming] will cause extreme weather events to become more frequent and more severe and thus constitute a danger to human health and welfare—an essential element of the Finding. To support this assertion the Finding in turn relies heavily on the IPCC’s reports on weather disasters.

Response (2-4) : To support the Endangerment Finding, EPA cited th e potential impacts of climate change on the number and/or severity of certain extreme w eather events, for which the Southeastern Legal Foundation levels no specific criticism. The TSD did not discuss th e link between climate change and the historical trends in the economic magnitude of disaster losses. In responding to public comments on the issue (e.g., see Responses 7-5 and 7-38 in the Response to Comments [RTC] document), EPA acknowledged that many f actors influence the economic losses caused by disasters which make it difficult to use historical data on tre nds in economic disaster loss to determine the impact of climate change on the loss es from weather events in the past. Further, the Endangerment Finding is clear that the Admi nistrator’s decision was based on the physical and environmental impacts associated with cl imate change, and how they can affect the characteristics of weather events, not the link betw een climate change and disaster losses. As the Endangerment Finding states (Section I.A):

The evidence concerning how human induced climate change may alter extreme weather events also clearly supports a finding of endangerment, give n the serious adverse impacts

that can result from such events and the increas e in risk, even if small, of the occurrence and intensity of events such as hurricanes and floods.

12With respect to the Muir-Wood study, we neither cited nor relied upon it in our discussion of

extrem e events. In fact, our only specific re ference to this study in the record for the Endangerment Finding is in Response 1-15 in the RTC documents, which a ddressed criticism of the IPCC’s use of gray l iterature. The technical aspects of this study were not discussed because EPA did not focus on the relationship between cl imate change and the economic magnitude of disaster losses as underlying support for the E ndangerment Finding. We note that the TSD did include a figure (TSD Figure 14.1) showing inform ation on several factors, including one portion (panel e) on observed U.S. hu rricane economic damages compared to a measure of Atlantic hurricane intensity. This figure was taken from the chapter on North America from Working Group II’s contribution to the AR4 (Field et al., 2007, Figure 14.1); the TSD provides no commentary on the hurricane economic damages portion (panel e).

The controversy surrounding the relationship between climate change and economic losses from disasters did arise in public comments (e.g., s ee comments 7-5 and 7-38 in the RTC document), to which EPA provided measured, balanced responses consistent with the assessment literature. In comment 7-38, for example, the commenter argued that increasing raw damage totals associated with tropical storm (or hurricane) damage in coastal communities are not the result of climate change, but rather are caused by change s in coastal populati on, the wealth of the population, inflation, and poor sediment ma nagement practices. EPA responded:

EPA agrees that the interaction of a series of drivers adversely im pacts coastal areas and can contribute to tropical stor m damage totals. These driver s include changes in coastal population, wealth of the populat ion, inflation, and sediment management practices.

EPA’s response then focused on the physical imp acts of climate change that suggest increased risk to the public from severe weather even ts, pointing to the following findings from the

assessment literature:

 Superimposed on accelerated sea level rise, the present storm and wave climatology and storm surge frequency dist ributions suggest more severe coastal flooding and erosion hazards (Nicholls et al., 2007).

 Higher sea level provides an elevated ba se for storm surges to build upon and diminishes the rate at which low-lying ar eas drain, thereby increasing the risk of flooding from rainstorms (CCSP, 2009a).

 Apart from nonclimatic events such as ts unamis, extreme sea levels occur mainly in the form of storm surges generated by tropical or extra-tropical cyclones.

There is evidence for an increase in extreme high sea level since 1975 based upon an analysis of 99 th percentiles of hourly sea leve l at 141 stations over the globe (Bindoff et al., 2007).

We also noted: “USGCRP concludes that future increases in losses will be attributable to climate change with high confidence as climate change increases the frequency and intensity of many types of extreme weather (Karl et al., 2009).” EPA agrees with this conclusion regarding losses in the future—if climate change causes an in crease in the frequency or intensity of certain severe weather events, then it follows that c limate change could lead to increased losses compared with what would occur without the incr ease in those severe weather events. However,

13EPA did not focus on historical trends in the ma gnitude of econom ic disast er losses to evaluate the likelihood that climate change would lead to an increase in the number or frequency of such

weather events. For that reas on, the charge that the IPCC mi scharacterized reports on the implications of such historical trends doe s not materially affect the basis for EPA’s Endangerment Finding.

For its part, the IPCC responded to the allegati on that it mischaracteri zed the Muir-Wood study on climate change and disaster losses with an official statement (IPCC, 2010e). The IPCC stated, among other things, that the Sunday Times article cited by South eastern Legal Foundation and the Competitive Enterprise Institute:

Incorrectly assumes that a brief section on tr ends in economic losses from climate-related disasters is everything the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (2007) has to say about changes in extremes and disasters. In f act, the Fourth Assessment Report reaches many important conclusions, at many lo cations in the report, about th e role of climate change in

extreme events. The assessment addresses both observations of past changes and projections of future changes in sectors ra nging from heat waves and precipitation to

wildfires. Each of these is a careful a ssessment of the available evidence, with a thorough consideration of the confidence w ith which each conclusion can be drawn.

To summarize, petitioners do not properly char acterize the information on which EPA relied in making the Endangerment Finding. Petitioners also mischaracterize the stat ements of the IPCC. The IPCC reasonably characterized the links betw een climate change and the projected increase in frequency and severity of severe weather ev ents. The IPCC discussed the various types of evidence supporting this view, whic h include but are clearly not lim ited to consideration of the evidence for and against the ability to identify a climate change impact from the trend in economic magnitude of disaster lo sses, and the IPCC caveated its di scussion of this issue. To support the Endangerment Finding, EP A cited the physical and envi ronmental factors indicating that climate change would lead to an increase in frequency and se verity of certain severe weather events. Only in response to public comments did EPA discuss what can be determined from analyses of past trends in di saster losses. Accordingly, EPA did not rely on a linkage between climate change and the economic magnitude of disaster losses to support the Endangerment Finding, and petitioners’ arguments do not undermine the reasoning supporting EPA’s Endangerment Finding.

Our response to a petitioner’s specific claims regarding the Muir-Wood study is provided in Response 2-5, below.

Comment (2-5) : Southeastern Legal Foundation writes:

The IPCC reported that global warming was causi ng an increase in losses from weather disasters of 2% per year, ev en after controlling for econom ic growth, citing a non-peer reviewed study by Robert Muir-Wood. Yet the IPCC mischaracterized the study, which actually found no trend and expressly eschewed the proposition for wh ich it was cited.

14Muir-Wood et al. expressly caveated that the exceptio nally strong hurricane seasons in

2004 and 2005 accounted for alm ost all of the 2% increase from 1970-2005.

Response (2-5) : First, while the version of the Muir-Wood et al. (2006) paper cited in the IPCC was not yet peerreviewed, a subsequent version of this work wa s peer-reviewed and accepted for publication just weeks after the cutoff for inclusion in the IPCC, according to a statement by Risk Management Solutions (RMS), where Robert Muir-Wood is em ployed as a chief rese arch officer. In a frequently asked questions document poste d on its website (RMS, 2010), RMS states:

The research was conducted during the first half of 2006 and the full paper summarizing the results was peer reviewed and accepted for publication in November 2006. This was

a few weeks outside of the cut-off date for the IPCC 4th Assessment Report in October, which is why an earlier summary version of the paper—written for a scientific workshop held in May 2006 and published in the conf erence proceedings in October 2006—was referenced (the IPCC can only cite publishe d material). Despite not being able to reference it, the IPCC was aware of the full report and that it had been accepted for publication before the 4th Asse ssment Report was finalized.

While the paper was completed and accepte d for publication in November 2006, delays in publication meant that it did not officially appear as a book chapter until 2008.

Second, the same frequently asked questions do cument (RMS, 2010) indicates that the IPCC did

not mischaracterize the results of the paper:

RMS believes the IPCC fairly referenced its paper, with suit able caveats around the results, highlighting the factors influenci ng the relationship that had been discovered between time and increased catastrophe costs. We believe it was a ppropriate to include the RMS paper in the report because, at that time, it was the only paper addressing global multi-peril catastrophe losses over time that had been normalized for changes in the values and exposure at risk.

Thus, we find the study to be va lid. As discussed in Response 1-15 of the RTC document, the use of non-peer-reviewed literature is allowed un der IPCC procedures. In this case, the paper was clearly a reasonable refere nce and was ultimately peer-r eviewed. We further find the petitioner’s discussion of the cav eats in the Muir-Wood paper to be potentially misleading. The petitioner claims that “the IPCC mischaracterized the study” and states in the next sentence that

“Muir-Wood et al. expressly caveated that the excepti onally strong hurricane seasons in 2004

and 2005 accounted for almost all of the 2% in crease from 1970-2005.” This could give the impression that the IPCC does not provide such cav eats. An examination of the discussion in Working Group II’s contribution to the IPCC AR4, however, reveals th at it also caveats the 2% increase, stating (Rosenzweig et al., 2007): “The significance of th e upward trend is influenced by the losses in the USA and the Caribbean in 2004 and 2005 and is arguably biased by the relative wealth of the USA, particularly relative to India.”

15Comment (2-6) : Background: Southeastern Legal Foundation cites the following IPCC expert reviewer comment (IPCC, 2006c), which was submitted while the Working Group II report was in preparation and pertains to the IPCC’s characte rization of climate change and disaster losses and the Muir-Wood et al. (2006) study:

I think this is inappropriate. It leads the reader into interpreting recent events in a particular way without providing supporting information. This suggestion, that the losses

in 2004 and 2005 draw Pielke’s results into question, needs to be supported with a reference or a solid in-chapter assessment. What does Pielke think about this? (Francis Zwiers, Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis)

According to Roger Pielke Jr. (Pielke, 2010a), a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, the expert reviewer, Zwie rs, is referring to th is passage in the AR4 (Rosenzweig et al., 2007):

A previous normalisation of losses, undertaken for U.S. hurricanes by Pielke and Landsea (1998) and U.S. floods (Pielke et al., 2002) included normalising the economic losses for changes in wealth and populati on so as to express losses in constant dollars. These previous national U.S. assessments, as we ll as those for normalised Cuban hurricane losses (Pielke et al., 2003), di d not show any significant upward trend in losses over time,

but this was before the remarkab le hurricane losses of 2004 and 2005.

The IPCC writing team responded to the Zwiers co mment with the following: “I believe Pielke agrees that adding 2004 and 2005 has the potential to change his earlier c onclusions – at least

about the absence of a trend in US Cat losses” (IPCC, 2006c).

Comment: The Southeastern Legal Foundation claims that “The IPCC knew from the comments of reviewers that their use of the [Mui r-Wood] study was wrong before the report was published.” Citing a blog post from Roger Piel ke Jr., Southeastern Legal Foundation suggests the IPCC fabricated its response to the expert reviewer, Zwiers:

The IPCC reviewer had asked “What does Piel ke think about this?” The answer given was a fabrication, according to Pielke, Jr. As he commented on hi s blog, “[N]ot only did the IPCC AR4 WGII egregiously misrepresent the science of disasters and climate change, but when questions were raised about that section by at least one expert reviewer, it simply made up a misleading and false response about my views.”

Response (2-6) : It is unfortunate that Dr. Pielke found that his views were mi srepresented by the IPCC. EPA cannot speculate how or why this happened. Dr . Pielke had the opportunity to comment on the

IPCC’s draft treatment of these issues as a reviewer , but did not. (He is officially listed as an IPCC Working Group II expert reviewer for the United States in Appendix III of the IPCC AR4 Working Group II report (IPCC, 2007f).

16The representative for the IPCC’s author team wr ote “I believe Pielke agrees,” which suggests a possible honest m isunderstanding of Dr. Pielke’s views. This in cident certainly does not support the petitioner’s contention that the IPCC “knew” that its use of the Muir-Wood study was wrong. In fact, as discussed in the previous response (2 -5), it is not at all cl ear that the study was wrong or was used inappropriately by the IPCC in any way.

At the time the Muir-Wood et al. study was co mpleted in 2006, it was the only global analysis

we are aware of that included 2004 and 2005 data. Wh ile it is true that Pielke Jr.’s remarks from the Seventh Annual Roger Revelle Commemorative Lecture contained an an alysis of normalized Atlantic hurricane damages th rough 2005 and were published in Oceanography (Pielke, 2006), those remarks were not assessed by the IPCC, like ly because they were presented as a lecture rather than a scientific study. Much of the scientific content of Dr. Pielke’s talk was subsequently peer-reviewed and published in 20 08 (Pielke et al., 2008), but this was well after

the IPCC deadline for inclusion in the AR4. Furthermore, whereas Dr. Pielke’s 2006 analysis in Oceanography limited its focus to Atlantic hurricanes, the Muir-Wood analysis was multi-hazard and global.

Thus, while the IPCC may have made mistaken assumptions about Dr. Pielke’s views, its reliance on the Muir-Wood et al. (2 006) study was reasonable, as th at study contained the latest and most relevant published global analysis.

Comment (2-7) : The Southeastern Legal Foundation states that EPA’s Response 1-15 (in Volume 1 of the RTC document, concerning the use of non-peer-reviewed literature) did not re spond to the substance of the comment concerning the IPCC’s and Climate Change Science Program’s (CCSP’s) misrepresentation of the litera ture and the central underlying point that there was no legitimate evidence that manmade climate change was cau sing an increase in weather disasters.

The Southeastern Legal Foundation notes: “Thi s comment showed that both the IPCC and especially the CCSP had fraudul ently asserted that AGW was causing increased frequency and severity of extreme weather ev ents.” It provides the following excerpt from the comment (3303):

In 2007 the IPCC released its Fourth Asse ssment Report and it relied on the single nonpeer reviewed Muir-Wood (2006) [9] st udy cherrypicked from the Hohenkammer workshop as the single study to highlight in its review of this topic. [12] The same critique of the Stern report ’s reliance on this Muir-W ood study above applies to the IPCC’s reliance on it as well. Further, th e IPCC included a graph [13] attempting to show how closely temperature anomalies match up with disaster losses, using a scaling of the axes to suggest a relationship where none has been shown in the peer-reviewed literature. Again it relies on Muir-Wood (2005). Coincidentally, Robert Muir-Wood, of Risk Management Solutions, Inc., was an aut hor of the chapter of the IPCC report that selectively highlighted his own non-peer reviewed work.

The US Climate Change Science Program systematically and repeatedly misrepresented

the science of disasters and climate change. First, the CCSP US extremes report [14] miscited several of Roger Peilke’s papers in support of claims that they did not make and

17relied on Mills 2005 as the definitive source on th is topic. [16] The disasters and climate change section of this CCSP report is also a fact checker’s nightm are. Second the CCSP draft Synthesis report and fi nal Synthesis report [15] relie d on non-peer reviewed work by Evan Mills and ignored releva nt peer reviewed research showing different results (in fact all peer reviewed res earch points in the same direction on this subject). Coincidentally, Evan Mills was an author of the CCSP Synthesis Report that highlights his own non-peer reviewed work. Mills also apparently consults for companies with an interest in climate policies, and yet this was not disclosed by the CCSP.

It then cites EPA’s response (RTC 1-15):

The commenter describes two pieces of literature that were referenced by IPCC but not published in peer reviewed journals: 1) a natural catastrophes report by Munich Re (2000) that was cited in IPCC Third Asse ssment Report (IPCC, 2001), and 2) a paper on

trends in weather-related cat astrophes by Muir-Wood et al. ( 2006). The identification of only two examples out of the thousands of references cited in the IPCC (2000) and (2007) reports provides more support for the ri gor of the IPCC proce ss. Further, these specific studies were neither the central nor sole evidence used in forming the broader conclusions of the IPCC; such broader c onclusions are based on multiple lines of evidence and peer-reviewed literature.

On the basis of EPA’s response, the S outheastern Legal Foundation concludes:

It is a very peculiar logic that treats proof of what appears to be scientific fraud as demonstrating “the rigor of the IPCC’s proce ss.” No response whatsoever is made to the substance of the comment concerning the CCSP’ s misrepresentation of the literature and the central underlying point that there was no legitimate evidence that manmade climate change was causing an increase in weather disast ers. The question naturally arises as to why the EPA avoided these points. One of the lead authors of the CCSP report so vigorously attacked in Comment 3303 is T homas Wilbanks, of the DOE Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The same Thomas Wilban ks was a Federal expert reviewer for the TSD. TSD p. 2. Thus, the EPA ignored and avoided the substance of a comment that pointed out that a report of which one of its expert reviewers was a lead author had “systematically and repeatedly misrepresent ed the science of disasters and climate change.”

Response (2-7) : First, EPA’s RTC document, Volume 1, covers EPA’s “General Approach to the Science and Other Technical Issues,” not the substantive issu es pertaining to climat e change and disaster

losses. Those issues are discussed in RTC Vo lume 7, “Water Resources, Coastal Areas, and Ecosystems and Wildlife.” Specifically, RTC 7- 38 address substantive issues pertaining to climate change and disaster losses raised by co mmenters (as does RTC 7-5) as discussed in Response 2-4 above. Accordingly, EPA’s commen tary on the Muir-Wood literature in Volume 1 focuses on process issues, and the scient ific issues are addr essed in Volume 7.

18Furthermore, as we indicate in Response 2-5 a bove, a subsequent versi on of Muir-W ood et al. (2006) was, in fact, peer-reviewed and accepted for publication just weeks after the IPCC cutoff according to RMS. Irrespective of the peer review issue, we reiterate our conclusion from RTC 1-15: “...these specific studies were neither the ce ntral nor sole evidence used in forming the broader conclusions of the IPCC; such broade r conclusions are based on multiple lines of evidence and peer-reviewed literature.” The magnitude of observed disaster losses from extreme events in general, and the Muir-Wood study in particular, were not central to EPA’s Endangerment Finding.

We discuss allegations that the IPCC misrepresent ed the literature on observed climate change and disaster losses in Response 2-5. With re spect to the “graph [13, IPCC Supplementary Material Figure SM1.1, Working Group II AR 4, 2007] attempting to show how closely temperature anomalies match up with disaster lo sses” referred to in the cited comment (3303) above, we note that said graph was not cite d or relied upon in the Endangerment Finding and, furthermore, that it did not appear in the main IPCC Working Group II report but in supplementary material. We acknowledge this graph is controversial. RMS, for example, stated the following in its frequently asked questions document pertaining to climate change and disaster losses (RMS, 2010):

A graph showing averaged global temperatur e and averaged catas trophe loss since 1970 was included in supplementary material rath er than the IPCC report itself and was not itself published. RMS believes that the gra ph could be misinterpreted and should not

have been included in these materials.

Despite this statement, the inclusion of one c ontroversial graph in suppl ementary material does not compromise the IPCC’s credibility or legitimacy.

The charges that CCSP (and hence USGCRP) miscit ed and misrepresented Roger Pielke Jr.’s work, over-relied on the work of Evan Mills, and ignored some other studies on the issue of climate change and disaster loss are difficult to as sess as they were made in blog posts (of Roger Pielke Jr. (Pielke, 2010b)), repres ent the perspective of one indi vidual (Roger Pielke Jr.), and have not been published in any official capacity (e.g., in the peer-reviewed literature). However, they do not materially affect the basis for EPA’s Endangerment Finding. Dr. Pielke himself

stated: “...I am of the view that the Obama Administration is perf ectly justified in advancing the [Endangerment] finding” (Pielke, 2010b). As we state in Response 2-4, EPA did not focus on historical trends in the magnitude of economic di saster losses to evalua te the likelihood that climate change would lead to an increase in the number or frequency of extreme weather events. Furthermore, in RTC 7-5 we cite the CCSP ( 2008) statement acknowledging that the relative contribution of climate change and socioeconomic vulnerability (to weather and climate extremes) to observed increases in disaster costs are “subject to debate.”

Finally, the fact that Robert Mu ir-Wood and Evan Mills were select ed as authors for chapters in the IPCC and CCSP, respectively, and may have cited their own work does not delegitimize these assessments or their findings. Rather, it is only appropriate that leading experts on these topics—familiar with the range of literature—would be asked to assist in these assessments. Petitioners provide no evidence to support th e allegation that Evan Mills’ work was

19comprom ised or biased; speculating that he “appa rently” does consulting for companies “with an interest in climate policies” is innuendo, not proof.

Lastly, the fact that Thomas Wilbanks was an expert reviewer for EPA’s TSD (U.S. EPA, 2009) and was lead author of a report that the peti tioner alleges “systematically and repeatedly misrepresented the science of disasters and clim ate change” is irrelevant. As we state in Response 2-4, EPA did not discuss observed climate change and di saster losses in the TSD. Thus, though we discuss some of CCSP’s conclu sions in RTC 7-5 and 7-38 that focus on the challenges in linking observed clim ate change and disaster losses, CCSP’s treatment of this issue was not and is not materially relevant to the Endangerment Finding. Furthermore, the petitioner does not present evidence Wilbanks played any role in the presentation of material on this issue. Thus, the charge that EPA “ignor ed and avoided” the substance of the comment on disasters and climate change because of Wilbanks is unsupported and false. EPA relied on a team of federal experts to ensure that EPA was correctly synthe sizing the existing assessment literature in the

TSD. As RTC 1-10 states:

....the purpose of the federal expert review was to ensure that the TSD accurately

summarized the conclusions and associated uncertainties from the assessment reports. The federal experts were ideal candidates becau se they have contributed significantly to the body of climate change literature and played ac tive roles in IPCC and CCSP— therefore making them experts on various aspects of climate science and very familiar with the underlying literature and state of th e science. Furthermore, the federal climate change experts represent a range of technical specialties that span the range of topics covered in the TSD and covered by the range of topics that the Admi nistrator needed to consider. In addition, the fede ral experts were not involved with developing the TSD or Findings in any way other th an their review roles.

Petitioners are making a very serious accusation—th at “what appears to be scientific fraud” occurred—without providing supporting scientific evidence. Instead, they mischaracterize EPA’s actions in claiming that disaster losses ar e central to the Endangerment Finding when they clearly are not. They mischaracterize EPA’s treatment of comments on the proposed Endangerment Finding by implying that we did not address the issues surrounding disaster losses, when the issue is clearly addressed in the appropriate volume of the RTC. And they impugn the integrity of several sc ientists, on the basis of specula tion not evidence, seemingly for no other reason than that they disagree with the conclusions of the assessment literature.

2.1.5 Validity of Alps, Andes, an d African Mountain Snow Impacts

Comment (2-8) : Several petitioners (the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Ohio Coal Association, Peabody Energy, the State of Texas, and the Southeastern Legal Foundation) argue that claims of glacier melt in the Andes, the Alps, and parts of Africa arise from an ecdotal comments in a magazine article and a master thesis. They challenge the IPCC’s use of this non-peer-reviewed literature, suggesting the findings may be suspect. The Southeastern Le gal Foundation states: “The EPA

should reconsider its reliance on the IPCC’s reporting now that th e IPCC’s conclusion has been shown to be so poorly supported.”

20Response (2-8) : The citations referred to by peti tioners regarding the reduction of mountain ice in the Andes, Alps, and Africa are actually references to “lo ss of ice climbs,” not assessments of mountainglacier retreat. Loss of ice climbs is an example of the observed effects of warming on the icecovered areas of the Earth. In th is context, these citations are appropriate and within the IPCC’s guidelines on the use of so-called gray literatu re. They provide additional evidence consistent with the well-supported peer-review conclusions th at snowpack is declining in many places and that glaciers are melting worldwide. Note th at we respond to petiti oners’ broader claims regarding the IPCC’s use of gray literature in Subsection 2.2.4.4.

Furthermore, as the finding in question pertains to indicators outside the United States, the petitioners’ claims are not rele vant to the Endangerment Findi ng. As noted in Subsection 2.1.1, the Endangerment Finding states (S ection III.D): “The Administrator looked first at impacts in the United States itself, and determined that th ese impacts are reasonably anticipated to endanger the public health and the welfare of the U.S. population. That remains the Administrator’s position, and by itself supports her de termination of endangerment.”

EPA did not rely on these specific re ferences or refer to “loss of ice climbs” as an indicator of climate change. Our primary focus was on the implications of climate change for the United States, and we relied on peer-revie wed literature to assess these impacts. We did not refer to this specific issue in either the TSD or the Endangerment Finding, and we did not include any

discussion on “loss of ice climbs.” The TSD does include discussion of m ountain glacier retreat, based on peer-reviewed literature, which the petitioners do not critique.

2.1.6 Validity of Amazon Rain forest Dieback Projection

Comment (2-9) : Several petitioners (the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Ohio Coal Association, Peabody Energy, the State of Texas, the Southeastern Legal Foundation) challenge the IPCC’s statement that “[U]p to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation,” alleging that it arises from gr ay literature and cannot be substantiated. The Southeastern Legal Foundation states that the source for the IPCC’s statement, Nepstad et al. (1999) from the journal Nature, “does not support the IPCC’s a ssertion”. Peabody states that

“the Nature article does not contain the 40% figure” and “the provenance of the IPCC’s striking ‘40%’ figure is uncertain.” The Competitive Enterprise Institute finds that “the IPCC claim that the findings in AR4 are based on peer reviewed science is false.”

Response (2-9) : First, we note that this issue is not discusse d anywhere in the TSD or Endangerment Finding, and

is thus of little rele vance to the Finding. Second, while we agree that the IPCC cited gray literature in this case—i.e., Rowell and M oore (2000), a report of the World Wildlife Federation—we note that the underlying studies supporting the Rowell and Moore report are, in fact, peer-reviewed.

21In response to the publicity surrounding this pur portedly unsubstantiated finding in the IPCC AR4, Daniel Nepstad—a senior scie ntist at Woods Hole Research Center and author of the study (Nepstad et al., 1999) that c ontained the finding referred to by Rowell and Moore—issued a

statem ent on this matter. In the statement, he noted that the citations listed in the Rowell and Moore report were incomplete but that the AR 4’s statement on Amazon forest susceptibility to

rainfall reduction was correct. Here is the re levant excerpt from his statement (Nepstad, 2010):

The IPCC statement on the Amazon is correct, but the citations listed in the Rowell and Moore report were incomple te. (The authors of this report interviewed several researchers, including the author of this not e, and had originally cited the IPAM website

where the statement was made that 30 to 40% of the forests of the Amazon were susceptible to small changes in rainfall). Ou r 1999 article (Nepstad et al. 1999) estimated that 630,000 km2 of forests were severely drought stressed in 1998, as Rowell and Moore correctly state, but this forest area is only 15% of the total ar ea of forest in the Brazilian Amazon. In another article published in Na ture, in 1994, we used less conservative assumptions to estimate that approximately half of the forests of the Amazon depleted large portions of their av ailable soil moisture during seasonal or episodic drought (Nepstad et al. 1994). After the Rowell and Moore report was rele ased in 2000, and prior to the publication of the IPCC AR4, new evidence of the full extent of severe drought in the Amazon was available. In 2004, we estimated that half of the forest area of the Amazon Basin had either fallen below, or was very close to, the cr itical level of soil moisture below which trees begin to die in 1998. This estimate incorporated new rainfall data and results from an experimental reducti on of rainfall in an Amazon forest that we had conducted with funding from the US Na tional Science Foundation (Nepstad et al. 2004). Field evidence of the soil moisture critic al threshold is presented in Nepstad et al.

2007.

Specifically, we note that the Nepstad et al. (2004) study states: “Increases in ET [evapotranspiration] of only 15% or similar reductions in rainfall can lead to severe soil moisture deficits over roughly half of the Amazon.” This statement certainly is consistent with the statement “Up to 40% of the Amazonian forests c ould react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation” in the IPCC AR4.

Nepstad’s 2010 statement in response to this controversy reached the following conclusion (Nepstad, 2010):

In sum, the IPCC statement on the Amazon was correct. The report that is cited in support of the IPCC statement (Rowell and Moore 2000) omitted some citations in support of the 40% value statement.

Similarly, in its report Assessing an IPCC Assessment , PBL (2010a) identified a problem with the IPCC’s referencing of this finding, but not the finding itself. It states:

More adequate peer-reviewed, sc ientific journal literature w ould have been available to support this statement, such as Cox et al. (2000; 2004) (C6). This minor comment has no consequences for the IPCC conclusions in the various Summaries for Policymakers.

22Finally, the United Kingdom’ s Sunday Times newspaper, which reported the alleged problem with the IPCC’s representati on of this issue on January 31, 2010 (Sunday Times, 2010), has subsequently reversed itself, arriving at th e same conclusion as Nepstad. Consequently, it removed the article from its website and pr inted a correction on J une 20, 2010 (Sunday Times, 2010), which stated in part:

The article “UN climate panel shamed by bogus rainforest claim” (News, Jan 31) stated that the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Clim ate Change (IPCC) report had included an “unsubstantiated claim” that up to 40% of th e Amazon rainforest could be sensitive to future changes in rainfall. The IPCC had refere nced the claim to a report prepared for the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) by Andrew Rowe ll and Peter Moore, whom the article described as “green campaigners” with “little sc ientific expertise.” The article also stated

that the authors’ research had been based on a scientific paper that dealt with the impact of human activity rather than climate change.

In fact, the IPCC’s Amazon statement is support ed by peer-reviewed scientific evidence. In the case of the WWF report, the figure ha d, in error, not been referenced, but was based on research by the respected Amazon Environmental Research Institute (IPAM) which did relate to the impact of climate ch ange. We also understand and accept that Mr Rowell is an experienced environmental journa list and that Dr Moor e is an expert in forest management, and apologise fo r any suggestion to the contrary.

To summarize, contrary to the assertions of the petitioners, though the IPCC may have not adequately referenced the Amazon finding, the basi s for its statement originated from and is supported by peer-reviewed literature. Furthermor e, as this finding is specific to the Amazon region, petitioners’ claims are not relevant to the Endangerment Finding. As noted in Subsection 2.1.1, the Endangerment Finding states (Section I II.D): “The Administra tor looked first at impacts in the United States itself, and determin ed that these impacts are reasonably anticipated to endanger the public health and the welfare of the U.S. population. That remains the Administrator’s position, and by itself supports her determination of endangerment.”

For further discussion on petitione rs’ broader claims regarding the IPCC’s use of gray literature, please refer to Subsection 2.2.4.4.

2.1.7 Validity of African Rain-Fed Agriculture Projection

The comments and responses in th is section refer to the following statement pertaining to crop yields in Africa from Chapter 9 of Working Group II’s contribution to the IPCC AR4 (Boko et al., 2007):

In other countries [of Africa] additional risks that could be exacerbated by climate change include greater erosion, deficien cies in yields from rain-f ed agriculture of up to 50% during the 2000-2020 period, and reductions in the crop growth period (Agoumi, 2003).

A version of this statement appeared in the IPCC’s AR4 Synthesis Report (IPCC, 2007b):

23By 2020, in some countries, yields from rain-f ed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50%. Agricultural production, including acce ss to food, in many African countries is projected to be severely compromised. This would further adversely affect food security

and exacerbate malnutrition.

A similar statement also appeared in the IPCC’s AR4 Worki ng Group II Summary for Policymakers (IPCC, 2007c):

Agricultural production, includi ng access to food, in many African countries and regions is projected to be severely compromised by climate variability and change. The area suitable for agriculture, the le ngth of growing seasons and yi eld potential, particularly along the margins of semi-arid and arid areas , are expected to decrease. This would further adversely affect food security and exacerbate malnutrition in the continent. In some countries, yields from rain-fed agri culture could be reduced by up to 50% by 2020.

The same statement (from IPCC, 2007c) was in corporated into EPA’s TSD (U.S. EPA, 2009) within Table 16.1: “Examples of Key Re gional Impacts as Identified by IPCC.”

Comment (2-10) : The Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Ohio Coal Association, Peabody Energy, and the Southeastern Legal Foundation take issue with a statement in Section 16(b) of the TSD that: “In some countries, yields from rain -fed agriculture coul d be reduced by up to 50% by 2020.” They claim the statement originated from gray literature in the IPCC AR4 and is therefore illegitimate. Southeastern Legal Foundation concludes: “The African Crop Yields claim stands as another example of the IPCC making a claim of imminent disaster that inappr opriately relied on nonpeer-reviewed literature...”

Response (2-10) : The IPCC statement cites a report by Dr. Ali A goumi, a climate expert from Morocco (Agoumi, 2003) that was published by the International Inst itute for Sustainable Development (IISD) and funded by the government of Canada, the U.S. Agen cy for International De velopment, and other public and private institutions. Based on EPA’s re view of the report, it appears that the 50% number was not obtained from the peer-reviewed lit erature but rather from “vulnerability studies on three North African countries (Algeria, Moro cco and Tunisia) with respect to climatic changes.” These vulnerability studies were prepared under th e U.N. Environment Programme

Global Environment Fund and included in the Na tional Communications of these three countries

to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Ch ange (Ministry of Territory Development and Environment, 2001, Kingdom of Morocco, 2001 and Republic of Tunisia, 2001).

In response to publicity regarding this purportedl y unsubstantiated statement in the IPCC report, Dr. Coleen Vogel, a contributing lead author of the IPCC chapter on Africa impacts, described the context in which Dr. Agoumi’s research wa s used. She explained that Agoumi’s report received rigorous scrutiny by her fellow authors and was thoroughly discussed during development of the chapter (Kretzmann, 2010). She explained that the deci sion to include this (gray literature) study was based on the paucity of peer-reviewed material relating to some parts

24of the world, particularly Africa, and the desire of the authors of the report to provide balanced

inform ation. The process described by Dr. Vogel is consistent with th e IPCC’s guidance on the use of gray literature, as prev iously described in Volume 1 of the RTC document and further discussed in Subsection 2.2.4.4 of this Response to Petitions (RTP) document.

Finally, we note that this statement relates to impacts outside the United States, and it did not materially impact the determination of endangerm ent of public health and welfare in the United States. As noted in Subsection 2.1.1, the Endangerment Finding states (Section III.D): “The Administrator looked first at imp acts in the United States itself, and determined that these impacts are reasonably anticipated to endanger th e public health and the welfare of the U.S. population. That remains the Administrator’s po sition, and by itself supports her determination of endangerment.”

Comment (2-11) : Referring to an analysis published by Ben Pile, co-editor of the blog climateresistance.org (on the blog of Roger Pielke, Jr.) (Pile, 2010), the Southeastern Lega l Foundation states that the primary reference supporting the IPCC’s statemen t on African crop yields “Vulnerability of North African Countries to Climatic Changes” (Agoumi, 2003) was from IISD, an advocacy

group.

Regarding the IISD reference, Peabody Energy states:

Thus, the EPA based its findings on the IPCC WGII report, which based its findings on a report [the IISD report] published by an organizat ion with a declared pol itical interest in climate change that based its findings from an assessment of other non-peer reviewed

national studies. This is not the wa y EPA science should be carried out.

Response (2-11) : The implication that the credibility of IPCC’s statement on African crop yields is diminished because the IPCC’s source (Agoumi, 2003) for the statement was published by an advocacy organization or an organization with a “declared political inte rest in climate change” is unsupported. The organization in question is IISD, which describes itself as follows:

The International Institute for Sustainabl e Development contribut es to sustainable development by advancing policy recomme ndations on international trade and investment, economic policy, climate change, measurement and indicators, and natural resource management. By using Internet communications, we repor t on international negotiations and broker knowledge gained th rough collaborative pr ojects with global partners, resulting in more rigorous resear ch, capacity build ing in developing countries and better dialogue between North and South.

IISD’s vision is better livi ng for all—sustainably; its mission is to champion innovation, enabling societies to live sustainably. IIS D receives operating grant support from the Government of Canada, provided through th e Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) and Environment Canada, and from the Province of Manitoba. The institute receives project funding from th e Government of Canada, the Province of

25Manitoba, other national governme nts, Unite d Nations agencies, foundations and the private sector. IISD is regi stered as a charitable orga nization in Canada and has 501(c)(3) status in the United States.

We find no reason to question the credibility and legitimacy of information produced by this organization on the basis of e ither its mission or funding sour ces. Moreover, neither the Southeastern Legal Foundation nor Peabody Energy provide any support for the implication that work by an organization such as IISD is automatically suspect or flawed.

Finally, Peabody Energy’s statement that EPA’s findings are based on this material is incorrect. As noted in Subsection 2.1.1, the Endangermen t Finding states (Section III.D): “The Administrator looked first at imp acts in the United States itself, and determined that these impacts are reasonably anticipated to endanger th e public health and the welfare of the U.S. population. That remains the Administrator’s po sition, and by itself supports her determination of endangerment.”

We discuss the legitimacy of the science and under lying references for the African crop yields statement in Response 2-12.

Comment (2-12) : The Southeastern Legal Foundation alleges that EPA uncritically adopted the IPCC’s “faulty conclusion” with respect to crop yields. It refers to a blog by writer/commentator Richard North (North, 2010) to conclude the Agoumi (2003) reference cited by the IPCC on the issue of rainfed agricultural yields in Africa relies on studies that “ do not support the proposition for which they are cited.”

Relying on Richard North’s blog, the Sout heastern Legal Founda tion summarizes the vulnerability studies cited by Agoumi (2003) from the Nationa l Communications of Morocco, Tunisia, and Algeria. The Southeastern Le gal Foundation notes that the Morocco National

Communication “lends some s upport [to the Agoumi reference], saying that by 2020 during drought conditions cereal yields would decline up to 50%” but that “the data apply to cereal yields only, not crops in genera l as is implied by the IPCC.” The Southeastern Legal Foundation further states that “Algeria’s report said their yields would doubl e, and be trimmed only slightly by ‘climate change’” and “Tunisi a’s submission concluded the pict ure was mixed, but they could

have an increase in rain a nd agricultural production.”

Response (2-12) : The IPCC’s statement on rain-fed agriculture in Northern Africa is not “faulty” and the Southeastern Legal Foundation pr esents no evidence that it was included uncritically in EPA’s TSD. Furthermore, the Southeastern Legal Fo undation’s portrayal of findings on climate and crop yields from the National Communications of Morocco, Tunisia, and Algeria derived from Richard North’s blog is not complete. When all of the information in these National Communications is considered, we find there is broad support fo r Agoumi’s (2003) statements on North African rain-fed agriculture, which are:

26 “Some of the key statistics regarding wate r, soil, urban areas and coastal zones are outlined below. . . . Decreasing rain-based ag ricultural yields with grain yields reduced by up to 50 percent in periods of drought.”

 “Studies on the future of vital agriculture in the region have shown the following risks, which are linked to climate change: . . . defici ent yields from rain-based agriculture of up to 50 percent during the 2000–2020 period.”

PBL, in its report Assessing an IPCC Assessment (PBL, 2010a), makes the following important point with respect to IPCC’s statemen t on rain-fed agriculture in Africa:

This statement is not directly a statement on climate change, but on climate variability: in individual years, droughts can cause up to 50% in yield redu ctions. The implicit message here is that when droughts w ould become more frequent du e to climate change, more years with up to 50% in yield reductions would occur. The statement could easily mislead readers into thinking that average a nnual yields could be reduced by up to 50% due to climate change. In the Summar y for Policymakers of the Working Group II Report, the paragraph that contains this st atement starts with a sentence introducing the notion of climate variability, which puts the statement more into context.

It is possible that petitioners misinterpreted the IPCC’s statement as s uggesting that the IPCC’s projection was on the basis of climate change al one, given the Southeastern Legal Foundation’s assertion, for example, that IPCC was projecting “i mminent disaster.” While we agree with PBL that the IPCC’s statement could easily mislead readers without the proper context, we note that, before quoting the IPCC’s projection on rain-fed agriculture, EPA’s TSD includes the statement “Agricultural production, including access to fo od, in many African countries and regions is projected to be severely compromised by climate variability [emphasis added] and change.” Therefore, EPA provided the proper context for the IPCC’s conclusion.

With respect to the basis for the conclusion itself, the following excerpts from the three countries’ National Communication reports on the issues of climate variability and change, precipitation, and crop yields provide broad s upport for the Agoumi (2003) statements along with accompanying discussion:

 The National Communication of Morocco states (Kingdom of Morocco, 2001):

The development of climate scenarios for Morocco according to IPCC methodology reveals the following results: . . .

 A trend towards a decrease in aver age annual rainfall volume by about 4% in 2020 compared to 2000 levels. . . .

 An increase in the frequency and intens ity of droughts in the south and the east of the country.

27The first quantitative estimate of poss ible CC [climate change] impacts on water resources in 2020 points to the fact that there would be an average and general decrease in water resources (i n the order of 10 to 15 %...).

The study of CC [climate change] impacts on agriculture (dominated by cereal cultivation) in 2020 unfolds the following re sults: A decrease in cereal yields by 50% in dry years and 10% in normal years.

As the Southeastern Legal Foundation adm its, the numbers from Morocco’s National Communication lend support to the statement in Agoumi (2003) that “studies on the future of vital agriculture in the region ha ve shown the following risks, which are linked to climate change: . . . deficient yields from rain-based agriculture of up to 50 per cent during the 2000–2020 period.”

Richard North’s contention (North, 2010, as referred to by the Southeastern Legal Foundation) that “the data appl y to cereal yields only, not crops in general as is implied by the IPCC” is arguable considering that Morocco’s National Communication indicates that agriculture is “dominated by cereal cultivation.” Thus, it is not

unreasonable to use cere al cultivation as a proxy for all of agriculture in this cerealcrop-dominated region.

 The National Communication of Algeria (M inistry of Territory Development and Environment, 2001) states: 1

Because of global warming, we must brace ourselves for chronic climate instability and greater frequency of dr oughts and floods. Droughts damage soils and floods destroy ground c over and contribute to the erosion of soils. With longer spans of time between dry and wet spells comes an even greater impact due to erosion. The southern regions of the country will be most directly impacted by increased temperatures a nd will be subject to the numerous consequences of accelerated desertifi cation. The increased risk of drought presents the greatest challenge as a result of climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) expect that the desert regions will extend northward in the Maghreb.

The above text provides a clea r qualitative description of the risks climate change pose to agriculture in Algeria. In addition, this information from the National Communication of Algeria provides quantita tive output from a mode l known as CROPWAT, which estimates changes in crop yields using climate change projections obtained from two general circulation models. The Nationa l Communication of Algeria reports:

... one can consider an average reduction in the output cereal of about 5.5 to 6.8%, corresponding mainly to instances of climate change [in 2020]( Ministry of Territory Development and Environment, 2001)

1 The excerpt that follows was profe ssionally translated from French.

28When considering these quantitative cereal yield changes, it is very important to note that these percen tages refer to changes in cereal yields resulting primarily from climate change alone and not climate variability and change combined. The climate and hence precipitation variability in northern Africa can be quite large. For example, in the report Assessing an IPCC Assessment (PBL, 2010a), PBL states “...the [IPCC] authors made plausible that, due to current climate variab ility, the yields in Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia have been varying annually, including yield reductions of nearly 70% in individual years, in th e period between 2000 and 2006.”

In other words, if these yield reductions resulting from greenhouse gas–induced climate change were superimposed on the yield reductions that might occur during a particularly dry period arising from the regi on’s characteristic precipita tion variability, they would be higher and comparable with the results fr om the Morocco National Communication.

Finally, the Southeastern Legal Foundatio n’s reference to the Algeria National Communication’s projections for net increases in cereal projec tions in 2020 (relative to prior decades) is irrelevant and misleading. These increases are re lated not to climate variability and change but to changing agri cultural practices and technology. Algeria’s

National Communication makes clear that the eff ect of climate change on cereal yields is projected to be negative.

 The National Communication of Tunisia st ates (Republic of Tunisia, 2001):

...Tunisia is in a hydrous stre ss situation close to a shortage, sharpened by a high anthropic pressure. So minor they be , the Climate Changes can so, result in harmful consequences on water resources, on ecosystems depending of water, and

on the different economic activities that n eed large quantities of water such as agriculture and tourism.

By modifying the evaporation and precipitation rate, the global warming will probably affect the hydrous climate bala nce and therefore the Tunisian water resources. In this way, if the intensif ication of the evaporation can lead to a possible important increase of the rain falls , it might not be sufficient to offset the

decrease of the sweet water resources. Moreover, due to the global warming, the rain situation can be characterized by a bigger frequency of rains resulting from torrential storms and downpours, disapp earing generally in streaming waters rather than be absorbed by the soils.

This information in the Tunesian Na tional Communication does not provide any quantitative estimates of climat e variability and/or change on rain-fed agriculture, but the clear qualitative imp lication is that climate changes—both drought and heavy precipitation events—will stress agriculture in Tunisia. We, therefore, find that the Southeastern Legal Foundation’s statement that “Tunisia’s submission concluded the picture was mixed, but they could have an incr ease in rain and agri cultural production” is an overly optimistic interpretation of cl early expressed negative impacts.

29Overall, these three National Communications (Morocco, Algeria, a nd Tunisia) provide qualitative s upport for the fact the climate cha nge will likely stress ra in-fed agriculture in northern Africa, consistent with the portrayal of Agoumi (2003) and th e IPCC. The National Communication of Morocco presents quantitative information consis tent with what is reported by Agoumi (2003) and the IPCC (and hence the TSD), while the National Communication of Algeria provides quantitative information that is consistent with these sources when factoring in precipitation variability in addition to climate change. The National Communication of Tunisia does not provide quantitative information.

Our view of the litera ture behind Agoumi (2003) provides considerable evidence that the

scientific basis for the IPCC’s conclusion is le gitimate. The PBL assessment of the IPCC notes that “...additional explanations could have provided further foundations for the statement, had they been included in [IPCC’s Working Group II] Ch apter 9.” We concur, but the Southeastern Legal Foundation conclusion that “...there is no support for th e IPCC’s dramatic pronouncement on African crop yields” is significantly overstated.

Comment (2-13) : The Southeastern Legal Foundation provides the following reaction to the African rain-fed agriculture projection, which appeared in the Sunday Times (Leake, 2010a) and comes from former IPCC chair Robert Watson: “Any such projection [pertaining to African crop yields] should be based on peer-reviewed lite rature from computer modeling of how agricultural yields would respond to climate change. I can see no such data supporting the IPCC report.”

Response (2-13) : Watson may not have appreciated th at peer-reviewed mode ling studies of climat e change impacts on agriculture in parts of Africa are limited. As the IPCC’s AR4 WGI repo rt states (Chris tensen et al., 2007): “Several climate ch ange projections ba sed on RCM (regional climat e model) simu lations are available for southern Africa, but are much scarcer for ot her regions.” Accordingl y, as we discuss in

Subsection 2.2.4.4 of this RTP document, the IPCC references gray literature in these circumstances. We also note in Response 2-10 th at these studies are not central to the TSD or the Endangerment Finding. Finally, though we discuss some addition al modeling studies pertin ent to Africa in RTP 2- 15, those modeling studie s (Parry et al., 2005 and Hulme et al., 2001) were conducted at the global

and continental scales and contain limited result s pertinent to northern Africa specifically.

Comment (2-14) : The Southeastern Legal Foundation states that EP A ignored contrary peer-reviewed literature

and submits literature that the Sahel is greening (from National Geographic and several studies) in contrast to “IPCC horror stories” (proje cting reductions in rain-fed agriculture).

Response (2-14) : EPA is aware of the literature cited by the petition er that suggests greening in parts of the Sahara and Sahel (e.g., Seaquisti, et al., 2009; Anyamba, and Tucker, 2005; Hutchinson et al., 2005; Olsson et al., 2005). The issue raised by petitioners is not new and was raised and responded to through the public comment process (see Response 2-73 in Volume 2 of the RTC document). Thus, these objections do not meet the test in Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 307(d)(7)(B) that it be impracticable to raise the object ion during the public comment period or the reasons for the

30objection arose between June 24, 2009, and February 16, 2010. Nonetheless, we have reviewed these arguments and respond once again.

The fact that precip itation has increased recently in this region, as we note in our TSD in Section 4(d), does not mean that a combination of climat e variability and change could not substantially reduce rain-fed agriculture in the future. The climat e in this region is highly variable and while it has been relatively wet over the past decade or s o, severe drought impacted the region for several decades from the 1960s to the 1990s and dry pattern s could return to the region. As one of the studies (Nicholson, 2005) cited by the petitioner states: “The fl uctuations between ‘wet’ and ‘dry’ in the Sahel/Soudan zones are extreme even on decadal a nd multi-decadal time scales.” Therefore, if the current wet period reverses to a dry period, the impacts of rain-fed agriculture on the region could be profound, especially when considering the potential enhancement of the drying from human-induced warm ing (i.e., climate change).

Finally, we note that the literatur e presented relates to impacts out side the United States, and it did not materially impact the determination of endangerment of public health and welfare in the United States. As noted in Subsection 2.1.1, th e Endangerment Finding states (Section III.D): “The Administrator looked first at impacts in th e United States itself, and determined that these impacts are reasonably anticipated to endanger th e public health and the welfare of the U.S. population. That remains the Administrator’s po sition, and by itself supports her determination of endangerment.”

Comment (2-15) : The Southeastern Legal Foundation suggests that th e IPCC ignored literature that drew different

conclusions on the issue of rain-fed agriculture projections in Afri ca, specifically referring to two studies: Parry et al., 2005 and Hulme et al., 200 1. The Southeastern Legal Foundation states: “Both Parry’s own paper and Hulme’s paper were known to and available to Professor Parry [cochair of IPCC Working Group II] in composing th e WGII Report and the Synthesis Report. Yet, Parry’s WGII report ignored his ow n paper and that of Hulme, whic h did not predict disaster, and instead relied on one that did, the Agoumi pa per, even though it did so incorrectly and improperly and was not peer-reviewed.” The S outheastern Legal Foundati on further notes that Hulme et al. (2001) were careful to note uncer tainties in understanding African climate change, and implies that the IPCC was not as careful.

Response (2-15) : We have reviewed these papers (Parry et al., 2 005, and Hulme et al., 2001) and find that, while not directly comparable with Agoum i (2003), they do not contradict that source. We also find, contrary to the Southeastern Legal Foundation’s asse rtion, that both of these studies were in fact cited by the IPCC, although not always in the same section or context as Agoumi (2003).

The Parry et al. (2005) study repor ts the results of a series of research projects that aimed to evaluate the implications of c limate change for food production and risk of hunger. The analysis in this study is performed at globa l and continental scales rather than the regional scale. This is likely why it is not discussed in Chapter 5 of Working Group II’s contribution to the AR4 (Easterling et al., 2007), where Agoumi (2003) is cited in a sec tion focusing on regional impacts in Africa (specifically on Morocco, Algeria, and T unisia). The Parry et al . (2005) study is cited

31multiple times in Chapter 5 of W orking Group II’s contribution (“Food, Fiber, and Forest Products,” Easterling et al., 2007), wh ich provides a global perspective. Therefore, Parry did not “ignore his own paper” as stated by the Southeastern Legal Foundation.

One of the primary conclusions of Parry et al. is that “the region of greatest risk [of losses in food production, and hunger due to climate change] is Africa.” Parry et al. (2005) provide specific cereal yield projections for the 2020s and 2080s resulting from different GHG emission scenarios. They state for the globe: “By the 2020s , small changes in cereal yield are evident in all scenarios, but these fluctuati ons are within historical variati ons.” For the 2080s, Parry et al. (2005) provide projections specifi c to Africa – but not northern Af rica specifically, stating that climate change could reduce cereal yields by up to 30%. Importantly, the ch anges in cereal yield projected for the 2020s and 2080s are driven by GHG-induced climate change and likely do not fully capture interannual precip itation variability which can re sult in large yield reductions during dry periods, as the IPCC (Chr istensen et al., 2007) states: “... there is less confidence in the ability of the AOGCMs (atmosphere-ocean ge neral circulation mo dels) to generate interannual variability in the SST s (sea surface temperatures) of th e type known to affect African rainfall, as evidenced by the fact that ve ry few AOGCMs produce droughts comparable in magnitude to the Sahel droughts of the 1970s and 1980s.” Given the different scopes of the two analyses, it is misleading to state that the Parry et al. projections are inconsistent with the Agoumi (2003) yield projections.

The Hulme et al. (2001) study, which reviews observed (1900–2000) and possible future (2000– 2100) continent-wide changes in te mperature and rainfall over Afri ca, is also not ignored by the IPCC, contrary to the assertion of the petitioner. In fact, it is cited twice in IPCC’s Working Group II Chapter 9 on Africa (Boko et al., 2007):

 Hulme et al. (2001) is cited in a statement a bout the complexity of African climatology: “Other factors that complicate African climat ology include dust aer osol concentrations and sea-surface temperature anomalies, which are particularly important in the Sahel region (Hulme et al., 2001; Prospero a nd Lamb, 2003) and southern Africa (Reason, 2002), deforestation in the equatorial re gion (Semazzi and Song, 2001; Bounoua et al., 2002)...”

 Hulme et al. (2001) is also cite d in a statement pertaining to uncertainties in precipitation projections in the western Sahel (Boko et al ., 2007): “For the wester n Sahel (10 to 18°N, 17.5°W to 20°E), there are still discrepancie s between the models: some projecting a significant drying (e.g., Hulme et al., 2001; Jenkins et al., 20 05) and others simulating a progressive wetting with an expansion of vegetation into the Sahara (Brovkin, 2002; Maynard et al., 2002; Claussen et al., 2003; Wang et al., 2004; Haarsma et al., 2005; Kamga et al., 2005; Hoerling et al., 2006).”

These examples demonstrate that the IPCC both cited Hulme et al. (2001) and transparently discussed the complexity of Africa’s climate and the uncertainty in African climate projections. This treatment is appropriate and reasonabl e, contrary to the petitioner’s implication.

32Even in light of the complexities and uncertain ties, Hulme et al. (2001) state that a “w arming climate will nevertheless place additional stresses on water resources [in Africa], whether or not future rainfall is significantly altered” and th ey project reduced precip itation over Tunisia. Hulme et al. (2001) do not, howev er, provide projections for cha nges in cereal yields (from changes in rain-fed agriculture), so their result s cannot be compared directly with Agoumi (2003) or its supporting documents (discussed in Response 2-12).

Overall, the IPCC does not ignore either the Parry et al. (2005) or Hulme et al. (2001) studies. The findings of these studies, while not direct ly comparable with A goumi (2003), are broadly consistent. Hulme et al. (2001) project increased drying over nor thern Africa while Parry et al. (2005) project an increased risk of reduced cereal yields over all of Africa. The petitioner’s claim

that IPCC was not careful or acte d inappropriately in this rega rd is not confirmed by careful

review of the material.

2.1.8 Summary

The small number of real or alleged errors in the IPCC report is not materially relevant for EPA’s Endangerment Finding. Neither of the two errors that are verifiable (the percentage of the

Netherlands below sea level and th e projections for Himalayan glacier s) is relevant to the United

States and neither is containe d within EPA’s endangerment record. Although it is unfortunate when any error occurs, two errors in a nearly 3,000-page study are not evidence of a complete breakdown of the IPCC’s review process, contrary to petitioners’ suggestions.

The remaining alleged errors or unsupported statements have not been shown to be erroneous and can be traced to findings in the gray literatu re from which they were derived. As discussed

further in Subsection 2.2.4.4 in this volume and previously in Volume 1 of the RTC, the IPCC provides guidance on how and when to use gray literature, and petitione rs do not demonstrate that the guidance was not followed. There is no de facto assumption that all gray literature is incorrect or suspect, and an examination of the in stances raised by petitioners demonstrates that the specific allegations of petitio ners are unfounded. Furthermore, the statements at issue drawn from the gray literature have no material rele vance to conclusions supporting EPA’s Findings, as explained in RTP Subsection 2.1.1.

In conclusion, the evidence cite d by petitioners does not undermin e the overall credibility and reliability of the scientific conclusions reli ed upon and underlying EPA’s Endangerment Finding.

332.2 Claims That the IPCC Has a Policy Ag enda and Is Not Objective and Impartial

2.2.1 Overview

Several petitioners argue that the e-mails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), and other information that has arisen since publicati on of the Endangerment Finding, show that a select group of influential authors who wrote, contributed to, or reviewed parts of IPCC assessment reports (or the studies on which the assessment reports were based) were not objective and impartial while developing the reports. Several petitioners also argue that

the CRU e-mails confirm that the IPCC and some of its authors and reviewers have a policy agenda and are tailoring the science to suit that ag enda. The petitioners a llege that the e-mails show that the peer-review and report deve lopment processes employed by the IPCC are “fundamentally corrupt,” lack scie ntific integrity, are policy pres criptive, and do not yield “true” consensus conclusions regarding the state of th e science. The petiti oners request that EPA

reconsider its reliance on the IPCC assessment re ports that were used as the basis for the Endangerment Finding.

As discussed in detail below, after reviewing the petitioners’ arguments, EPA finds that the evidence and arguments provided by petitioners do not support th eir conclusion that the peerreview and assessment report processes employed by the IPCC were “fundamentally corrupt” and policy prescriptive. Further, the petitione rs’ arguments, which for the most part rely on selective use of the CRU e-mails, misinterpretat ions of the e-mails, and quotations from press articles, do not show that either the IPCC pee r-review and report development processes were inadequately designed or that th ey were not implemented properly. We note that several of the petitioners’ arguments are not new; many of thes e comments were submitted and responded to in the process of developing the Findings.

2.2.2 Background

Several petitioners criticize the IPCC’s report development and peer-review procedures. We respond specifically to each allegation in th e sections that follow. EPA received similar comments during notice and comment on the Endange rment Findings. In Volume 1 of the RTC document, we responded in detail to these comme nts, describing the IPCC’s report development and peer-review procedures. However, to provid e context for evaluating the merit of these more recent allegations, in this background section we revisit the structure and procedures employed by the IPCC in developing their reports.

In response to the allegations raised against it, the IPCC released th e following statement in December 2009 describing their report developm ent process from beginning to end (IPCC, 2010a).

The assessment process begins with a Scopi ng Meeting attended by scientific experts whose task it is to outline the report. Th e IPCC Bureau selects the experts attending the Scoping Meeting after an open call for nomin ations to Governments and IPCC observer organizations. The Bureau consists of expe rts elected by an IPCC Plenary composed of

all WMO and UNEP member nations. The outline is then approved by Working Group

34Sessions and endorsed by the Plenary. A call fo r nomi nations of authors for the report is sent out to Governments and observer orga nizations. The individual Working Group Bureaus select the authors for respective contributions to th e Assessment Report, ensuring that the composition of the author t eams reflects a range of views, scientific expertise and geographical di versity. Over the ensuing 3-4 years, writing teams collaborate on drafting chapters – including f our Lead Author meetings, plus chapter meetings as necessary. The author teams prep are two externally revi ewed drafts and then a final version of their respective chapters. All chapters undergo a rigorous writing and open review process to ensure consideration of all relevant scientific information from established journals with robus t peer review processes or fr om other sources which have undergone robust and independent peer review . Additional procedures are provided for

information found in sources that have not b een published or peer-reviewed. In these cases, authors and chapter teams should cr itically assess and revi ew the quality and validity of each source befo re incorporating results.

The First Order Draft is subject to a form al Expert Review, where any expert is encouraged to comment on all aspects of the dr aft, including, but not limited to, issues of interpretation, missed literatu re, and presentation. Author teams must make a written response, explaining how they responded to each comment in developing the next draft. A Second Order Draft is compiled based on the comments received during the Expert Review. This draft undergoes a second combined formal Expert and Government

Review. Author teams have to react to the second round of review comments as well and prepare the final draft, taking into account all the comments received. The entire review process is overseen by a team of 2-3 independent Review Edito rs for each chapter, whose role is limited to overseeing the reviews, en suring the thoroughness of the responses. All the AR4 review comments and responses by th e author teams are available online (IPCC, 2006a).

In parallel, the Summary for Policymakers a nd the Technical Summary are prepared by authors selected from chapter writing team s. The Summary for Policymakers and the Technical Summary undergo a formal Expert and Government Review and are revised based on the review comments. Again, 2-3 Re view Editors oversee the review process for the Technical Summary. The Summary for Policymakers is then distributed to the

Governments for final comment. The Summ ary for Policymakers undergoes a line-byline approval process by Governments during a multi-day meeting. The Governments

must reach consensus before text is approved. After the Working Group Session approves the Summary for Policymakers, the IPCC Plenary then accepts the entire underlying Report (including th e individual chapters and Technical Summary).

To ensure objectivity, transparency, and in formation quality, the IPCC’s report development procedures (IPCC, 1999) clearly describe the ro les and responsibilities of coordinating lead authors, lead authors, contribu ting authors, expert reviewers, and review editors in report development. It states:

351. LEAD AUTHORS

Function: To be responsible for the production of desi gnated sections addressi ng items of the work

program on the basis of the be st scientific, technical a nd socio-economic information

available.

Comment: Lead Authors will typically work as small gr oups which have responsibility for ensuring that the various components of their sect ions are brought together on time, are of uniformly high quality and conform to any ove rall standards of styl e set for the document

as a whole.

The task of Lead Authors is a demanding one and in recognition of this the names of Lead Authors will appear prominently in the final Report. During the final stages of Report preparation, when the workload is often particularly heavy and when Lead Authors are heavily dependent upon each other to read and edit material, and to agree to changes promptly, it is essential that the wo rk should be accorded the highest priority.

The essence of the Lead Authors’ task is synthesis of material drawn from available

literature as defined in Section 4.2.3. Lead Au thors, in conjunction with Review Editors, are also required to take account of expe rt and government review comments when revising text. Lead Authors may not necessarily write original text themselves, but they must have the proven ability to develop text that is scientifically, technically and socioeconomically sound and that faithfully represen ts, to the extent that this is possible, contributions by a wide variety of experts. The ability to work to deadlines is also a necessary practical requirement. Lead Author s are required to record in the Report views

which cannot be reconciled with a cons ensus view but which are nonetheless scientifically or technically valid.

Lead Authors may convene meetings with Cont ributing Authors, as appropriate, in the preparations of their sections or to discu ss expert or government review comments and to suggest any workshops or expert meetings in their relevant areas to the Working Group/Task Force Bureau Co-Chairs. Th e names of all Lead Authors will be acknowledged in the Reports.

2. COORDINATING LEAD AUTHORS

Function: To take overall responsibility for coor dinating major sections of a Report

Comment: Coordinating Lead Authors will be Lead Authors with the added responsibility of ensuring that major sections of the Report are completed to a high standard, are collated and delivered to the Working Group/Task For ce Bureau Co-Chairs in a timely manner and conform to any overall standard s of style set for the document.

Coordinating Lead Authors will play a leadi ng role in ensuring that any crosscutting

scientific or technical issu es which may involve severa l sections of a Report are addressed in a complete and coherent manner a nd reflect the latest information available.

36The skills and resources required of Coordi nating Lead Authors are those required of

Lead Authors with the ad ditional organizational skills needed to coordinate a section of a Report. The names of all Coordinating L ead Authors will be acknowledged in the Reports.

3. CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS

Function: To prepare technical information in the form of text, graphs or data for assimilation by

the Lead Authors into the draft section.

Comment: Input from a wide range of contributors is a key element in the success of IPCC assessments, and the names of all contributors will be acknowledged in the Reports. Contributions are sometimes solicited by Lead Authors but unprompted contributions are encouraged.

Contributions should be supported as far as possible with references from the peer reviewed and internationally available literature, and w ith copies of any unpublished material cited; clear indications of how to access the latter should be included in the

contributions. For material available in el ectronic format only, the location where such material may be accessed should be cited. C ontributed material may be edited, merged and if necessary, amended, in the course of developing the overall draft text.

4. EXPERT REVIEWERS

Function: To comment on the accuracy and completeness of the scientific/tec hnical/socio-economic

content and the overall scientific/technical /socio-economic balance of the drafts.

Comment: Expert reviewers will comment on the te xt according to their own knowledge and experience. They may be nominated by Governments, national and international organizations, Working Group/Task Force Bureau, Lead Authors and Contributing

Authors.

5. REVIEW EDITORS

Function: Review Editors will assist the Working Group/Task Force Bureau in identifying reviewers for the expert review process, ensure that all substantive expert and government review comments are afforded appr opriate consideration, advise lead authors

on how to handle contentious/cont roversial issues and ensure genuine controversies are reflected adequately in the text of the Report.

Comment:

There will be one or two Review Editors per chapter (including their executive summaries) and per technical summary. In orde r to carry out these tasks, Review Editors will need to have a broad understanding of the wider scientific and technical issues being addressed. The workload will be particularly heavy during the final stages of the Report preparation. This includes attending those meetings where writing teams are considering

37the results of the two review rounds. Review Editors are not actively engaged in drafting Reports and cannot serve as reviewers of thos e chapters of which they are Authors.

Review Editors can be me mbers of a Work ing Group/Task Force Bureau or outside experts agreed by the Working Group/Task Force Bureau. Although responsibility for the final text remains with the Lead Authors, Review Editors will need to ensure that where significant differences of opinion on scientific issues remain, such differences are described in an annex to the Report. Revi ew Editors must submit a written report to the Working Group Sessions or the Panel and wher e appropriate, will be requested to attend Sessions of the Working Group and of the IP CC to communicate their findings from the review process and to assistin finalizing the Summary for Policymakers, Overview Chapters of Methodology Reports and Synthe sis Reports. The names of all Review Editors will be acknowledged in the Reports.

In implementing these procedures across the three working groups of the IPCC’s AR4, 1,250 scientists (450 lead authors and more than 800 contributing authors) from 130 countries served as authors and more than 2,500 experts pr ovided over 90,000 review comments. Many petitioners specifically critique the practices employed by IPCC Working Group I, for which

there were 152 lead authors and 26 review editors from 32 countries, in which 6,000 peerreviewed publications were cited, for which 625 experts from 42 countries provided over 30,000 review comments, and for which the Summary for Policymakers was approved line by line by 113 countries. Furthermore, the petitioners sp ecifically critique the practices employed by Chapter 6 (Jansen et al., 2007) authors and re viewers of Working Group I, which had two coordinating authors and 14 lead authors from 12 countries, 33 contributi ng authors from nine countries, and two review editors who oversaw the handling of more than 2,900 comments from the rounds of expert and governmental review. The petitioners also critique the practices employed by Chapter 9 (Hegerl et al., 2007) auth ors and reviewers of Working Group I, which had two coordinating authors and seven lead auth ors from nine countries , 44 contributing authors from 12 countries, and three review editors who oversaw the handling of about 2,600 comments from the rounds of expert and governmental review.

The IPCC processes have been developed for th e express purpose of ensuring integrity and avoiding any possibility of bias in the conclusions drawn from the sc ientific literature. The level of detail and clarity of the requirements—espe cially concerning repor t review, the specific responsibilities of review editors to assess the quality of au thor responses to comment, and the transparency of the record of comments and responses—provide the foun dation for ensuring that the reports are credible and sound.

The IPCC’s peer-review and report development pr ocesses are very important components of the overall integrity, quality, transpar ency, and objectivity of its reports . As stated in the TSD (U.S. EPA, 2009) for the Endangerment Finding, EPA relied on the assessment literature because:

they 1) are very recent and represent th e current state of knowledge on GHG emissions, climate change science, vulnerabilities, and potential impacts; 2) have assessed numerous individual, peer-reviewed studies in order to draw general co nclusions about the state of science; 3) have been reviewed and formally accepted, commissioned, or in some cases

38authored by U.S. governme nt agencies and in dividual government scientists; and 4) they reflect and convey the consensus co nclusions of expert authors.

Finally, we note the following recent IPCC stat ement regarding their report development

process:

The IPCC procedures, which are regularly re viewed and amended by the IPCC members, have served the international community eff ectively for over 20 years. The conclusions of the IPCC assessment reports, and especia lly the Fourth Assessment Report, are as solid as careful science can make them. They reflect the current st ate of knowledge about one of the most complex and important of all topics -- climate change science (IPCC, 2010b).

2.2.3 Responses to Arguably New Objections Raised by the Petitioners

The petitioners submit four arguably “new” obj ections along with excerpts from the CRU emails related to: 1) authorship and reviewer roles among IPCC personnel; 2) an e-mail allegedly showing that IPCC authors were aware that citing their own papers could be seen as using the IPCC process to advance their own views rather than to present a neutral overview of the science; 3) allegations that the IPCC is a biased organizati on, including claims that IPCC lead authors encouraged other authors to focus on policy-prescriptive science; and 4) allegations that

IPCC authors forced consensus and altered the co ntents of the assessment reports to eliminate any suggestion of non-consensus. We respond to each of these allegations in the subsections

below.

2.2.3.1 Allegations of Inappropriate Aut horship and Reviewer Roles Among IPCC

Personnel

Comment (2-16) : Peabody Energy argues that the CRU e-mails s how inappropriate authorship roles in the development of Chapter 6 (“Paleoclimate”) of Wo rking Group I’s contribution to AR4 (Jansen et al., 2007). The petitioner alle ges that Michael Mann (Penn State) and Thomas Crowley (University of Edinburgh) contribut ed significantly to the development of the chapter, but were not listed as contributing authors. In addition, the petitioner alle ges that Mann and Crowley were inappropriately given the opportunity to comment on drafts of the chapter outside the formal review process, thereby compro mising their objectivity as review ers and introducing bias to the chapter development process.

Response (2-16) : EPA has reviewed the petitioners’ submissions a nd finds that the evidence and arguments they provide do not support the conclusion s they draw. The content of the e-mails does not show that Michael Mann or Thomas Crowley contributed substantially to the writing or key development decisions of Chapter 6 (Jansen et al., 2007), or that they introdu ced any bias. Chapter 6 assesses paleoclimatic data and knowledge of how the cl imate system changes over inter-annual to

millennial time scales and how well these variat ions can be simulated with climate models.

39 On Decem ber 23, 2004, Michael Mann wrote to Ke ith Briffa (Chapter 6 lead author) and stated, “Thanks again for your phone call, a nd the (informal) opportunity to help out where I can. I’m perfectly happy in that role (as an informal contributor and a formal reviewer, for example), if you and Peck, for example, are both comfortable with that.” 2
He also sent some website links regarding arguments that some ha ve made against his work. In a follow-up e-mail that same day 3 , Mann again writes to Briffa, stating “I went ahead and tried to make some constructive comments on what you sent...Let me say I think it’s shaping up very ni cely--looks like it should be a significant improvement on the ‘01 report. You’ve handled the various contro versies and points of dispute delicately and adeptly...I made a dozen or so minor comments--please make use of them as you see fit...Thanks again for including me in a nd giving me an opportunity to comment.” 4

These e-mails show that Mann served as an in formal contributor on a preliminary draft of Chapter 6 (Jansen et. al, 2007), and the IP CC’s response to comments document for Chapter 6 confirm that Mann was also a formal reviewer (IPCC, 2006a). The petitioners allege that Mann could not ha ve objectively reviewed the ch apter if he also provided information for its development, but these e- mails do not show that Mann “significantly contributed” to the development of this chapter. In fact, the evidence provided by the petitioner indicates that Mann participated at most in a limited way as an informal contributor, providing a small amou nt of information, such as Web links, to the authors.

This level of involvement would not warrant being listed as a contributing author, as Mann was involved neither with assessing the u nderlying literature nor with writing text for the chapter. The IPCC does not require info rmal contributors of this nature to be acknowledged as authors in the final report. There is no basis to c onclude that listing him as an author would have changed the content or conclusions of the chapter in any way.

There is also no basis to concl ude that his comments were bias ed or lacked objectivity, or that the resulting chapter was bi ased or lacked objectivity. The fact that Mann provided the Chapter 6 authors with a limited amount of information does not mean that his objectivity was compromised during the formal review process. Petitioners appear to conclude otherwise, but nothing they provide supports drawing such a broad conclusion. Finally, we note that the petitioner does not provide any examples of Mann’s review comments on this chapter that they claim demonstrate bias or lack of objectivity.

 Several e-mails from June and July of 2005 (e-mail files 1122300990.txt 5

, 1121869083.txt 6 , and 111886641.txt) 7 show that Thomas Crowley was consulted by Keith Briffa and Jonathan Overpeck (Chapt er 6 coordinating lead author) regarding a medieval warming figure that Crowley had b een developing, which Briffa and Overpeck

3 E-mail file 110295643 6.txt, (December 13, 2 004), page 763, line 13 of PDF ve rsion entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf

3 E-mail file 1103828684. txt, (December 23, 2004), page 771, line 37 of PDF versio n entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf

4 E-mail file 1103828684. txt, (December 23, 2004), page 771, line 37 of PDF versio n entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf

5 E-mail file 1122300990.txt, (July 25,2005), page 952, lin e 33 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf

6 E-mail file 1121869083.txt, (July 20,2005), page 916, lin e 42 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf

7 E-mail file 1118866419.txt, (June 15, 2005), page 889, line 32 of PDF vers ion entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf

40were possibly interested in using for Chapter 6. There is no evidence in the e-mails that Crowley helped write or devel op the chapter in any other cap acity. In f act, the e-mails simply document an interaction between th e lead authors and Crowley, in which the authors are seeking clarification regarding a particular figure. Such inquiries are completely appropriate and in no way compromi se the objectivity and credibility of that chapter’s development. It appears that Crowley provided useful background and advice on the use of his figure, and the e-mails provi de no support that he contributed significant text or had any editorial power over the chapter.

Given the technical nature of this field of climate science, it is reasonable and expected that IPCC authors might require detail or clarification rega rding some of the underlying studies. Therefore they might need to consult the authors of specific studies to better

understand how the results were achieved or to ask questions regarding how the data were applied, as was the case in this situa tion. Petitioners have not explained how the mere fact that this type of corres pondence occurred between Crowley and Briffa/Overpeck lead to the conclusion th at bias was introduced to the chapter development process. The evidence provi ded by the petitioner does not support this

argument.

 In the same set of e-mails, Crowley also states , “I am not sure whether it is wise to add me to the CA [contributing author] list, just because the reviewer is supposed to be impartial and a CA loses that appearance of im partiality if he has now been included as a CA - may want to check with Susan S. on th is one to be sure - still happy to provide advice.” The petitioner alleges th at Crowley’s e-mail signifies th at he knew of the risk of compromising objectivity and did so anyway by both contributing si gnificantly to the chapter’s development and being an expert reviewer. The evidence provided by the petitioner does not show th at Crowley participated in any manner beyond having a limited role in answering questions concerni ng a figure he had deve loped, or that his doing so compromised his objectivity as a revi ewer. The petitioners do not, for example, provide any examples of hi s review comments on this chapter that they claim

demonstrate bias or lack of objectivity. As stated above, IPCC does not require informal contributors to be acknowledged in the fina l report. The petiti oners’ evidence does not show that Crowley’s informal contribu tion and correspondence with the Chapter 6 authors led to improper and erroneous changes or conclusions in the report. Furthermore, after the exchange of these e-mails, Overp eck wrote: “Thanks for moving this forward and making sure we do it right (i.e., wit hout any bias, or perception of bias)”. 8 This demonstrates that the coordinating lead au thor understood IPCC’s guidelines, ensured that they were properly imple mented, and therefore avoided any lack of or lapse in objectivity.

The petitioner draws broad conclusions from thes e e-mails about the inte ntions of the authors and the content of the IPCC chapters, in an attempt to discredit overall the chapter development and review processes of the IPCC, and implicitl y the IPCC reports themselves. However, the emails cited show that Mann and Crowley had very limited, informal roles in the chapter and the

8 E-mail file 1121869083.txt, (July 20 , 2005), page 918, line 8 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf

41e-ma ils provide no evidence to support asserti ons of bias or a lack of objectivity. The

interactions that occurred are allowable under IPCC procedur es, and petitioners have not demonstrated that the events in question changed the content or conclusions of the chapter in any

way.

The Muir Russell investigative panel summarized information Briffa gave them on this issue, describing Briffa as having said (Russell, 2010):

There is no proscription in the IPCC rules to prevent the author team seeking expert

advice when and where needed. The Techni cal Support Unit (TSU) and the CLAs of Chapter 6 agree that the author team was a llowed to seek such advice. Copies of communications from both CLAs (Jansen and Overpeck) and the IPCC WG1 TSU are provided by Briffa (and published on the webs ite) to provide support to Briffa’s claim that his actions did not contravene IPCC procedures.

Even if the petitioner’s allegations that Mann and Crowley “significantly contributed” to the development of Chapter 6 were true—which we do not believe to be the case—and even if this contribution were atypical, this doe s not lead to the conclusion that the scientific integrity of the conclusions from the chapter was compromised. The evidence provided by petitioners does not indicate errors or significant changes that resulted from invol vement of these persons, and does not demonstrate that the final product was either inaccurate or lacked impartiality, nor does the petitioner to any such result. We find that Ch apter 6 was developed in an objective manner, is accurate, and represents the best av ailable scientific information.

Comment (2-17) : Peabody Energy argues that the CRU e-mails show that IPCC lead authors “viewed their work as advocacy, rather than scientific analysis, wh ich could be marshaled against opponents.” In support of this argument, the petitioner provide s a February 2005 e-mail from Michael Mann to Phil Jones, which states “I saw the paleo draft (actually I saw an early version, and sent Keith some minor comments). It looks very good at present--will be inte resting to see how they deal

w/ the contrarian criticisms--t here will be many. I’m hoping they’ll stand firm (I believe they will--I think the chapter has the right sort of personalities for that).”

Response (2-17) : The petitioner’s interpretation of the e-mail statement is unfo unded. The e-mail from Michael

Mann 9 describes his reaction to a preliminary draf t of a Medieval Warm Period (MWP) section of Chapter 6 (“Palaeoclimate”) of Working Grou p I’s contribution to the AR4 (Jansen et al., 2007). First, it is important to note that Mi chael Mann and Phil Jones were neither lead nor contributing authors for Chapter 6, as the petitione r implies. Therefore, any allegations that

Mann and Jones used their author ship authority to advocate ag ainst critics of Chapter 6’s findings are unfounded. For our response to allegati ons that Michael Mann ha d a significant role in the development of Chapter 6, please see Resp onse 2-16 in this section. Moreover, the e-mail does not support the petitioner’s allegation that Mann and Jones were viewing their work as “advocacy” to use “against opponents.” Rather, Ma nn is simply stating his opinion regarding

9 E-mail file 1107454306.txt, (Feb. 3, 2005), page 821, line 44 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf

42how the paleoclimate chapter shou ld be written and that he lo oked forward to seeing how the Chapter 6 authors dealt with cr iticism s. At no point does Mann suggest that the scientific findings be manipulated to suppor t a pre-determined view. It is clear that he is merely expressing his hope for how the authors will respond to comments they (not Mann) are tasked with addressing.

Comment (2-18) : The State of Texas argues that the IPCC scie ntists who wrote the CRU e-mails “wielded tremendous authority over the IPCC.” In support of their argument, the petitioners state, “For example, AR4 cites Dr. Jones’s work 38 times in 21 chapters of two Working Groups, Mann is cited 27 times in 7 chapters of two Working Groups, Briffa is cited 23 times in 9 chapters of two Working Groups, Wigley is cited 66 times in 18 chapters of all three Working Groups, Overpeck is cited 15 times in 5 chapters of two Working Groups, Osborn is cited 30 times in 10 chapters of two Working Groups, Trenberth is cited 58 times in 18 chapters of two Working Groups, and Santer is cited 26 times in 8 chapters of tw o Working Groups, just to name a few.” The petitioner goes on to argue that “Thus, to the extent their objectiv ity, impartiality, truthfulness, and scientific integrity are compromised or in doubt, so too is the objectivity, impartiality, truthfulness, and scientific in tegrity of the IPCC report, th e CRU temperature data, the NOAA [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrati on] temperature data, and other scientific

research that is shown to have re lied on their compromised research.”

Response (2-18) : Many of the scientists who wrote the CRU e-mails were and still are important figures in the field of climate change science. It is impor tant to note that the statistics provided by the petitioner regarding how frequently the studies of these scientists (e .g., Phil Jones and Michael Mann) were cited in AR4 are neither surp rising nor unreasonable. The IPCC AR4 (IPCC, 2007a) cited over 18,000 peer-reviewed studies. Ther efore these statistics (e.g., “Wigley is cited 66 times in 18 chapters of all th ree Working Groups, Overpeck is c ited 15 times in 5 chapters of two Working Groups”) do not suppor t the petitioner’s allegation that these studies were cited too frequently and that these scie ntists therefor e “wielded tremendous authority over the IPCC.” These scientists are some of the most well-publ ished climate scientists in the world, and their work was synthesized across the three Working Group reports of the AR4. We conclude that these facts by themselves demonstrate nothing othe r than the fact that th e IPCC, as intended, is assessing available, peer-reviewed literature. The simple fact that these individuals are wellpublished and that their studies are cited in AR4 does not imply “tremendous authority.” The petitioner provided no additional eviden ce to support their allegation.

As explained in Section 2.2.2 (Background) of this Volume, over 1,250 scientists from 130 countries served as authors for the AR4. It was these hundreds of authors who had the authority to assess the available literature, summarize the st ate of the science, and reference the studies in the AR4. The IPCC has robust procedures to ensu re that the assessment reports are objective, unbiased, and represent the state of the science regarding climat e change. These procedures include processes to ensure that no one individual or group of indi viduals exerts disproportionate influence in developing any piece of the assessment re ports. Further, as addressed in the specific responses in Section 2.2.3.1 of this Volume, the evidence provided by the petitioners does not show that these procedures were flawed or improperly implemented. For more information on

43these procedures, please see Volume 1, Section 1, of the RTC document and this section (2.2) of

the RTP document.

The mere fact that someone is frequently cited is also not evidence for th e petitioners’ argument. The petitioner must also demonstrate that the re ferenced literature is bi ased or flawed, which they have not done, as compared to the straightforward view th at the studies produced by these scientists are very robus t and of high quality. The petitioner is making allegations without giving due regard for the content of the actual sc ience, which we thoroughly reviewed in the Endangerment Finding’s RTC documents and ag ain in the response to both the new and previously submitted comments of the petitioners.

Please see the Denial and Volume 1 of the RTP do cument for our response to specific allegations regarding what the CRU e-mails mean for the objectivity and integrity of the IPCC assessments, the CRU temperature data, the NOAA temperature data , and other research that is based on this

information.

Comment (2-19) : Peabody Energy argues that “An IPCC chapter author should not peer review journal articles that he intends to include in his chapte r because of the clear conflict of interest. The chapter author is supposed to be providing a neutral summary of th e science, not advancin g his own view of the science. If the chapter author reviews papers th at are then included in hi s chapter, he could be seen as advancing his own agenda both in his revi ew of the paper and its selection for inclusion in the IPCC report.” To support their argument, the petitioner provides a July 2005 e-mail from Phil Jones to John Christy that states, “I am revi ewing a couple of papers on extremes, so that I can refer to them in the chapter for AR4. Somewhat circular, but I kept to my usual

standards” 10 . The petitioner goes on to state that “Jone s reviewed papers so that he could get them published and therefore could refer to them in AR4 Chapter 3. Th e petitioner concludes

that “this is indeed ‘circular’ a nd violates his supposed neutrality both as an AR4 author and as reviewer of the paper.” As additional support, Peabody Energy references another e-mail dated May 20, 2005, from Phil Jones to Michael Mann re garding Jones’ review of a temperature reconstruction paper for Climatic Change

. a

papers that he favored.” 11 The petitioner states: “One wonders just how unbiased Jones’ review of this pa per really was, particularly in light of Jones’ admission that he applied less than stringent review standards to

Response (2-19) : First, we find it unconvincing and unclear why, according to the petitioner, an author of an IPCC chapter should not serve as a peer reviewer of a journal paper that in turn may be incorporated into that IPCC chapter. Thus, we disagree wi th the petitioner’s allegations that Phil Jones introduced bias and reviewed these papers unobjectiv ely in an effort to advance his own views of the science. Jones did not appoint himself to revi ew the papers for the journals, but was selected

10 E-mail file 1120593115.txt, (July 5, 2005), page 906, lines 21-22 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf

11 E-mail file 1116611126.txt, (May 20, 2005), page 88 2, line 45 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf

44by an independent editor to be a reviewer based on his experience and expertise related to

climate scie nce. Since Jones is well-published and a prominent paleoclimate scientist, it is reasonable and logical to concl ude that the editor w ho chose him was aware of his work on the AR4 and judged that it was not an inherent conflict of interest. In addition, Jones would not have been the only reviewer for those studies. T ypically, between two and f our independent experts are selected to review manuscripts. Therefore, Jones would not have had the authority or power to coerce or bias the process to “advance his own agenda.” The petitioner is inferring that Jones was trying to do this, but provides no evidence th at Jones’ actions resu lted in papers being unjustly published when they should not have be en, or papers being unj ustly cited in the AR4 when they should not have been.

The petitioner’s claim that an e-mail between Jone s and Mann represents an “admission that he [Jones] applied less than string ent review standards to papers that he favored” is also unsupported by evidence. Rather, th e petitioner misinterprets and mi srepresents Jones’ e-mail to Michael Mann regarding Jones’ review of a temperature reconstruction paper for Climatic Change . This e-mail sent on May 20, 2005, reads:

Mike, Just reviewed Caspar’s [Amman, of the Nati onal Center for Atmospheric Research] paper with Wahl [Eugene Wahl of the National Clim atic Data Center] for Climatic Change. Looks pretty good. Almost reproduced your series and shows where MM [Steve McIntyre, formerly of Northw est Exploration Co., and Ross Mc Kitrick of the University of Guelph] have gone wrong. Should keep them quiet for a while. Also they release all the data and the R software. Presume you know all about this. Should make Keith’s life in Ch 6 easy! Also, confidentially for a few weeks, Christy and Spencer [John Christy and Roy Spencer of the University of Alab ama in Huntsville] have admitted at the Chicago CCSP meeting that their 2LT record is wrong!! They used the wrong sign for the diurnal correction! Series now warms - not quite as much as the surface but within error bands. Between you and me, we’ll be going with RSS in Ch 3 and there will be no discrepancy with the surface and the models . Should make Ch 3 a doddle now! Keep quiet about this until Bern at least. Can tell you more then. RSS (Carl Mears and Frank Wentz) found the mistake! The skeptic pillars are tumbling!

Cheers Phil 12

Despite the allegations by the petitioner, this e-ma il shows no indication that Jones’ review of the Ammann and Wahl paper for Climatic Change was biased or that he did not employ rigorous standards of objectivity and neutra lity in evaluating the merits of the studies. The e-mail simply indicates that Jones approved of the findings by the authors and that he found the results to have important implications regarding the validity of temperature rec onstructions. The petitioner is significantly skewing the meaning of these e-mails and misrepresenting what Jones said to infer improper conduct in his review of the paper.

12 E-mail file 1116611126.txt, (May 20, 2005), page 882, lines 6-15 of the PDF versio n entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf

45Finally, the evidence provided by Peabody Energy does not support their a llegation that Jones

was biased or failed to objectively assess the avai lable literature for the AR4 as a result of having reviewed these papers. From our review of the evidence, we conclude only that Jones reviewed

the studies and that he was also an author for Chapter 3 (“Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change”) of Working Group I’s contribution to the AR4 (Trenberth et al., 2007). For that chapter, over 65 authors from 16 countries were tasked with reviewing and assessing the best available sc ience regarding observed climat e change and distilling this information into key messages that capture the state of knowledge. Once again, Jones would not have had the authority or power to coerce or bias the process to “advance his own agenda” by developing conclusions that do not represent the state of the science. Chapter 3, like all of the AR4, went through multiple rounds of expert an d government review, in which more than 3,400 comments were received and addressed, to ensure that the conclusions accurately represent and summarize the best available science. The large number of authors, the multiple rounds of expert and government reviews, and the detailed approval process are al l deliberate procedures developed by the IPCC to ensure that the report s maximize objectivity, cr edibility, and quality. See Section III.A of the Findings, Volume 1 of the RTC document and Section 2.2.2 (Background) of the RTP document for more information on the IPCC’s report development procedures.

2.2.3.2 Allegations That Citing One’s Ow n Papers Compromises Objectivity

Comment (2-20) : Peabody Energy states that IPCC au thors cited their own papers extensively in the AR4, which invalidates the purpose of these assessment reports, which are designed to objectively look across the literature and convey the state of th e science. The petiti oner cites an e-mail by Jonathan Overpeck from June 2005 13 as evidence that allegedly “reveals that the IPCC authors were aware that citing their own papers could be seen as using the IPCC process to advance their own views rather than to pres ent a neutral ove rview of the science.” The petitioner further provides a statistic regarding th e frequency at which the author s of Chapter 9 of Working Group I of AR4 cited their own papers : “About 40% of the papers cite d in Chapter 9 were written by Chapter 9 authors.”

Response (2-20) : It should come as no surprise that many papers by Chapter 9 authors were cited in the chapter. IPCC authors are chosen in part based on their ex pertise on a particular su bject and the degree to which they have published recent, high-quality pa pers in the field. Moreover, in some areas (e.g., medieval warming period analysis, ocean acidification), there can be limited studies outside the research published by particular scie ntists, including IPCC authors, on which to base summaries of the science. Contrary to the petiti oner’s allegations, this does not mean that IPCC authors were not providing neutral and objective summa ries of the science. In fact, the petitioner provides no evidence that the practic e of citing one’s own papers led to biased conclusions in the AR4. Given the rigor of the IPCC review pro cess, described in Sect ion 2.2.2 (Background) of this Volume, it is indeed highly unlikely that an author’s improper citation of his or her own work would escape notice.

13 E-mail file 1120014836.txt, (June 28, 2005), page 90 0, line 32 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf

46Moreover, the e-mail from Jonathan Overpeck (coordinating lead author of Chapter 6 of Working Group I’s contribution to the AR4), does not support the petitioner’s assumption of misconduct, and instead shows that Overpeck wa s encouraging the author s of that chapter to

minimize citing their own papers to the extent po ssible, and to only do so when “absolutely necessary.” Overpeck’s awareness that the auth ors “citing their own papers could be seen as using the IPCC process to advance their own views rather than to present a neutral overview of

the science” does not mean that such citation actually was for the alleged improper purpose— especially when the e-mail demonstrates that Overpeck intentionally took steps to avoid impropriety, or even the appear ance of impropriety. The evidence provided by petitioners does

not show that the authors cited their own studies in order to advance thei r own policy views; in fact, it shows they were cautioned to avoid citin g their own studies except where absolutely necessary and appropriate. The full text of Overpeck’s e-mail is provided here:

Hi all - thanks Fortunat and Stefan for mo re debate on the 1470. Sounds like the final decision is up to Eystein, but I can guess the way he’s thinking. With regard to refs - remember that our goal is to cut the number of references significantly. Since this is an assessment and not a review, we can delete all but the most recent and comprehensive references. I don’t like cutting out the origin al refs any more than you, but we just don’t have room, and its more important to have text than exhaustive references. Our colleagues will hopefully understand, and if they don’t then they need to do an ego check. It’s more important that we make an impact with policy makers rather than with citation indices. Does this make sense? In any cas e, please help make sure we trim the total references DOWN in number by a significant number. This is not happening [to] the degree it should. Also, please not[e] that in the US, the US Congress is questioning

whether it is ethical for IPCC authors to be using the IPCC to champion their own work/opinions. Obviously, this is wrong and s cary, but if our goal is to get policy makers (liberal and conservative alike) to take our chap ter seriously, it will only hurt our effort if we cite too many of our own pa pers (perception is often re ality). PLEASE do not cite anything that is not absolutely needed, and pl ease do not cite your pa pers unless they are absolutely needed. Common sense, but it isn’ t happening. Please be more critical with your citations so we save needed space, and al so so we don’t get perceived as self serving or worse. Again, we can debate this if anyone thinks I’ve gone off the deep end. Thanks, peck PS - this is not to say anything critical of the refs Fortunat is suggesting - we must cite the most relevant papers, and we must be as up to date as possible. 14

Regarding the statistics submitted, the petitioner ha s not provided any evidence that the Chapter 9 authors cited their own studies more frequently than would be appropriate given the number of peer-reviewed and published studies on this par ticular climate science topic (understanding and attributing climate change in th e case of Chapter 9), and the stat istics alone, without context, prove nothing. More than 50 authors from 15 diff erent countries contributed to the development of Chapter 9. Given the large number of perspe ctives and the wide-rang ing expertise of this group, it is not surprising that 40% of the papers were written by th e chapter’s authors. Contrary

14 E-mail file 1120014836.txt, (June 28, 2005), page 90 1, line 13 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf

47to the petitioner’s allegations, and consistent with the IPCC’s report d evelopment guidelines as described in Volume 1 of the RTC document, the statistics provided by the petitioner show that the most qualified and experienced personnel contributed to the de velopment of this chapter. When read in full, Overpeck’s email clearly shows that he was taking deliberate actions to ensure that the science was presented in an objective and unbiased manner.

We note that the petitioners do not provide or re ference any studies that they say should have been included instead. Importantly, petitioners again fail to show how the allegedly irregular practice that they challenge resu lted in conclusions that are in accurate or c ontrary to the

consensus science.

2.2.3.3 Allegations That IPCC Is Biased

Comment (2-21) : The Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Southe astern Legal Foundation, the State of Texas, and the Ohio Coal Association argue that Jonathan Overpeck, the coordinating lead author for Chapter 6 (“Palaeoclimate”) of Working Gr oup I’s contribution to the AR4, encouraged contributing authors to focus on fi ndings that are most policy rele vant (thereby, according to the petitioners, “supporting preconceived” assessments of the science), and that he did not encourage open and neutral presentations of the science. The petitioners draw this conclusion from an email written by Overpeck and Eystein Jansen (the ot her coordinating lead author) to the lead and contributing authors for Chapter 6, which states, “With respect to te xt, try hard to get it down to size, and to ensure that it is FOCUSED on only that science which is policy relevant. ALL TEXT should support an Exec Summary Bullet” 15

.

15 E-mail file 1121392136.txt, (July 14, 2005), Page 912, Line 35 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf.

48Response (2-21) : The Overpeck/Jansen e-mail to Chapter 6 authors i ndicates that he encouraged them to focus on the findings that are most policy relevant. However, “policy re levant and compelling” does not mean or imply “policy prescriptiv e,” as alleged by the petitioners. “Policy relevant” means the neutral and objective presentation of scientific, technica l, and socio-economic factors that are relevant to the issues or policies that policymakers care about. This is to be contrasted with other issues that are less relevant to policymaker s and thus less appropriate for these types of assessment reports, which aim to objectively and thoroughly synthesize scientific information to support development of informed policies. “Po licy relevant” is completely different from “policy prescriptive,” which refers to the presentation of scientific information with the aim of advancing a particular public policy agenda.

The e-mail from Overpeck and Jansen does not support petitioners’ conclusion that they were being policy prescriptive. There is no indicati on that authors were enc ouraged to limit their contributions only to findings that supported a pa rticular policy agenda. Rather, it shows the opposite: they were encouraged to avoid this and to provide po licy relevant information that would be of use to policymakers as they consider the various possible policies. We further note that the petitioners do not identify information in Chapter 9 that is “pol icy prescriptive,” or provide any information on what policies Overpe ck and Jansen were purportedly advancing.

As the IPCC clearly states on its website rega rding its mission statem ent, the organization

reviews and assesses the most r ecent scientific information to produce assessment reports that are “policy relevant and policy neutral, ne ver policy prescriptive” (IPCC, 2010c). The petitioners’ evidence does not show that the IPCC failed to execute th is very important principle. The petitioners’ allegations and implications do not call into question the integrity of these IPCC authors. Finally, we note (as described in Volume 1 of the RTC document) that the official expert and government reviews of the summar y for policymakers for each working group (IPCC, 2007c, 2007d, 2007h) further ensure that the reports are not policy prescriptive.

Comment (2-22) : Peabody Energy argues that the contents of several CRU e-mails from August 2005 16 between Jonathan Overpeck, Tim Osborn, and Keith Briffa show that the authors for Chapter 6 of Working Group I’s contribution to the AR4 (Jan sen et al., 2007) were focusing not on the presentation of “neutral science” but rather on “presenting a strong case.”

Response (2-22) : The full content of the e-mails at issue is im portant for understanding what the authors were actually saying.

16 E-mail file 1123268256.txt, (August 5, 2005), page 963, line 29 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf; e-mail file 1123513957.txt, (August 8, 2005), page 964, line 25 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf

49E-mail from Overpeck to Osborn and Briffa on Monday, August 5, 2005 Hi Tim and Keith - Hope you’re not going to kill me, but I was talking with Susan Solomon today, and she impressed me with the need to make several points if we can. One issue (other to come in a subsequent email) is whether we can extend the MWP box figure to include the 15th century. I don’t re ad the blogs that re gularly, but I guess the skeptics are making hay of their being a global warm ev ent around 1450AD. I agree w/ Susan that it is our obligati on to weigh in on issues like th is, so.... can we extend the fig to extend up to 1500AD? Sorry about this, Tim. Of course we need it yesterday. Thanks x10**6 best, peck 17

E-mail from Osborn and Briffa to Overpeck on Monday, August 8, 2005 Hi Peck, there is a period around 1400 AD wh en the proxy records we’ve used in this MWP figure do indicate a warm period - and all records show positive anomalies at the

same time. Thus it couldn’t/shouldn’t be dism issed in the same way as the MWP, as a period of disparate regional behaviour, albe it with more records showing warming than cooling. For 1400, all indicate warming but with smaller magnitude than the 20th century. If the figure were extended to cove r the 15th century, then it would also seem necessary to extend it to the present so that the 1400 period could be compared with the 20th century. I’ve atta ched 3 versions of the figure. 850-1350 as originally sent. 850- 1500 showing warm anomaly in 1400, but canno t tell how warm rela tive to present-day. 850-2000 showing 1400 was not as anomalous as present-day. Take your pick, Peck!

Cheers Tim and Keith 18

E-mail from Overpeck to Osborn and Briffa on Monday, August 8, 2005 Hi Tim - Decisions, decisions... thanks so much for taking the initiative. I think - for the reason you state, we should go for the one that includes the 20th centu ry. We make clear that these are not reconstructed temp, but nor malized anomalies - this keeps us out of some trouble. But, I think the main message is that we’re looking at this issue from every angle. And, we’re letting othe rs see the issue from every an gle. It adds punch. this

means that the MWP box needs to talk a bout the period around 1400 - can you make sure

that’s on Keith’s radar screen. I believe that historians talk about the Medieval Period going to at least 1450, so what the heck... I you can adjust the caption to work, and then send both it and the final fig to Øyvind, me and Eystein that would be good - make sure Keith is ok with it all first, too. Thanks Tim! Best, Peck 19

These e-mails describe a conversa tion between the three scientists in which they are deciding the most appropriate timeframe for a particular se t of graphics depicting normalized temperature anomalies. From our review, the context for th e e-mails in question is that Susan Solomon (of NOAA, and serving as the co-chair of IPCC Work ing Group I) wanted to ensure that the views

17 E-mail file 1123268256.txt, (August 5, 2005), page 963, line 29 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf.

18 E-mail file 1123513957.txt, (August 8, 2005), page 964, line 25 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf.

19 E-mail file 1123513957.txt, (August 8, 2005), page 964, line 43 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf.

50of various climate change scie n tists were addressed in AR 4. She was clearly trying to acknowledge and respond to their concerns, even to the point of reading blogs to better understand their arguments when there was no peer-r eviewed literature articu lating their points. In response, Jonathan Overpeck, Tim Osborn, and Ke ith Briffa discussed a number of options for presenting their data on normalized temperature anomalies: first extending the timeline to 1500

A.D. to address the concerns with data ar ound 1450 A.D., then extending the timeline to the present day to provide even more context for th ese early data. They di scussed and ultimately decided to modify the graphic to depict the relationship of the MWP to the 20 th century because that approach would provide important context for understanding current temperature trends, it would be “looking at this issue from every angle. And, we’re letting others see the issue from every angle.” There is no evidence of bias in th is decision. Their presentation of various options for the graphic demonstrates their commitment to considering alte rnative viewpoints and thoroughness in assessing the science. The e-mails speak for themselves and show no inappropriate behavior among these individuals. We disagree with the petitioner that these emails indicate that the scientists were trying to present science that is not neutral or were motivated by a desire to presen t a “strong case” rather than to present the best science. We further note that this graphic went through expert and governmental review and was deemed appropriate for inclusion in the IPCC chapter. The petitioner provided no additional evidence beyond the text of the e-mails to further justify th is allegation.

Thus, these e-mails do nothing more than indicate th at three scientists were trying to present a figure that was comprehensive and offered key contextual information on temperature trends over the past several centuries. There is nothing inappropriate or bias ed about that, and the petitioner has not provided eviden ce suggesting that there was. When examined in their full context, the e-mails do not indicate any wr ongdoing by the three scient ists or support the petitioner’s claims.

Comment (2-23) : In support of their argument that the IPCC is a politicized and biased organization, the Competitive Enterprise Institute provided a quote from the Environment Minister of India in which he responds to the incorrect IPCC conclusi on of disappearing glaciers by announcing that India is forming its own independent climate change review panel that will not depend on IPCC reports. The Minister stated th at “There is a fine line betw een climate science and climate evangelism. I am all for climate science but not for climate evangelism. I think people misused the IPCC report” (Indo-Asian News Service, 2010).

Response (2-23) : See Subsection 2.1.3 in this Volume of the RT P document for EPA’s re sponses regarding the validity of the IPCC’s Himalayan glacier projecti on and our conclusion that this error does not undermine the IPCC’s broader findings and the technical support for endangerment.

With respect to the implications of the statemen ts from the Indian Environment Minister, Jairam Ramesh, they clearly show that he disagreed with the specific IPCC Himalayan glacier projection that has been id entified as being an error. His stat ement indicates that he thought that the projection was inappropriately developed base d on inconclusive science. As described in Subsection 2.1.3, the IPCC’s overall assessment of obs erved glacier loss, pr ojected glacier loss,

51and the impacts of glacier loss on w ater resource s in the Himalayas was not compromised by this single faulty projection. Numer ous studies cited by the IPCC document a general decline in Himalayan glacier mass, project substantial futu re declines, and discuss the impacts of these changes on water resources and society, which is consistent with the conclusions drawn by the

IPCC.

The evidence provided by the petitioner appears to mischaracterize the Mi nister’s position. The Minister did not make any statements that suppo rt the petitioner’s allegation that the IPCC is biased or politicized. Rather, the Minister expressed his disapp roval of the incorrect glacier projections and stated that Indi a needed to perform its own research related to this issue and other climate change impacts in the country. Sp ecifically, the Minister stated (Indo-Asian News Service, 2010):

I respect the IPCC. At the same time India is a large country... we can’t depend only on IPCC. So we have launched the Indian Network on Comprehensive Climate Change Assessment... It’s got 125 research institutions from across the country. We will have

international collaborations. It’s a kind of an Indian IPCC and not a rival to the IPCC.

We will do our own assessment.

It is not uncommon for countries to undertake their ow n climate change assessments, and it is misleading for the petitioner to impl y that the Minister’s statements represent a lack of faith in the IPCC. Finally, even if the statements by the Mi nister were to be stretched and interpreted as a comment about the IPCC as a politicized organization, it would be the view of one representative of one country and would not repr esent the official posit ion of the 194 countries that participate in the IPCC. The fact that a nother country chooses to complement the IPCC with another assessment process has no implications fo r the Endangerment Finding. For example, the United States has its own climate change science assessment process that is administered by the USGCRP, and this body has provided excellent and robust information.

Comment (2-24) : The Competitive Enterprise Institute and Ohio Co al Association argue that the IPCC is “not a scientific organization,” that pe ople in the organization realize it is not, and that the IPCC is a political “organization that reviews and reports scie nce that support its goals. ” In support of their argument, the petitioner provided a quote from The Guardian (a UK newspaper) which in turn quoted Anton Imeson, a former IPCC Working Group II author:

The Nobel prize was for peace not scien ce ... government employees will use it to negotiate changes and a redistri bution of resources. It is not a scientific analysis of climate change... For the media, the IPCC assessments have become an icon for something they are not. To make sure that it does not happen again, the IPCC should change its name and become part of so mething else. The IPCC should have never allowed itself to be branded as a scientific organization.

Response (2-24) : The quote provided by the pe titioner comes from a newspaper article in The Guardian (Adam and Goldenberg, 2010), not a scien tific journal or a comprehensive review of the IPCC. Imeson

52was one of 10 lead authors for Chapter 1 (“Asse ssme nt of Observed Changes and Responses in Natural and Managed Systems”) of Working Group II’s contribution to th e AR4 (Rosenzweig et al., 2007). He is presenting an op inion, not a scientific evaluati on, and is one of more than 1,250

authors from 130 countries that wr ote the AR4 with him. It appears that Imeson is concerned about potential policy im plications of the IPCC reports, na mely that governments may use the IPCC reports to “redistribute resources.” He does not provide a specific sc ientific critique, but rather a critique of how governments and th e media characterize the IPCC reports and government policy direction.

The evidence provided by the petitioner does not show that Imeson’s views are shared by other

IPCC authors. To evaluate the merits and cred ibility of Imeson’s statements, one must look at the principles governing the IPCC’s work, and the organization’s established procedures for the preparation, review, acceptance, adoption, approval, and publication of the assessment reports. In addition, it is also important to assess how these principles a nd procedures were implemented in developing the AR4. EPA has conducted such assessments; they are described in detail in Section III.A of the Findings; Volume 1, Sections 1 and 5, of the RTC document; Appendix A of Volume 1 of the RTC document; and this section of the RTP document. Ultimately, one author’s sentiments about how the IPCC’s key findings ma y be used do not provide us with evidence indicating wrong-doing.

Comment (2-25) : The Southeastern Legal Foundation and the State of Texas argue that since the comment period closed, it has been revealed in the press that th e chairman of the IPCC, Rajendra K. Pachauri, has multiple potential conflicts of interest. As suppor t for their argument, the petitioners reference a Daily Telegraph (UK newspaper) article published on December 20, 2009, titled “Questions over business deals of UN climate change guru Dr. Rajendra Pachauri” (Booker and North, 2009). The article, along with several ot her newspaper blogs and articles referenced by the petitioners, allege that Pachauri’s connections with vari ous corporations, along w ith consulting services provided to some of these companies, have generate d conflicts of interest and resulted in biased and compromised IPCC reports. The Southeas tern Legal Foundation further states:

It is remarkable how only very recently has the staggering scal e of Dr Pachauri’s links to so many of these concerns come to light, in evitably raising questions as to how the world’s leading “climate official” can al so be personally involved in so many organizations which stand to benef it from the IPCC’s recommendations.

Similarly, the State of Texas argues:

Pachauri’s conflicts of interest weaken the Endangerment Finding. Dr. Pachauri’s conflicts of interest indicate that the IPCC is being led toward a conclusion that climate change is a dire threat to the planet that mu st be reversed; a conclu sion that would enrich Dr. Pachauri and the entities that employ hi m. Consequently, EPA has relied on an assessment that ensures bias and imbalance, a result that EPA claims to want to avoid.

53Response (2-25) : Rajendra Pachauri is the elected, unpaid chairman of the IPCC. The IPCC chairmanship requires expertise and experience in climate change scie nce and policy. The chairperson is elected based on this level of expertise and experience. As a re sult, it is difficult to imagine that a qualified candidate would not have connections and interactions with various academic, science, political, and business communities. Having such connections is not, in and of itself, evidence of conflict of interest in the development of the assessm ent reports. The petitioners insinuate that Pachauri’s professional connections with various companies constitute conflicts of interest, yet they did not provide any evidence that Pachauri’s outside activities generate d conflicts of interest or violated any ethics rules of the World Mete orological Organization or the U.N. Environment Programme. In fact, in the interest of transp arency, Dr. Pachauri has made available his tax returns and details regarding the honorariums and payments from his consulting activities. Further, it appears that the a uditing firm KPMG examined his personal finances and found thatall such payments were made to The Energy and Resources Institute, an Indian nongovernmental organization chaired by Dr. Pachauri (Harvey, 2010).

Most importantly, the petitioners’ argument th at these consulting activities led to biased, imbalanced, and compromised IPCC assessments is completely unsupported by evidence. The petitioners do not provide a single example of a scientific conclusion that was somehow influenced by Dr. Pachauri’s alleged conflicts of interest. The Endangerment Finding must and does rest on strong science, not i nnuendo and speculation of the sort provided by the petitioners.

See Sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 in this volume of th e RTP document, which address our view that the IPCC’s procedures are sufficient to ensu re that no one individual—including the IPCC chairman—or group of individuals can exert disproportionate influence in developing any piece of the assessment reports. The IPCC has robust pr ocedures to ensure that the assessment reports are objective, are unbiased, and represent the stat e of the science regarding climate change. Thus, EPA has no reason to conclude, and ther e is no evidence to suggest, that Pachauri’s professional connections influen ced the IPCC reports in any way.

Comment (2-26) : The State of Texas argues that EPA’s RTC doc ument insufficiently addressed comments on the

Administrator’s consideration of studies that disagreed with the a ssessment literature. Specifically, the petitioner stated:

In response to public comments suggesting that the Administrator s hould have included studies that disagreed wi th the Endangerment Finding, EPA notes that “IPCC, USGCRP/CCSP [the U.S. Gl obal Change Research Program/Climate Change Science Program], and NRC [National Research Council] make considerable effort to ensure that their assessment reports reflect a balance of perspectives regard ing the state of the

science.” To support that response, EPA quotes a National Academies report noting that the NRC screens all “provisional committee memb ers . . . in writing a nd in a confidential group discussion about possible c onflicts of interest.... [N]o individual can be appointed to serve (or continue to serv e) on a committee of the institu tion used in the development of reports if the individual has a conflict of interest that is re levant to the functions to be performed.” Thus, EPA identifies the Nati onal Academies’ prohibition on conflicts of

interest as a means of ensu ring that the Endangerment Findi ng is balanced and unbiased.

54Response (2-26) : We responded to this issue in Response 1-2 of Volume 1 of the RTC document, and we find that our response to public comments on this issue wa s sufficient, detailed, and responsive. The petitioner misrepresents EPA’s actual response, which we provi de again here to put the petitioner’s allegation in perspective.

Comment (1-2): A number of commenters (3324.1, 3394.1, 3429.1, 3440.1, 3481.1, 3533.1, 3579.1, 3596.1, 3707.1, 3747.1, 3764.1, 3915, 4509, 5716, 8624, 10197, 10948, and 11335) argue

that the Administrator did not reference a ny documents in her decision-making process

that offered alternative views on the scien tific basis for causes of climate change. Commenters recommend that EPA provide a more complete discussion of global warming science by using information outside the assessment literature, including studies that do not support its conclusions and studies submitted to the docket through the public comment period for the Proposed Findings.

Response (1-2): We disagree that the Administrator did not consider alternative views on climate change science and impacts. Such a contention inco rrectly implies that all individual studies reviewed and incorporated into the assessments of U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), U.S. Climate Change Sc ience Program (CCSP), Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and Nationa l Research Council (NRC) support uniform

conclusions on the different elements of greenhouse gas (GHG) and climate change science, and that the many thousands of studi es reviewed and reflected in these major assessment works represent a narrow view of G HG and climate change science. In fact, these assessment reports look at the range of the scientific litera ture without “cherrypicking” and it is EPA’s conclusion that by placing primary reliance on the major assessment reports, we have ensured that th e determinations are based on reports that have considered and weighed all views. EPA relied on the major peer-reviewed assessment reports in developing the TSD (U .S. EPA, 2009) precisely to avoid an overreliance on and narrow consideration of indi vidual studies and to ensure that the

Administrator’s decision would be based on a comprehensive assessment of the scientific

literature. EPA has determined that the approach taken provid ed the high level of transparency and consistency outlined by EPA’s Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility and Integrity of Information Disseminated by the Environmental Protection Agency.

Regarding the recommendation that EPA provi de a more comprehensive discussion and consideration of global warmi ng science and literature th at is representative of “alternative views,” we have done this th rough our review of comments and literature submitted, the associated revision of the TSD, and the development of the eleven volumes of the Response to Comments document. See Section III.A. of the Findings,

“The Science on Which the Decisions Are Ba sed,” for our response to comments on the use of the assessment literature and previous responses in this section regarding our

treatment of new and additiona l scientific literature provi ded through the public comment

55process. For EPA’s responses to comment s and literature provided on specific climate science issues in the TSD, please refer to the appropriate Response to Comment volumes.

Finally, we note that IPCC, USGCRP/CCSP, and NRC make considerable effort to ensure that their assessment reports reflect a ba lance of perspectives regarding the state of the science. We note that the CCSP report Guidelines for Producing CCSP Synthesis and

Assessment Products state that the reports should “identify dispar ate views that have significant scientific or t echnical support” (CCSP, 2004). We refer commenters to Appendix B of this volume for the full listing of these Guidelines . Further, NRC (National Academies, 2006) report de velopment procedures state that:

[C]areful steps are taken to convene [report development] committees that meet the following criteria: An appropriate range of exp ertise for the task. The committee must include experts with the specific expertise and experience n eeded to address the study’s statement of task. One of the strengths of the National Academies is the tradition of bringing together recognized experts from diverse disciplines and backgrounds who might not otherwise collaborate. Th ese diverse groups are encouraged to conceive new ways of thinking about a problem.

A balance of perspectives . Having the right expertise is not sufficient for success.

It is also essential to evaluate the overa ll composition of the committee in terms of different experiences and pers pectives. The goal is to ensure that the relevant points of view are, in the National Acad emies’ judgment, reasonably balanced so that the committee can carry out it s charge objectively and credibly.

Screened for conflicts of interest. All provisional committee members are screened in writing and in a confidential group discussi on about possible conflicts of interest. For this purpose, a “conflict of interest” means any financial or other

interest which conflicts with the serv ice of the individual because it could significantly impair the i ndividual’s objectivity or could create an unfair competitive advantage for any person or organization. The term “conflict of interest” means something more than indivi dual bias. There must be an interest, ordinarily financial, that could be directly affected by the work of the committee. Except for those rare situations in which the National Academies determine that a conflict of interest is unavoidable and pr omptly and publicly disclose the conflict of interest, no individual can be appointed to serve (or continue to serve) on a committee of the institution used in the development of reports if the individual

has a conflict of interest that is releva nt to the functions to be performed.”

We refer commenters to Appendix C of this volume for more information on NRC report development process. In addition, please se e response to comments below regarding the IPCC report development process and procedures for ensuring a balance of perspectives.

Petitioners reference only a small part of our re sponse in their allegations . Our full response and the record for the Endangerment Finding dem onstrate that the Administrator thoroughly

56considered a range of studies, including those that disagree with the conclusions of the

assessment lite rature.

2.2.3.4 Allegations That IPCC Lead Aut hors Forced Consensus and Suppressed Dissenting Views

Comment (2-27) : The Southeastern Legal Foundation, the Stat e of Texas, Peabody Energy, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and the Ohio Coal Associati on argue that the CRU e-mails (in particular an e-mail from Phil Jones to Michael Mann expres sing their disapproval of two new studies authored by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick) reveal that th e contents of the IPCC reports, in this case Chapter 3 of the AR4 Working Grou p I report (Trenberth et al., 2007), were altered to eliminate any suggestion of non-consensus on key issues. Petitioners clai m that this occurred so as to support a specific policy agenda, and that dissenting views were not given appropriate attention and consideration. The petitioners also argue that a group of authors have actively tried to suppress external cha llenges to consensus.

Response (2-27) : Although the petitioners dr aw broad conclusions of unethical and biased conduct from the e-mail between Phil Jones and Michael Mann, this e- mail does not show that the two IPCC authors acted unethically, or that they took any actions to suppress dissenting views, as alleged by the petitioners. The e-mail at issue was sent on July 8, 2008, and states:

Mike, Only have it in the pdf form. FYI ONLY - don 't pass on. Relevant paras are the last 2 in section 4 on p13. As I said it is worded carefully due to Adrian knowing Eugenia for years. He knows the're wrong, but he succumbed to her almost pleading with him to tone it down as it might affect her proposals in the future ! I didn't say any of this, so be careful how you use it - if at all. Keep quiet also that you have the pdf. The attachment is a very good paper - I've been pushing Adri an over the last weeks to get it submitted to JGR or J. Climate. The main results are great for CRU and also for ERA-40. The basic message is clear - you have to put enough surface and sonde obs into a model to produce Reanalyses. The jumps when the data input change stand out so clearly. NCEP does many odd things also around sea ice and over snow and ice. The other paper by MM is just garbage - as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well - frequently as I see it. I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if

we have to redefine what th e peer-review literature is!

Cheers Phil 20

The e-mail shows that Phil Jones strongly disa pproved of the quality of the two studies 21 and that he did not deem them to be of sufficient quality and credibility for inclusion in an IPCC

20 E-mail file 1089318616.txt, (July 8, 2008), Page 720, Line 46 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf

21 The paper Jones refers to by “MM” was McKitrick and Michaels (2004). It is not clear what the second paper is, however it was possibly De Laat and Maurellis (2006).

57assessment report. In addition, bo th of the papers were in fact included in the IPCC assessm ent report. The “MM” study (McKitrick and Michaels, 2004) is re ferenced in the IPCC chapter, and assuming that the second study Jones referred to is De Laat and Maurellis (2006), that was included as well. This disproves the allegations of the petitioners that this e-mail is evidence that dissenting views were suppressed or that the IPCC assessment report was biased by such efforts. For example, these two studies are discu ssed in Chapter 3 (Trenberth et al., 2007):

McKitrick and Michaels ( 2004) and De Laat and Maurellis (2006) attempted to demonstrate that geographical patterns of warming trends over land are strongly correlated with geographical patterns of industrial and socioeconomic development, implying that urbanization and related land surface changes have caused much of the observed warming.

Thus, the events surrounding the citation of the McKitr ick and Michaels (2004) and De Laat and Maurellis (2006) studies provide stronger support for the proposition that the IPCC assessed and

cited critical literature than for the petitioners’ view that these events demonstrate that the IPCC

is biased.

The e-mail between Jones and Mann, which is th e only evidence offered by petitioners to support this allegation, simply does not show that either 1) the contents of this chap ter, let alone all of the IPCC assessment reports, were al tered to eliminate a suggestion of nonconsensus, or 2) IPCC authors actively tried to suppre ss external challenges to consen sus. It is not uncommon for scientists to disagree with the work of others, and this e-mail does not provide evidence that Phil Jones or any other IPCC author acted unethically or took actions to s uppress dissenting views, notwithstanding the loose talk in the e-mail.

Our conclusion regarding this e-mail is consistent with the findings of the Independent Climate Change E-mails Review investigation, which c oncluded “that it is not uncommon for strongly opposed and robustly expressed positions to be take n up in heavily contested areas of science.

We take the view that such beha viour does not in genera l threaten the integrity of peer review or publication.” The final report of the investigation also stated that the panel has “not found any direct evidence to support the al legation that members of CRU [in this case Phil Jones] misused their position on IPCC to seek to prevent the pub lication of opposing ideas”(Russell, 2010). On this issue, Brian Hoskins, one of three review editors for Chapter 3, provided statements to the Independent Climate Change E-mails Review that were summarized in the panel’s report as stating (Russell, 2010):

Hoskins confirmed that Las [lead authors], working individually and as small groups, were responsible for the colla tion and primary assessment of material relevant to the topics for which they were responsible. The CLAs [convening lead authors] led the plenary meetings of the writing team prior to production of each of the drafts, led the process of overall collation of the Chapter ma terial and the production of the initial drafts of the First and Second Draft Reports and the Final Draft Report of the Chapter. These drafts were discussed and ag reed during plenary meetings of the whole writing team.

58There were a very large numb er of comments from reviewers, of which a majority were from a relatively small group. The Review Edito rs made sure that they were all given proper consideration, and that th ey were either responded to by a change in the text or by an adequate reason for omission that was recorded in the auth or responses to expert and governmental review comments. Hoskins, as a Review Editor, took part in the Chapter 3 plenary discussions and ensured that conflicting views were addressed.

Led by the two CLAs, Jones and Trenberth, th e writing team for Chapter 3 was assiduous in dealing with comments. Hoskins was very impressed by Jones’ atte ntion to detail, and the rigor of the Chapter 3 process.

The levels of confidence and uncertainty re flected in the drafts were based on the consensus of a group of CLAs and LAs w ho were chosen for their expertise and experience in relevant fields. Irrespective of whether a paper is published in a peer reviewed journal, it is th e responsibility of the whol e team to assess whether a paper‘s conclusions are robust a nd to justify whether its argu ments should carry weight in

the assessment. These decisions for each draf t were taken in plenary sessions of the

whole team. Hoskins said that it is incon ceivable that a paper making significant claims relevant to the work of IPCC and the Chap ter 3 team would not be considered by the team as a whole. The basis for rejecting one of the papers that is a focus of the allegation

is included in IPCC records. Decisions a bout the inclusion of the MM2004 [McKitrick and Michaels] paper would have been taken by the whole team. Jones’ voice would have been one amongst many.

The petitioners do not present scientific eviden ce or argument showing that the IPCC assessment is inaccurate or that it does not appropriately reflect the degree of sc ientific consensus on the issues discussed. The petitioner’s broad conc lusion that this is the case is unsupported by evidence or arguments on the science and assessment literature itself. Finally, we note that the science regarding this issue was raised in th e comment period for the Endangerment Finding and responded to in Response 2-29 of the RTC document. Response 2-29 states:

"In the case of de Laat a nd Maurellis (2006) and an ear lier paper by McKitrick and Michaels (2004), IPCC (Trenbert h et al., 2007) assessed these papers and noted that the locations of greatest socioeconomic developm ent coincided with those most warmed by atmospheric circulation changes, which are not limited to urban areas but rather have large-scale coherence. When this is ta ken into account, IPCC concludes that the correlation of warming with industrial and socioeconomic development ceases to be statistically significant."

59Comment (2-28) : The Southeastern Legal Foundation argues:

The so-called “science” of global warming has been conducted in an ideologically charged environment, such that any possibili ty of giving due regard to dissenting views was foreclosed at the outset. Thus, the conclusions of organizing bodies, especially IPCC, cannot be said to reflect scientific “c onsensus” in any meaningful sense of that word. Instead, they reflect a political move ment that has commandeered science to the service of its agenda. This is “post-no rmal science”: the long-dreaded arrival of deconstructionism to the natural sciences, according to which scientific quality is determined not by its fidelity to truth, but by it s fidelity to the politic al agenda. A leading climate scientist and contributor to the IPCC, Mike Hulme, has called the IPCC “a classic example” of “post normal science.”

The petitioner further asserts:

Post-normal science was defined by Eva K unseler, in her paper “Towards a new paradigm of Science” as follows: A new con cept of science was introduced by Funtowicz and Ravetz during the 1990s...The concept of post-normal science goes beyond the traditional assumptions that science is both certain and value-free...The exercise of scholarly activities is define d by the dominance of goal orient ation where scientific goals are controlled by political or societal actors...Scientists’ integrity lies not in

disinterestedness but in their behaviour as stakeholders.”(Kunseler, 2007)

Response (2-28) : We first note that this allegation that the IPCC’s work does not represen t objective scientific assessment but is motivated by a political agenda is not new. The petitioner is rehashing an argument previously submitted during public comment on the proposed endangerment finding. We responded to numerous comments received rega rding the scientific in tegrity and objectivity of the IPCC’s processes in developing its assessme nt reports in Volume 1, Section 1, of the RTC

document.

We note that the evidence submitted by the petitioner—consisting of a newspaper op-ed by Mike

Hulme in The Guardian (Hulme, 2007) and the definition of “post-normal science” from a nonpeer-reviewed essay by Eva Kuns eler (Kunseler, 2007)—are not ne w; they were both developed in 2007. Therefore, it was not impracticable to raise the objection during the public comment period and the reasons for the objection did not arise between June 24, 2009, and February 16, 2010. The petitioner could have raised this comment during the comment period on the proposed Endangerment Finding. The petitione r has not shown why it would have been impractical to do so.

In addition, the evidence does not support the pe titioner’s allegation th at the science behind climate change has been developed in a biased and “ideologically char ged environment.” The petitioner mischaracterizes Hulme’s discussion of post-normal science and defines what he meant by “post-normal science” with the use of an unrelated paper by Ev a Kunseler that has

60nothing to do with clima te change. This is an ex cerpt of the relevant part of Hulme’s op-ed in

The Guardian newspaper:

That science is an unfolding pr ocess of discovery is fairly self-evident. The more we seem to know, the more questions we seem to need answering. Some avenues of scientific inquiry may close off, but many ne w ones open up. We know a lot more about climate change now than 17 years ago when the first IPCC scientific assessment was published. And no doubt in another 17 years our knowledge of how the climate system works and the impact that humans have made on it will be significantly different to today. Yet it is important that on big questions su ch as climate change scientists make an assessment of what they know at key moment s when policy or other collective decisions need to be made. Today is such a time. Bu t our portrayal of the risks of climate change will always be provisional, subject to cha nge as our understanding advances. Having challenges to this unfolding process of discovery is essential for science to thrive, as long as those challenges play by the methodologica l rule book that science has painstakingly written over many genera tions of experience.

The other important characterist ic of scientific knowledge - its openness to change as it rubs up against society - is ra ther harder to handle. Philosophers and practitioners of science have identified this pa rticular mode of scientific ac tivity as one that occurs where the stakes are high, uncertain ties large and decisions ur gent, and where values are embedded in the way science is done and spoke n. It has been labelled “post-normal” science. Climate change seems to fall in th is category. Disputes in post-normal science focus as often on the process of science - who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy - as on the facts of science.

Hulme’s discussion of post-normal science presents his opinion about how societal values and policy decisions intersect with the practice of scie nce. His statement does not say or imply that post-normal science means that “a political m ovement [has] commandeered science to the service of its agenda,” nor does he state that cl imate change is a “classic example of post-normal science.” In contrast, Hulme stresses that scie nce is a “process of disc overy” that thrives on challenges that “play by the methodological rule book that science has pain stakingly written over many generations of experience.” This is clearly not a statemen t about science being controlled by politics, nor a statement that politics have pr evented climate change scientists from giving “due regard to dissenting views, ” as the petitioner asserts.

Even if Hulme did claim an overly “ideologic ally charged environment,” this would only represent the opinion of one pe rson among numerous scientific fields comprising an immense number of scientists, institutions, assessment bodies, and governmental organizations. This evidence, presented as a conclusion with no supporting evidence a nd with no scientific explanation of the errors that resulted, would not come close to undermining the credibility and quality of the findings of the assessment literature. As describe d in this volume, and Volume 1 of the RTC document for the Endangerment Finding, the assessment literature upon which EPA based the Endangerment Finding has robust processe s and procedures to ensure that the best

available scientific information is reviewed a nd assessed, with checks and balances included to

61produce high-quality, unbiased reports. We res pond to specific objections raised by petitioners regarding the implementation of the IPCC procedures throughout Section 2.2 of this volume.

We also note that we considered and responded to multiple perspectives and views of climate science in the RTC document for the Endange rment Finding, and considered and responded again to the various pers pectives of the petitioners here in the RTP document and in the Denial. As discussed extensively in our responses, the IPCC and the USGCRP also considered alternative views in their assessment processes. See Volume 1 of the RTC document and Section 2.2.2 (Background) of this Volume of the RTP document for a discussion of these report development processes.

We have reviewed the petitioner’s arguments an d materials and do not find that they support the allegations that the IPCC was co-opted by politics and biased against dissenting views. The

balance of the scientific literat ure represented in the assessment reports on climate change, of which the IPCC is one, clearly support s the Administrator’s findings.

Comment (2-29) : The Ohio Coal Association and the Coalition fo r Responsible Regulation argue that the CRU emails “demonstrate that climate scientists felt pressured to present a unified front - and an agreed-upon narrative of global warming - even when there was not one.” Both petitioners

reference an e-mail from Keith Briffa to Michael Mann which states: “I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC, which were not always the same.” Also, as evidence to support their argument, the Coalition for Respons ible Regulation provides a letter to the IPCC from Christopher Landsea, a former IPCC author, in which he states that he could not “in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by preconceived agendas and being scientifically unsound” (Landsea, 2005).

Response (2-29) : Seeing the entire content of the e-mails cited by the petitioner is important to place the first issue raised by petitioners in context:

E-mail from Mann to Briffa on Sunday, April 29, 2007 Keith, just a quick note to let you know I’ve ha d a chance to read over the key bits on last millennium in the final version of the chapte r, and I think you did a great job. obviously, this was one of the most (if not the most) co ntentious areas in the entire report, and you found a way to (in my view) convey the the[si c] science accurately, but in a way that I

believe I will be immune to criticisms of bias or neglect--you dealt w/ all of the controversies, but in a very even-handed and fair way. bravo! I hope you have an opportunity to relax a bit now. Looking forw ard to buying you a beer next time we have an opportunity :) mike 22

E-mail from Briffa to Mann on Sunday, April 29, 2007 Mike your words are a real boos t to me at the moment. I found myself questioning the whole process and being often frustrated at the formulaic way things had to be done -

22 E-mail file 1177890796.txt, (April 29, 2007) page 1310, line 44 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf

62often wasting time and going down dead ends. I really thank you for taking the tim e to say these kind words. I tried hard to bala nce the needs of the science and the IPCC, which were not always the same. I worried th at you might think I gave the impression of not supporting you well enough while trying to re port on the issues and uncertainties. Much had to be removed and I was particular ly unhappy that I could not get the statement into the SPM [Statement for Policymakers] regarding the AR4 reinforcement of the results and conclusions of the TAR [Third A ssessment Report]. I tried my best but we were basically railroaded by Susan. I am ha ppy to pass the mantle on to someone else next time. I feel I have basically produced nothing original or s ubstantive of my own since this whole process started. I am at this moment, having to work on the ENV submission to the forthcoming UK Research Assessment exercise, again instead of actually doing some useful research! Anyway thanks again Mike.... really appreciated when it comes from you very best wishes

Keith 23

These two e-mails were written after the rel ease of the Working Group I report of AR4 (IPCC, 2007e). Michael Mann writes an e-mail showing his approval of the final version of Chapter 6 (“Paleoclimate”) of Working Group I report (Jansen et al., 2007) and to congratulate Briffa on the accomplishment. Keith Briffa responds to show his appreciation for Mann’s e-mail; he explains some of the challenges and difficulties he encountered while finalizing the chapter and getting it through the ultimate st ages of review. As stated in Section 2.2.2 (Background) and Response 2-16 above, Chapter 6 had two conve ning authors and 14 l ead authors from 12 countries, 33 contributing authors from nine countries, and two review editors who oversaw the handling of more than 2,900 comments from the rounds of expert and governmental review. It is perfectly understandable and reas onable that Briffa, who was one of the 14 lead authors, would have been frustrated by some of the challenges in examining all of the available scientific literature on topics related to pa leoclimate (whether or not it ag rees with the dominant paradigms and whether or not it has yet stood the test of time compared to other studies that have considered the topic), putting that literature in context through a process of assessment, distilling the information into key messages that capture the state of knowledge at the time of the assessment, addressing all of the expert and gov ernment reviews, and developing key points for the summary for policymakers. Briffa’s e-mail does not support the peti tioner’s allegation that he “felt pressured to present a unified front - and an agreed -upon narrative of global warming -

even when there was not one.” Th e petitioner is taking Br iffa’s statement that he “tried hard to

balance the needs of the science and the IPCC, which were not always the same” completely out of context and making unsupported allegations. Although he descri bes some frustrations with the challenges of the IPCC’s rigorous and robust report development procedures, Briffa’s e-mail

does not indicate that he was not satisfied with th e final version, that he did not agree with the conclusions, nor that he felt pressured in any way to “present a unified front.”

The e-mails in question also reveal that the pr ocess of scientific asse ssment is personally and professionally challenging because scientists who volunteer their time are taken away from their

23 E-mail file 1177890796.txt, (April 29, 2007) page 1310, line 24 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf

63own research and must s ideline their own pe rsonal views of what should and should not be included in the reports. In fact, Michael Mann compliments Keith Briffa’s objectivity and evenhandedness in handling the challenges. Briffa al so clearly expresses frustration with the time spent away from doing new science, which is not the primary job of an IPCC chapter author or of the IPCC in general. The primary role of the IPCC is to assess existing science already published in the literature, i.e., in Briffa’s words, “the needs of the science and the IPCC” are not always the same. In context, it is clear that th e needs of the IPCC in this case are the “formulaic way things had to be done” and the need to do as sessments of existing literature rather than producing “original and substantive” work or “use ful research.” It appears original research

would be what Briffa is referri ng to as the needs of the science. When the e-mails are read in their full context, it is clear th at the authors of these e-mails sought to convey the science accurately and address all the c ontroversies in a fair and even -handed way. Again, petitioners appear to have selectively pi cked excerpts from emails.

We note that the Landsea letter provided by the Co alition for Responsible Re gulation is not new. As stated in the link of the letter provided by the petitioner (Taylor, 2005), Landsea wrote this letter in January 2005. Therefor e, it was not impracticable to raise the objection during the public comment period and the reasons for the objection did not arise between June 24, 2009, and February 16, 2010. The petitioner could have raised this comment during the comment period on the proposed Endangerment Finding. Th e Coalition for Responsible Regulation has not shown why it would have been impracticable to do so, especially given the fact that the public has been aware that EP A might rely on the IPCC asse ssments since the July 2008 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

Despite this, we will respond briefly to the peti tioner’s allegations. Christopher Landsea served as a contributing author for the IPCC Sec ond and Third Assessment Reports (IPCC 1995, IPCC 2001), but chose not to participate in AR4. In th e initial planning stages of the AR4, Landsea

wrote this letter to the IPCC e xpressing his disapproval with IP CC procedures. Specifically, Landsea disapproved of the fact that Kevin Tr enberth, an IPCC lead author for the TAR, purportedly used his position to “promulgate to the media and general public his own opinion that the busy 2004 hurricane season was caused by global warming, which is in direct opposition

to research written in the field and is counter to conclusions in the TAR [Third Assessment Report].” Landsea went on to state that “As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr.

Trenberth’s actions and have reta ined him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR 4.” This letter show s that Landsea disagreed with Trenberth regarding a particular as pect of the attribution of hurricanes to climate change and that Landsea did not approve of Trenberth repr esenting the IPCC when discussing his views about the issue.

This impact of climate change on hurricane activ ity is a very dynamic issue. There are still significant uncertainties in the unde rlying climate science, so it not surprising that two scientists would disagree regarding the attri bution of the 2004 hurricane season to climate change effects. However, the contents of the letter do not “demonstrate that climate scientists felt pressured to present a unified front - and an agreed-upon narr ative of global warming - even when there was not one,” as alleged by the petitioner. Landsea wa s not taking issue with the content of the IPCC reports, but with how Trenberth di scussed certain issues during th e period between the Third and Fourth Assessment Reports. The fact that La ndsea disapproved of how Trenberth represented

64the IPCC in discussi ng a specific scientific issue at a press conference preceding development of the AR4 provides absolutely no support for petiti oners’ claim that the co nclusions reached in AR4 are incorrect or biased, or that they were de veloped in a way that pressured scientists into presenting “a united front.” The petitioners did not provide any evidence to support that

conclusion.

We also note that the discussion in AR4 of uncerta inties associated with the impact of climate change on hurricane activity reflected the ongoing debate and alternative views on the issues. EPA also clearly described the uncertainties rela ted to hurricane activity and climate change in the TSD and again in Volumes 2 and 4 of th e RTC document for the Endangerment Finding. Finally, our response to allegatio ns involving the IPCC’s characteri zation of climate change and

disaster losses can be found in Subsecti on 2.1.4 of this volume of the RTP document.

2.2.4 Responses to Allegations Based on Information That Is Not New

The petitioners submitted four objections concer ning: 1) the collaborations among IPCC authors, 2) the general IPCC peer review process, 3) th e alleged manipulation of dates and deadlines for accepting literature, and 4) the IPCC’s use of gray literature. EPA has reviewed the petitioners’

submissions and finds that it was not impracticable to raise the objection during the public comment period and that the reasons for the objection did not arise between June 24, 2009, and February 16, 2010. The IPCC AR4 has been public since early 2007, and pe titioners could have raised these comments during the comment period on the proposed Endangerment Finding. Although, in most cases, the petitioners provide excerpts from the CRU e-mails in support of their assertions, EPA’s review has determin ed that this eviden ce does not support their allegations, and that the vast majority of the information submitted by petitioners on these topics was available well before the comment period fo r the Endangerment Finding. Petitioners have not shown why it would have been impracticable fo r them to raise these issues then, especially given the fact that the public has been aware that EPA relied, in part, on the IPCC assessments since the July 2008 ANPR. Indeed, some of these same points were already raised, and responded to, in the RTC.

Despite the fact that thes e objections fail to meet the criteria for a petition for reconsideration, we briefly explain why, contrary to petitioners’ alle gation, they fail to call into question the overall integrity or validity of the IPCC AR4. As noted above, very similar comments questioning the appropriateness of IPCC author a nd reviewer roles were submitt ed and responded to during the development of the Findings (see Volume 1 of the RTC document).

2.2.4.1 Allegations of Inappropriate Co llaborations Among IPCC Authors

Comment (2-30) : The State of Texas, Peabody Energy, and the Coa lition for Responsible Regulation contend that

the CRU e-mails show that IPCC authors and re viewers are close associates who frequently collaborate on projects and studies, and claim that such collaborations create conflicts of interest (for example, when one person authors an IPCC chapter and another serves as an official reviewer). Peabody Energy argu es that the Wegman Report, Social Network Analysis of Authorship in Temperature Reconstruction , confirms that IPCC scient ists are closely networked

65with each ot her and dominate their field. The pet itioner references testimony given by Edward J. Wegman (George Mason University) to Congr ess (Wegman, 2006) in arguing that “the paleoclimate field is dominated by interlinked scie ntists who no longer produce research that has the desired degree of independence.”

Based on this report, Peabody Energy provides a detailed example of the small paleoclimate research community and how these scientists fre quently co-author papers together, review each other’s papers, and collaborate in other ways that generate conflicts of interest. Specifically, the petitioner, in referring to Ch apter 9 (“Understanding and Attributing Climate Change”) of Working Group I’s contribution to the AR4 (Hegerl et al., 2007), provides a series of statistics that were also provided to EPA during the public comment period (these statistics are provided below) and argues that EPA di d not respond to these specific issues in the RTC document:

 Forty of the 53 authors of this chapter co-authored papers with each other.

 More than half of the contributing authors co-authored papers with lead authors or coordinating lead authors.

 The review editor of the chapter contributed to 13 papers cited in the chapter and had coauthored these papers with 10 other authors of Chapter 9.

 Of the published papers in Chapter 9:

o 94 were authored by two or more of that chapter’s authors.

o One cited paper had six chapter authors.

o Five cited papers had five chapter authors.

o 26 papers had three chapter authors, including six pape rs written entirely by chapter authors.

o 50 of the cited papers listed two chapter authors each, a nd 10 of these papers were written entirely by chapter authors.

Response (2-30) : Neither the facts nor the evidence provided suppor t the petitioners’ claim that the collaborations among climate researchers led to co nflicts of interest and bias, or that these collaborations

interfered with th eir ability to be objectiv e and impartial. Some climate science fields (e.g., paleoclimatology) are highly specialized and ar e the focus of only a limited number of researchers. In such fields, sc ientists who have at one point in the past collaborated on work can be called on to review each other’s work. This pr actice is common in a vari ety of scientific areas with a relatively limited number of researchers, not just these specifi c climate science fields. It is actually the most robust practi ce of ensuring scientific credibility, because the reviewing scientists are the true experts who know the material and are most capable of fulfilling the review

role. Petitioners’ conclusions of impropriety or bias are not supported by the mere fact that

authors know each other and have collaborated.

We respond to Peabody Energy’s statistics rega rding Chapter 9 in Subsection 2.2.3.2 of this

volume of the RTP document. Given the limited nu mber of researchers in this particular area, the statistics regarding author and reviewer roles in Chapter 9 of Working Group I’s contribution

66to the AR4 (Hegerl et al., 2007) are not surp rising and do not indicat e, as alleged by the petitioner, that there were “built-in conflicts of interest that ha d the potential for undermining the reliability of the reports.” Rather, these statistics show that the most qualified and experienced

authors and reviewers were involved in develo ping that particular chapter. EPA carefully reviewed and responded to thes e statistics regarding collabo rations among IPCC authors in

Volume 1 of the RTC document.

Furthermore, all scientific papers have to abide by strict ethical, conflict of interest, and scientific integrity/quality rules. The evidence provided by the petitioners does not show that these rules have been broken, that the peer-review system has been compromised, or that the assessment literature did not consider a range of perspectiv es in summarizing the state of the science. Essentially, the petitioners’ argument can be boile d down to the view that if scientists work together and know each other, something improper is probably happening. This is an unwarranted and unjustified view of profe ssional relationships, based on pure speculation.

Finally, we note that Peabody Energy does not provide any evidence to support its allegation that the past collaborations of these authors and review ers actually led to “less than fully independent and rigorous” assessments of the science. Th e petitioner provided limited and unsubstantiated critiques of the science presented in Chapter 9, which we address in Volume 1 of this RTP document. Peabody Energy also provides no scientif ic argument or analysis indicating that the research produced by theses scientists or the IP CC chapter at issue was in any way biased or less than scientifically rigorous.

2.2.4.2 Allegations Regarding Insufficient P eer Review Processes for the IPCC

Comment (2-31) : Peabody Energy claims that the IPCC’s peer review process is less robust and credible than the processes employed by scientific journals because IPCC lead a nd contributing authors are the ones who decide whether to accept or reject critical reviews. The petitioner argues that the IPCC’s process is flawed because there is no ne utral scientist, who wa s not involved in the writing, to ensure that the re views are judged objectively.

Response (2-31) : First, we note that the petitione r provides no new information to substantiate their allegation, and that Peabody Energy’s argument regarding the rigor of the IPCC’s peer review does not accurately describe the actual review process used by the IPCC. As described above in Subsection 2.2.2 (Background) of this volume, lead and contributing author s are indeed tasked with initially responding to comments; however, independent and objective review editors (i.e., editors not involved in the writing of the chapter) are assigned to each chapter to ensure that each comment is addressed properly and accurately. Furthermore, the contributing authors are not allowed to simply reject cr itical reviews without documen ting their rationale. The IPCC carefully documented all comments received on the first and second order drafts of each chapter of each working group. These comments and res ponses are, and have always been, publically available (IPCC, 2006a for Working Group I and IPCC, 2005 for Working Group II).

67In addition, it would be illogical and inappropriate for the IPCC, as suggested by the petitioner, to allow only unrelated parties to respond to comm en ts on chapters that they did not write. What the petitioner seems to believe would be appr opriate—allowing unrelated people to respond to comments on the draft documents, as opposed to having the authors respond and revise their drafts—makes absolutely no sense and is not co mmon in any scientific discipline because the unrelated parties would not posse ss the experience and context necessary to properly understand and respond to the comments. We therefore di sagree with the petitione r’s argument that the IPCC’s peer review procedures are less rigor ous than the processes employed by scientific journals. Petitioners provide no evidence that the IPCC authors inappropriately influenced the response to comments process or th at review editors failed to perf orm their role in ensuring that all comments were properly addressed. The mere allegations and conclusory claims made by the petitioner are insufficient to s upport the broad conclusion they dr aw. Finally, we note that the petitioner did not provide examples of other peer review processes that th ey deemed to be more

robust and credible than those procedures employed by the IPCC.

2.2.4.3 Allegations That IPCC Authors Manipul ated Deadlines for New Literature

Comment (2-32) : Peabody Energy argues that the IPCC manipulat ed dates and deadlines for receipt of new literature to provide additional evidence in substantiating its conclusions regarding 20 th -century warming. Specifically, the petitioner provides an example of two papers (both by Caspar Ammann and Eugene Wahl) on long-term temper ature reconstructions, one of which was allegedly allowed to be referenced by IPCC authors in the AR4 only because, the petitioners claim, the IPCC manipulated the deadline for receipt of literature.

Response (2-32) : The evidence provided by Peabody Energy does not demonstrate that the IP CC, specifically the lead author of Chapter 6 of Working Group I’s contribution to the AR4 (Jansen et al., 2007), manipulated the deadline for receipt of new litera ture for the purpose of including the two papers by Ammann and Wahl (Ammann an d Wahl, 2007; Wahl and Ammann, 2007). We note that the IPCC AR4 has been public since early 2007, and petitioners could have raised these objections during the comment period on the proposed Endange rment Finding. Petitioners have not shown why it would have been impractical for them to do so. The only part of their argument that is “new” (i.e., has arisen since the close of th e comment period on June 23, 2009) is an e-mail between Wahl and Ammann, which is a very minor part of their overall interaction. The e-mail only shows that Wahl and Ammann were making final proofing edits in September 2007. The email stated:

Hi Phil: There were inevitably a few things that needed to be changed in th e final version of the WA paper, such as the reference to the GRL paper that was not published (replaced by the AW paper here), two or three additional pointers to the AW paper, changed

references of a Mann/Rutherford/Wahl/A mmann paper from 2005 to 2007, and a some other very minor grammatical/struc tural things. I tried to keep all of this to the barest minimum possible, while still providing a good re ference structure. I imagine that MM [Ross McKitrick and Pat Michaels] will make the biggest issue about the very existence

68of the AW paper, and then the referencing of it in W A; but that was simply something we could not do without, and indeed AW doe s a good job of contex tualizing the whole matter. Steve Schneider seemed well satisfied with the entire matter, including its intellectual defensibility (sp?) and I think hi s confidence is warranted. That said, any other thoughts/musings you have are quite welcome. Peace, Gene 24

As stated by the petitioner, the deadline for receipt of new literature was changed during the development of the Working Group I report. The deadline was originally December 2005 and was changed to July 24, 2006. When the coor dinating lead authors for Working Group I extended the deadline for receipt of new literature, they provided the following justification (IPCC, 2006b):

To ensure clarity and transparency in determ ining how such material might be included in the final Working Group I report, the fo llowing guidelines will be used by Lead Authors in considering such suggestions. In preparing the fina l draft of the IPCC Working Group I report, Lead Authors may in clude scientific papers published in 2006 where, in their judgment, doing so would advance the goal of achieving a balance of scientific views in addressing reviewer comments.

The authors of Chapter 6 followed this guida nce and included the Wahl and Ammann (2007) study. We note that the Wahl a nd Ammann paper was accepted into Climatic Change on March 1, 2006, which means that at that point, the pape r had passed peer review and the editor had agreed with the reviewers regarding its merit fo r publication. Thus, alth ough the citation for the paper is in 2007, the acceptan ce date met the IPCC’s revise d deadline of July 24, 2006, for receipt of new literature that was established by AR4 lead authors. It appears that the same authors’ other paper, Ammann and Wahl (2007), was not accepte d for publicati on in time to meet the extended deadline for receipt of new literature, and we note that it is therefore not referenced in Chapter 6 of the AR4.

The petitioner alleges improprie ty because the IPCC referenced Wahl and Ammann (2007), even though some of the underlying statistical analysis for that study, which was eventually published in Amman and Wahl (2007), had not been accepte d for publication by the extended deadline. There are two flaws with petitione r’s arguments. First, in the event that any of the expert reviewers for Chapter 6 expressed concern rega rding the Wahl and Ammann (2007) paper, they would have had the opportunity to request any supplemental information necessary for reviewing the credibility of the Wahl and Ammann result s. Second, the Ammann and Wahl paper went through peer review and wa s eventually published in Climatic Change in 2007, in the same issue as Wahl and Ammann (2007). The petitioners do not claim or demonstrate that the methods or

results described in the Ammann an d Wahl paper were incorrect or flawed. They simply allege that a decision to change deadlines slightly is “manipulation,” even if no scientific flaw or challenge is raised against the litera ture affected by the date change.

24 E-mail file 1189722851.txt, (Septemb er 12, 2007), page 1357, line 6 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf

69Moreover, contrary to the petiti oner’s argument, the evidence provi ded by the petitioner does not

indicate th at the deadline was inappropriately extended to accommodate the inclusion of these papers in AR4. On this issue, the Independe nt Climate Change E-mails Review found that:

Taking into account the evidence of the Review Editor [for Chapter 6, i.e. John Mitchell], IPCC papers [documentation of IPCC responses to comments], the statement from the CLA [Jonathan Overpeck], and the impor tance of the issues raised by M&M2003 [McIntyre and McKitrick], we c onsider it to be reasonable that work that might throw further light on these issues and to ensure that assessments were as up to date as possible

should be included. We do not consider therefore that thes e were exceptional

unwarranted efforts to defend a particular position, but reason able attempts to use up to date information that might resolve an issue. They appear to be consistent with IPCC principles and to reflect a con cern for objectivity (Russell, 2010).

There was a general decision to allow extension of the deadli ne for the entire Working Group, and the chapter authors applied this guidance a nd extended the deadline for scientific studies relevant to that chapter. The fact that it wa s extended does not show it was extended because of these specific papers. In addi tion, petitioners have not shown that the extension altered the results of the report or the appr opriateness of EPA’s rely ing on it. First, inclusion of the peerreviewed study represents one very small part in the deliberate preparation and review of a multivolume assessment containing several thousands of pages of findings and conclusions. Second, Chapter 6 relied upon a number of long-term temp erature reconstructions for its conclusions, including the findings of NRC’s 2006 report (NRC, 2006) on surface temperature reconstructions. The NRC findings were fully c onsistent with the conclusions of the Ammann and Wahl papers. The papers in question pr ovided additional, but not the only, evidence concerning the validity of using long-term pr oxy temperature reconstructions to compare historical and current climates. Indeed, and perhaps most importan tly, the petitioner has provided no evidence showing that the conclu sions of the Ammann and Wahl paper were mistaken or incorrect, or that the conclusions by themselves changed the findings of Chapter 6. Third, we note the statements that John Mitche ll, one of two Chapter 6 review editors for Chapter 6, provided to the Independent Climate Change E-mails Review regarding how in-press

material was handled and how decisions about th e text of successive dr afts were made. He

commented as follows:

I was not aware of the debate about whethe r the Wahl and Ammann paper had or had not

met the deadline for the 2nd order draft fo r chapter 6, until after the event. The concentration on specific deadlines however misses the larger point. It must be recognized that if only published sources were used, the report would be two years old by the time of publication. In a fast-movi ng area such as climate change research, assessments could be significantly behind th e times if important, but as yet unpublished,

new results could not be used. The assessmen ts for policymakers could also therefore be

behind the times...

In earlier assessments, there had been a re latively liberal regime in using unpublished material provided that there was a sound basi s for regarding it as rigorous or reliable, although priority was always given to finding published sources. In AR4 however, the

70regime was tightened significantly, so that such material was only to be used under exceptional circumstances, but the use of unpublished material was not prohibited. Hockey-stick issues were regarded at the tim e as sufficiently important to justify using new data. The dilemma between using only publ ished material and being out of date, or using more recent unpublished material was in creased in AR4 as the latest publication

date was about 12 months earlier than in th e process than in the previous assessment (Russell, 2010).

2.2.4.4 Allegations Regarding the IPCC’s Use of Gray Literature

Comment (2-33) : The Coalition for Responsible Regulation, Peab ody Energy, the Southeastern Legal Foundation, and the State of Texas argue that the IPCC’s us e of non-peer-reviewed lit erature (e.g., reports they claim are developed by environmental advo cacy groups) in the AR4 calls into question the quality and objectivity of these pieces of literatu re and contradicts EPA’s assertion that the IPCC is based on peer-reviewed science. The petitioners provide examples of gr ay literature sources that were used by the IPCC in AR4.

Response (2-33) : First, we note that the petitioners provided no ne w information in support of their allegations. As stated above, the petitioners are simply reha shing a comment that was submitted and responded to in the development of the Findings. Theref ore, we find that thei r allegations were not impracticable to raise the object ion during the public comment period and the reasons for the objection did not arise between June 24, 2009, a nd February 16, 2010. The IPCC AR4 has been public since early 2007, and petitioners could have raised these comments during the comment period on the proposed Endangerment Finding. Petit ioners have not shown why it would have been impracticable for them to raise these issues then, especially given the fact that the public has been aware that EPA relied, in part, on the IPCC assessments si nce the July 2008 ANPR.

The IPCC relied on and referenced a very limite d number of non-peer-reviewed sources in developing AR4. The IPCC’s report development procedures recognized and allowed for the limited use of non-peer-reviewed literature where this was necessary and appropriate. Indeed,

neither the IPCC nor EPA ever stated that the assessment reports relied exclusively on peerreviewed material. For EPA’s responses show ing how the limited use of gray literature

documents did not undermine the IPCC’s scien tific findings and the technical support for endangerment, please see Section 2.1 of this volume, including Responses 2-8, 2-9, and 2-10.

Looking across the thousands of scientific studies reviewed, assessed, and referenced by the IPCC in the AR4, it is clear that the number of non-peer-reviewed documents was dwarfed by the number of peer-reviewed references (estim ated by the IPCC to be approximately 18,000). The IPCC, as clearly described in Volume 1 of the RTC document, has specific procedures to ensure that any non-peer-reviewed materials are sufficiently robust a nd credible in the context in which they were cited. While there are a very few instances in which erroneous conclusions were developed from the gray literature source s (see Section 2.1 of this RTP document for more detail on our responses to these issues), the ove rall process is exceedingly robust. Furthermore,

71the few erro rs in this regard are trivial when viewed against the backdrop of the IPCC’s multivolume assessment containing several thousand pa ges of findings and conclusions. The few errors do not affect the climate change science findings or have any material or meaningful implication for the determination of endangermen t to public health and welfare in the United States. The examples of gray literature provided by the petiti oners were not cited by EPA in describing the key IPCC conclusions that EPA relied on in developing the TSD (U.S. EPA, 2009). The examples provided by the petitioners are cited in chapters of the Working Group II and III AR4 reports when describing climate change impacts in other world regions, which was

not a focus of the TSD.

Comment (2-34) : Peabody Energy claims that the IPCC Working Gr oup II “frequently used a citation method that did not candidly reveal an underlying affiliation with an environmental advocacy group.” For example, the petitioner claims that in many inst ances the IPCC report “refe rred only to the name of the author when the work was actually spons ored by an interest group” such as the World Wildlife Fund. Peabody concludes that “It is un clear whether these s ponsored works provide independent, objective, and peer-reviewed science that should be the basis for AR4, or whether they advance the environmental age nda of their sponsor. It is al so unclear whether these sources were independently verified by IPCC authors and contributors.”

Response (2-34) : First, we note that the IPCC’s citation method for the AR4 is not new and that this information

has been known since the assessm ent report was released in 2007 (IPCC, 2007a). Therefore, the petitioner’s arguments were not impracticable to raise during the public comment period and the reasons for the objection did not arise betw een June 24, 2009, and February 16, 2010. The petitioner could have raised this commen t during the comment period on the proposed Endangerment Finding. Peabody Energy has not show n why it would have been impractical to do so. Despite this, we respond below to the merits of their argument.

The petitioner alleges that the IPCC employed a parenthetical cita tion method in the text of the chapters that hid information showing that references were developed by environmental nongovernment organizations. In fact, the IP CC employed a common citation method for the

thousands of studies that are referenced among the more than 3,000 pages in AR4. This format consists of listing the author’s names first for each entry in the references section, and mentioning the publisher and/or organization (e.g ., World Wildlife Fund) to ward the end of the reference. Parenthetical citations, for each referen ce in the text of a chapter, list the author(s)’ name(s) and the year of publication. This ci tation methodology is consistent with many established citation guid elines, including those developed by the Modern Language Association, the American Psychological Associati on, and the University of Chicago.

The evidence provided by the petitioner does not show that the IPCC hid the fact that some of the reports it cited were developed by non-gove rnment organizations li ke the World Wildlife Fund. The petitioner seems to suggest that th e IPCC should have included the names of the nongovernment organizations in the pa renthetical citations for these l iterature sources. However, this practice is contrary to the well-established conventions and st yles that are commonly used in all disciplines of science and literature. Special treatment for these literature sources would be

72inappropriate and unreasonable, a nd the petitioner’s only justificati on for such an approach is the speculation that th is literature might have been created to “adva nce the environmental agenda of their sponsor.” Again, the IPCC included the names of the organizations in the full reference for each report in the references section at the e nd of each chapter. The IPCC did not hide the publisher or sponsoring organization’s name.

For our response to the petitioner’s argument that “It is unclear whether these sponsored works provide independent, objective, a nd peer-reviewed science that s hould be the basis for AR4, or whether they advance the environm ental agenda of their sponsor,” please see Section 2.1 of this volume, including Responses 2-8, 2-9, and 2-10.

Finally, the procedures employed by the IPCC in evaluating sources of gray literature are described in Section 1 and Appe ndix A of Volume 1 of the RTC document. The petitioner has provided no evidence suggesting that the reports developed by environmental non-government organizations were not evaluated by AR4 au thors according to the IPCC’s procedures.

2.2.5 Summary

The evidence provided by the petitioners does no t support their allegations that the IPCC’s peer review and report development processes are designed inappropr iately, or that they were inappropriately implemented in the developmen t of the AR4. Specifically, the evidence provided by the petitioners and all of the inform ation in the record for the Endangerment Finding shows that, contrary to the claims of the petitioners:

 It was proper to not list cert ain scientists as contributi ng authors as they did not contribute significantly to the writing and ed itorial decisions in developing any AR4 chapter, including Chapter 6 of Working Group I’s contribution (Jansen et al., 2007), and therefore did not compromise their object ivity during the peer-review process.

 IPCC authors did not cite their own studies more frequently than what was acceptable

and reasonable.

 IPCC authors were not directed to focus on policy-prescriptive conc lusions, but rather implemented IPCC guidelines by presenting policy-relevant and neutral findings.

 IPCC authors did not alter the content of reports to eliminate suggestions of

nonconsensus.

 Collaborations among IPCC authors and reviewer s prior to the development of AR4 did not compromise objectivity or ge nerate conflicts of interest.

 The IPCC’s peer-review processes are appr opriate and adequate, and were properly implemented.

 IPCC authors did not manipulate deadlin es for receipt of new literature.

73 The IPCC’s very limited use of gray literatu re does not call into que stion the quality and objectivity of the assessm ent reports.

Petitioners do not present scientific eviden ce or argument showing that the Chapters of assessment report at issue are inaccurate or that they do not appropriately reflect the range of scientific evidence and the degree of scientific consensus on the scientific issues discussed. The evidence they present does not s upport the broad asserti on that this is the case. They do not present credible scientific evid ence or arguments on the science itself to support their claims. Therefore, petitioners’ evidence and arguments do not support changing our position, as stated in the Endangerment Finding, that the assessment l iterature, including the IPCC AR4, represents the “best reference materials for determining the general state of knowledge on the scientific and technical issues before the agency in making an endangerment decision.”

74References

Ada m, D., and S. Goldenberg (2010). How to reform the IPCC

. The Guardian. Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010 /feb/10/ipcc-reform. Accessed July 23,

2010.

Agoumi, A. (2003). Vulnerability of North African countries to cl imatic changes. International Institute for Sustainable Development a nd the Climate Change Knowledge Network. Available at: http://www.cckn.net//pdf/north_africa.pdf. Accessed July 23, 2010.

Ammann, C., and E. Wahl (2007). The importance of the geophysical cont ext in statistical

evaluations of climate reconstruction procedures. Climatic Change 85: 71–88.

Anyamba, A., and C.J. Tucker (2005). Analys is of Sahelian vegetation dynamics using NOAAAVHRR NDVI data from 1981–2003. Journa l of Arid Environments 63: 596–614.

Barnett, T.P., J.C. Adam, and D.P. Lettenmaier (2005). Potential impacts of a warming climate on water availability in snow-dominated regions. Nature 438:303–309.

Bindoff, N.L., et al. (2007). Ob servations: oceanic climate cha nge and sea leve l. In: Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Cont ribution of Working Gr oup I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Av eryt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Camb ridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA.

Boko, M., I. Niang, A. Nyong, C. Vogel, A. Gi theko, M. Medany, B. Osman-Elasha, R. Tabo, and P. Yanda (2007). Africa. In: Climat e change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Four th Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [M .L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson (eds.) ]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. pp. 433-467.

Booker, C., and R. North (2009). Questions over business deals of UN climate change guru Dr Rajendra Pachauri. The Daily Telegraph.

CCSP (2009a). Coastal sensitivity to sea-level rise: a focus on th e Mid-Atlantic region. A report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Progr am and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. [J.G. Titus (coordinating lead author), K.E. Anderson, D.R. Cahoon, D.B. Gesch, S.K. Gill, B.T. Gutierrez, E.R. Thieler, and S.J. Williams (lead authors)]. U.S. Environmental Protection Agenc y, Washington, DC, USA. 320 pp.

CCSP (2009b). Announcements of IPCC pub lic comment period. Available at: http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/ipcc/ default.htm. Accessed July 23, 2010.

CCSP (2008). Weather and climate extremes in a changing climate. Regions of focus: North America, Hawaii, Caribbean, and U.S. Pacific Islands. A report by the U.S. Climate

75Change Science Program and the Subcomm ittee on Global Change Research [T.R. Karl, G.A. Meehl, C.D. Miller, S.J. Hassol, A.M. Waple, and W.L. Murray (eds.)]. Department of Commerce, NOAA National Climatic Data Center, Washington, DC, USA. 164 pp.

CCSP (2004). Guidelines for producing CCSP sy nthesis and assessment products. Washington, DC. http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap-guidelines.pdf. Accessed July 23,

2009.

Christensen, J.H. et al. (2007) Regional C limate Projections. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt , M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge , United Kingdom and Ne w York, NY, USA.

Coudrain, A., B. Francou, and Z.W. Kundzewicz (2005). Glacier shrinkage in the Andes and consequences for water resources. Hydrol. Sci. J. 50: 925–932.

Cox, P.M., R.A. Betts, M. Collins, P. Harris, C. Huntingford, C.D. Jones (2004). Amazon dieback under climate-carbon cycle projec tions for the 21st century. Theor. Appl.

Climatol. 78: 137–156. doi:10. 1007/s00704-004-0049-4.

Cox, P.M., R.A. Betts, C.D. Jones, S. Spall, an d I.J. Totterdell (2000). Acceleration of global warming due to carbon-cycle feedbacks in a coupled climate model. Nature 408: 184–

187.

Cruz, R., et al. (2007). Asia. In: Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to th e Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [M .L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, and C.E. Hanson (eds.) ]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA.

De Laat, A.T.J., and A.N. Maurellis (2006). Evidence for influence of anthropogenic surface processes on lower tropospheric and surface te mperature trends. International Journal of Climatology 26: 897–913.

Dyurgerov, M., and M.F. Meier (2005). Glaci ers and the Changing Earth System: A 2004 Snapshot. Occasional Paper 58, Institute of Ar ctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, 118 pp.

Easterling, W., et al. (2007). Food, fibre and forest products. In: Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on C limate Change [M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, and C.E. Hanson (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA.

76Field, C.B., L.D. Mortsch,, M. Brklacich, D.L. Fo rbes, P. Kovacs, J.A. Patz, S.W. Running, and M.J. Scott (2007). North Am erica. In: Clim ate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Four th Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [M .L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, and C.E. Hanson (eds.) ]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. pp. 617-652.

Harvey, F. (2010). Climate chief cleared over payments. Financial Times. Available at: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/44a0a92c-3a8e -11df-b6d5-00144feabdc0.ht ml. Accessed July 23, 2010.

Hasnain, S.I. (2002). Himalayan glaciers meltd own: impacts on South Asian Rivers. FRIEND 2002-Regional Hydrology: Bridgi ng the Gap between Research and Practice [H.A.J. van Lanen and S. Demuth (eds.)]. IAHS Publications, Wa llingford, No. 274, 417-423. Available at: http://scien cepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/pub lication_files/resource-2449- 2006.02.pdf. Accessed July 23, 2010.

Hegerl, G.C., et al. (2007). Understanding and attributing climate change. In: Climate Change 2007: the physical science basis. Contri bution of Working Gr oup I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Av eryt, M. Tignor, and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Camb ridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA.

Hulme, M. (2007). The appliance of sc ience. The Guardian. Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/soci ety/2007/mar/14/scienceofclimatechange.climatechange. Accessed July 23, 2010.

Hulme et al. (2001). African climate ch ange: 1900–2100. Climate Research 17: 145–168.

Hutchinson, C.F., S.M. Herrmann, T. Maukone n, and J. Weber (2005). Introduction: the “greening” of the Sahel. Journa l of Arid Environments 63: 535–537.

Indo-Asian News Service (2010). India to have own panel on c limate change: Jairam Ramesh. Hindustan Times. Available at: http:// www.hindustantimes.com/India-to-have-ownpanel-on-climate-change-Jairam-Ramesh/H 1-Article1-505242.aspx. Accessed July 23,

2010.

IPCC (2010a). Summary description of the IPCC process. (December 2009). IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change. Available at: http://www.ipccwg1.unibe.ch/statement/WGIsumma ry22122009.html. Accessed July 23, 2010.

IPCC (2010b). Statement on IPCC principles and procedures. February 2, 2010. Available at : http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/pre ss/ipcc-statement-princip les-procedures-02-2010.pdf. Accessed July 23, 2010.

77IPCC (2010c). Organization. Avai lable at: http://www.ipcc.ch/o rganization/organization.htm. Accessed July 23, 2010.

IPCC (2010d). Errata. In: Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to th e Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [M .L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, and C.E. Hanson (eds.) ]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publ ications_and_data/ar4 /wg2/en/errata.html. Accessed July 23, 2010.

IPCC (2010e). IPCC statement on trends in disast er losses. (January 25, 2010). Available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/presentati ons/statement_25_01_2010.pdf. Accessed July 23,

2010.

IPCC (2010f). IPCC Statement on the Melting of Himalayan Glaciers, January 20, 2010. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/presentations /himalaya-statement-20january2010.pdf.

IPCC (2007a). Fourth Assessment Report: Climat e Change 2007. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA.

IPCC (2007b). Climate change 2007: synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [core writing team, R.K. Pachauri and A. Re isinger (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. 104 pp.

IPCC (2007c). Summary for policymakers. In: Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Four th Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [M .L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, and C.E. Hanson (eds.) ]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. pp. 7–22.

IPCC (2007d). Summary for policymakers. In: Climate change 2007: mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Camb ridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA.

IPCC (2007e). Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contri bution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the In tergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marq uis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Pre ss, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA.

IPCC (2007f). Appendix III. In: Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to th e Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [M .L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, and C.E. Hanson (eds.) ]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,

78UK, and New York, NY, USA. Availabl e at: http://www.ipcc .ch/pdf/assessm entreport/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-a pp.pdf. Accessed July 23, 2010.

IPCC (2007g). Climate change 2007: impacts, ad aptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Re port of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J. P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, and C.E. Hanson (eds.)]. Cambridge University Pre ss, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA.

IPCC (2007h). Summary for Policymakers. In: C limate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Cha nge [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Ki ngdom and New Yo rk, NY, USA.

IPCC (2006a). Working Group I Fourth Assessmen t Report review comments and responses. Available at: http:/ /hcl.harvard.edu/collections/ipcc /index.html. Accessed July 23, 2010.

IPCC (2006b). Guidelines for inclusion of recent scientific literature in the Working Group I Fourth Assessment Report. Available at:http://web.archive.org/web/20070206012931/ipccwg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/PublicationDeadlin es_2006-07-01.pdf. Accessed July 23, 2010.

IPCC (2006c). Expert review comments on WGII Fourth Assessment Report: climatechange impacts, adaptation and vulnerability: Available at: http://ipccwg2.gov/AR4/SOD_COMMS/Ch01_SOD_Expert.pdf. Accessed July 23, 2010.

IPCC (2005). Deadlines for literatu re cited in the Working Group I Fourth Assessment Report. Available at: http://web.a rchive.org/web/20060430074956http://ipccwg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/PublicationDeadlines.pdf. Accessed July 23, 2010.

IPCC (2001). Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2001. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA.

IPCC (1999). Procedures for the preparation, review, acceptance, adoption, approval, and publication of IPCC reports. Adopted at the Fi fteenth Session of the IPCC (San Jose, 15– 18 April 1999) and revised, on a provisional ba sis, at the Twentieth Session of the IPCC (Paris, 19–21 February 2003). Available at: http://www.climatescience.gov/Library /ipcc/app-a.pdf. Accessed July 23, 2010.

IPCC (1995). Second Assessment Report: Climate Change 1995. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA.

Jansen, E., J. Overpeck, K.R. Briffa, J.C. Dupl essy, F. Joos, V. Masson-Delmotte, D. Olago, B. Otto-Bliesner, W.R. Peltier, S. Rahmstorf, R. Ramesh, D. Raynaud, D. Rind, O. Solomina, R. Villalba, and D. Zhang (2007). Palaeoclimate. In: Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment

79Report of the Intergovernme ntal Panel on Climate Change [S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt , M. Tignor, and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Camb ridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA.

Karl, T., J. Melillo, and T. Pete rson (eds.) (2009). Global climat e change impacts in the United States. Cambridge Universi ty Press, Cambridge, UK.

Kingdom of Morocco (2001). Fi rst National Communi cation: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Available at: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/natc /mornc1e.pdf. Accessed July 23, 2010.

Kretzmann, S. (2010). Africagate is no scandal sa y IPCC authors. Cape West News. (February 15, 2010). Available at: http://westcap enews.com/?p=1306. Accessed July 23, 2010.

Kundzewicz, Z.W., et al. (2007). Freshwater resources and their management. In: Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Inter governmental Panel on Climate Change [M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, and C.E. Hanson (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Camb ridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA.

Kunseler, E. (2007). Towards a new paradigm of science in scientific policy advising. Available at: http://www.nusap.net/downloads/KunselerEssay2007.pdf. Accessed July 23, 2010.

Landsea, C. (2005). An open letter to the commun ity from Chris Landsea (r esignation letter of Chris Landsea from IPCC). Available at: http://www.climatechangefacts.info/Climat eChangeDocuments/LandseaResignationLette rFromIPCC.htm. Accessed July 23, 2010.

Leake, J. (2010a). Africagate: t op British scientist says UN panel is losing credibility. Times

Online. Available at: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/envi ronment/article7017907. ece. Accessed July 23, 2010.

Leake (2010b). UN climate panel shamed by bogus rainforest claim. Available at: http://www.damtp.cam.a c.uk/user/jono/pub/cc/pccst/Leake_and_North_original_S_Times_a rticle_31_Jan_2010.pdf. Accessed July 23,

2010.

Lemke, K., et al. (2007). Observations: change s in snow, ice and frozen ground. In: Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Av eryt, M. Tignor, and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Camb ridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA.

80McKitrick, R.R., and P.J. Michaels (2004). A test of corrections fo r extraneous signals in gridded surface temp erature data. Clim. Res. 26(2) : 159–173. (Erratum: Clim. Res. 27(3): 265– 268, 2004.)

Ministry of Territory Development and Environm ent (2001). Elaboration de la stratégie et du plan d’action national des changements climatiques (in French). Available at: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/na tc/algnc1.pdf. Accessed July 23, 2010.

Muir-Wood, R., S. Miller, and A. Boissonade (2006). The search for trends in a global catalogue of normalized weather-related catastrophe losses. Workshop on climate change and

disaster losses: Understandi ng and attributing trends a nd projections. Final Workshop Report, 25–26. Hohenkammer, Germany. Available at: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/sparc/research/projects/extreme_events/munich_worksh op/workshop_report.html . Accessed July 23, 2010.

National Academies (2006). Joint Committee Appoi ntment Process. Washington, DC. Available

at: http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/info rmation.aspx?key=Committee_Appointment. Accessed July 23, 2010.

Nepstad, D. (2010). Senior Scientist Daniel Ne pstad endorses the correctness of the IPCC’s (AR4) statement on Amazon forest susceptibility to rainfall reduction Available at: http://www.whrc.org/resources/essays/pdf/ 2010-02-Nepstad_Amazon.pdf. Accessed July 23, 2010.

Nepstad, D., I. Tohver, D. Ray, P. Moutinho, and G. Cardinot (2007). Mort ality of large trees and lianas following experimental drought in an Amazon forest. Ecology (889): 2259–

2269.

Nepstad, D., P. Lefebvre, U. Lopes da Silva, J. Tomasella, P. Schlesinger, L. Solorzano, P. Moutinho, D. Ray, and J. Guerreira Benito (2004). Amazon drought and its implications for forest flammability and tree growth: a basin-wide analysis. Global Change Biology

10: 704–717.

Nepstad, D.C., et al. (1999). Large-scale impove rishment of Amazonian forests by logging and

fire. Nature 398: 505–508.

Nepstad, D., C. Reis de Carvalho, E. Davidson, P. Ji pp, P. Lefebvre, G. Hees Negreiros, E. Silva, T. Stone, S. Trumbore, and S. Vieira (1994). The role of d eep roots in the hydrologic and carbon cycles of Amazonian forest s and pastures. Nature 372: 666–669.

81Nicholls, R.J., et al. (2007). Coastal systems and low-lying areas. In: C limate 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Wo rking Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on C limate Change [M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, and C.E. Hanson (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA.

Nicholson, S. (2005). On the questio n of the “recovery” of the rains in the West African Sahel.

Journal of Arid Environments 63: 615–641.

North, R. (2010). And now for Africagate. Available at: http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/02/and- now-for-africagate.html. Accessed July 23, 2010.

NRC (2006). Surface temperature re constructions for the last 2,000 years. National Research Council. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

Olsson, L., L. Eklundh, and J. Ardo (2005). A recent greening of the Sahe l—trends, patterns and potential causes. Journal of Arid Environments 63: 556–566.

Parry, M., C. Rosenzweig, and M. Livermore (2005). Climate change, global food supply and risk of hunger. Philos. T. Roy. Soc. B 360: 2125–2138.

PBL (2010a). Assessing an IPCC assessment: an anal ysis of statements on projected regional impacts in the 2007 report. Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL). Available at: http://www.pbl.nl/ima ges/500216002_tcm61-48119.pdf. Accessed July 23,

2010.

PBL (2010b). Correction wording floods risks for th e Netherlands in IPCC report. Available at: http://www.pbl.nl/en/dossiers/Climatecha nge/content/correction-wording-floodrisks.html. Accessed July 23, 2010.

Pielke, R., Jr. (2010a). What does Piel ke think about this? Available at: http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/01/what-does-pielke-think-about-this.html. Accessed July 23, 2010.

Pielke, R., Jr. (2010b). Do sloppy policy ar guments matter? Part 1. Available at: http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/12/do- sloppy-policy-argument s-matter-part.html. Accessed July 23, 2010.

Pielke, R.A., Jr., J. Gratz, C.W. Landsea, D. Collins, M.A. Saunders, and R Musulin (2008). Normalized hurricane damage in the Un ited States: 1900–2005. Natural Hazards Review

9: 29–42.

Pielke, R. Jr. (2006). Disasters, death, and de struction: making sense of recent calamities. Oceanography 19(2): 138–147. June 2006. Works hop at Seventh Annual Roger Revelle

Commemorative Lecture.

82Pile, B. (2010). More lau ndered literature: a guest pos t by Ben Pile. Available at: http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/01/m ore -laundered-literature-guest-post-by.html. Accessed July 23, 2010.

Ren, J. et al. (2004). Glacier variations and clim ate warming and drying in the central Himalayas. Chin. Sci. Bull. 49(1): 65–69.

Republic of Tunisia (2001). Initial communicatio n of Tunisia under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Available at: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/natc/tu nnc1esum.pdf. Accessed July 23, 2010.

Reuters (2010). U.N. climate panel admits Du tch sea level flaw. (February 13, 2010). Available at: http://www.reuters. com/article/idUSTRE61C1V 420100213. Accessed July 23, 2010.

RMS (2010). RMS FAQ: research on climate change and disaster loss costs and the IPCC. Risk Management Solutions, Inc. http://www. rms.com/Publications/2010_FAQ_IPCC.pdf. Accessed July 23, 2010.

Rosenzweig, C., et al. (2007). Assessment of observed changes and responses in natural and managed systems. In: Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to th e Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [M .L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, and C.E. Hanson (eds.) ]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. pp. 79–131.

Rowell, A., and P.F. Moore (2000). Global review of forest fires. World Wildlife Federation and

The World Conservation Union. Available a t: http://data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/2000- 047.pdf. Accessed July 23, 2010.

Russell, M. (2010). The independent climate change email review. University of East Anglia. Available at: http://www.cce-review.org/ pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf. Accessed July 23,

2010.

Schneeberger, C., H. Blatter, A. Abe-Ouchi, a nd M. Wild (2003). Modelling changes in the mass balance of glaciers of the northern hemisphere for a transient 2* CO2 scenario. J. Hydrol.

282: 145–163.

Seaquist, J.W., T. Hickler, L. Eklundh, J. Ar dö, and B.W. Heumann (2009). Disentangling the effects of climate and people on Sahel ve getation dynamics. Biogeosciences 6: 469–477.

Available at: http://www.biogeosciences.net/6/ 469/2009/bg-6-469-2009.pdf. Accessed July 23, 2010.

Solomina, O., R. Barry, and M. Bodnya (2004). Th e retreat of Tien Shan glaciers (Kyrgyzstan) since the Little Ice Age estimated from aer ial photographs, lichonome tric and historical data. Geografiska Annaler 86A(2): 205–215.

8384 Su, Z., and Shi, Y. (2002). Response of monsoona l temperate glaciers to global warming since the Littel Ice Age. Quat. Int. 97–98, 123–131.

Sunday Times (2010). Retraction on UN climate pa nel shamed by bogus rainforest claim. the

Retraction to this article availabl e to subscribers only. Available at: http://www.damtp.cam.a c.uk/user/jono/pub/cc/pccst/Leake_and_North_original_S_Times_article_31_Jan_2010.pdf. Accessed July 23,

2010.

Taylor, J.M. (2005). Climate scientist quits IPCC, blasts politicized “p reconceived agendas.”

Available at: http://www.heartland.org/full/16806/Climate_Sc ientist_Quits_IPCC_Blasts_Politicized_ Preconc%20eived_Agendas.html. Accessed July 23, 2010.

Trenberth, K.E., P.D. Jones, P. Ambenje, R. Bo jariu, D. Easterling, A. Klein Tank, D. Parker, F. Rahimzadeh, J.A. Renwick, M. Rusticucci, B. Soden, and P. Zhai (2007). Observations: surface and atmospheric climate change. In: Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H. L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA.

U.S. EPA (2009). Technical S upport Document for endangerment and cause or contribute findings for greenhouse gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA (2002). Guidelines for ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information disseminated by the Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmenta l Protection Agency. EPA/260/R-02/008.

Wahl, E., and C. Ammann (2007). Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures: ex amination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence. Climatic Change 85: 33–69.

Wegman, E.J. (2006). Testimony of Edward J. Wegman before the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce, July 19, 2006. http://republicans.energycommerce .house.gov/108/home/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf . Accessed July 23, 2010.

# EPA’s Response to the Petitions to Reconsider the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for
Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act

Volume 3: Process Issues Raised by Petitioners

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Atmospheric Programs Climate Change Division Washington, D.C.

1TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

3.0 Process Issues Raised by Petitioners............................................................................................5 3.1 Approaches and Processes Used to Develop the Scientific Support for the Findings............................................................................................................................5

3.1.1 Overview..............................................................................................................5 3.1.2 Issues Regarding Consider ation of the CRU E-mails..........................................6

3.1.3 Assessment of Issues Raised in Public Comments and Re-Raised in

Petitions for Reconsideration...............................................................................7 3.1.4 Summary............................................................................................................19 3.2 Response to Claims That the Assess ments by the USGCRP and NRC Are Not Separate and Independent Assessments.........................................................................20

3.2.1 Overview............................................................................................................20 3.2.2 EPA’s Response to Petitioners’ Arguments ......................................................21 3.2.3 Summary............................................................................................................27 3.3 Issues Concerning the Integrity of Peer-Reviewed Literature.......................................27

3.3.1 Overview............................................................................................................27 3.3.2 Allegations Regarding Reviews of Manuscripts................................................28 3.3.3 Allegations Regarding Jour nal Publication Practices........................................35 3.3.4 Allegations Regarding Efforts to Re move Editors and Boycott Journals..........48 3.3.5 Allegations Regarding Objectivity of the Peer-Reviewed Literature................55 3.3.6 Allegations of Intimidating Scientis ts and Those With Dissenting Views........66 3.3.7 Summary............................................................................................................75 3.4 Issues Concerning Freedom of Information Act Requests ............................................76

3.4.1 Overview............................................................................................................76 3.4.2 Allegations of Withholding Key Data and Information ....................................77 3.4.3 Allegations of Improper Conduct With Regard to UK FOI and U.S. FOIA

Laws...................................................................................................................93 3.4.3.1 General Allegations ...............................................................................93 3.4.3.2 Specific FOI Request Regarding the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report ...................................................................................................102 3.4.3.3 Allegations of Improperly Influe ncing University FOIA Officials ......109 3.4.4 Summary..........................................................................................................110

References............................................................................................................................................112

2ACRONYMS

AGU American Geophysical Union

AIC Akaike information criterion ANPR Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking AOCGCM atmosphere-ocean coupled general circulation model

APA Administrative Procedure Act AR autoregressive AR4 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report BIC Bayesian information criterion

CAA Clean Air Act CCSP Climate Change Science Program

CO 2 carbon dioxide

CR Climate Research CRCES Center for Research on the Changing Earth System

CRU Climatic Research Unit DCPS07 Douglass, Christy, Pearson, and Singer, 2007

E.O. Executive Order

FCC Federal Communications Commission

FOI Freedom of Information

FOIA Freedom of Information Act GHG greenhouse gas GRL Geophysical Research Letters HadCRUT Climatic Research Unit temperature record

ICO Information Commissioner’s Office IJC International Journal of Climatology IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IQA Information Quality Act

NRC National Research Council LIA Little Ice Age MBH Mann, Bradley, and Hughes MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology MM McIntyre and McKitrick NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NH Northern Hemisphere QSR Quaternary Science Reviews RCS regional curve standardized RMS Royal Meteorological Society RSC Royal Society of Chemistry RSS Royal Statistical Society RTC Response to Comments RTP Response to Petitions SAB Science Advisory Board TSD Technical Support Document UEA University of East Anglia

UHI urban heat island

3USGCRP U.S. Global Change Research Program WMO World Meteorological Organization

43.0 Process Issues Raised by Petitioners

3.1 Approaches and Processes Used to De velop the Scientific Support for the Findings

3.1.1 Overview

Several petitioners (the Coalit ion for Responsible Regulation, the Commonwealth of Virginia, the Ohio Coal Association, Peabody Energy, the State of Texas, the Southeastern Legal Foundation, and Arthur Randol) ta ke issue with the process and approach EPA used in developing the scientific support for the Endange rment Finding. Many of these arguments are a repetition of arguments submitted during the publ ic comment period for the Proposed Findings. These include claims that EPA did not independ ently judge the underlying science, violated the Information Quality Act (IQA, also referred to as the Data Quality Act), violated the law by failing to post the underlying data and scientific studies in the doc ket, and did not convene a truly independent external peer review.

The sole arguably new argument made by some petitioners (the Ohio Coal Association, the Pacific Legal Foundation, and Peabody Energy) is the claim that EPA ignored public concerns about the implications of the e-ma ils involving scientists at the C limatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in the United Ki ngdom. The petitioners claim that statements

made in the CRU e-mails cast doubt on the vali dity of underlying data relied on by EPA’s Endangerment Finding, and argue that EPA’s response to this issue is inad equate in the record for the Endangerment Finding.

Based on our review, petitioners’ claims regarding the implications of the CRU e-mails are wrong. In late 2009, EPA carefully reviewed many of the e-mails and responded to the issues that were presented to us shortly before th e Endangerment Finding was completed. Since that time, we have reviewed all of the e-mails in light of additional issues raised by petitioners. Based on this review, we reaffirm that petitioners’ claims and the information they submit do not change or undermine our understanding of how anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases cause climate change and how human-induced cl imate change generates risks and impacts to public health and welfare. The information pr ovided by petitioners does not change any of the

scientific conclusions th at underlie the Administrator’s Find ings, nor do the petitions lower the degrees of confidence associated with each of th ese major scientific conclusions. The science issues raised by petitioners, which we respond to in Volume 1 of this document, do not undermine the core understanding of climate change, which is based on multiple lines of evidence from independent sources. For example, petitioners allege that the surface temperature record produced by CRU is flawed, but our review indicates that the su rface data is sound and that the surface temperature record trends are corroborated by satellite temperature records and the impacts we see on the ground, such as glacie r retreat and lengthening of the growing season.

With respect to the arguments already raised during the rulemaking lead ing to the Endangerment Finding, the petitioners do not pr ovide any new information to bolster arguments previously submitted. For reasons elaborated below, we conclude that the responses provided in the Findings and the Response to Commen ts (RTC) document are still robust.

5In this section, we summarize and respond to the new argume nt be ing raised by the petitioners regarding EPA’s initial response to comments about the implications of the CRU e-mails. We then review the petitioners’ resubmitted argumen ts (originally addresse d in Volume 1 of the RTC document) in light of any new evidence provi ded in the petitions fo r reconsideration.

3.1.2 Issues Regarding Consideration of the CRU E-mails

Comment (3-1) : A few petitioners (the Coalition for Responsible Regulation, the Ohio Coal Association, the Pacific Legal Foundation, and Peabody Energy) alle ge that EPA did not properly consider the implications of the CRU e-mails on the validity of the underlying data on which the Findings rest and that EPA did not provide an adequate res ponse to the late comments that were raised concerning the e-mails. The Ohio Coal Associ ation states that al though allegations about problems with the CRU data had come to light prior to the Administrator signing the Findings, EPA did not consider the implications and in stead “plowed ahead with compromised data, undermining its core conclusions in the proce ss.” The Pacific Legal Foundation and Peabody Energy state that EPA could not have thoroughl y examined the thousands of e-mails and documents released from CRU in the five-day period between the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s petition supplement and the signi ng of the Endangerment Finding. Peabody Energy

concludes that EPA’s brief di scussion of the CRU material in its RTC document “cannot substitute for the searching re-analysis of the Endangerment Finding that the CRU material demands.” The Pacific Legal Foundation states that “EPA has dismissed public concerns over the CRU e-mails and documents by its single, ab breviated response to a comment made by the Competitive Enterprise Institute.” The Pacifi c Legal Foundation argues that because the CRU emails and documentation were not available to be included in the reco rd during the public comment period, neither the gene ral public nor the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) have had the opportunity to comment on the new information therein.

Response (3-1) : The petitioners identify se veral issues in the e-mails that th ey consider to be “smoking guns,”

evidence of scientific misconduc t, and fatal blows to the “t heory of anthropogenic global warming.” Although petitioners claim that the e- mails introduce new information, they concern many of the same scientific issues on which the public commented during notice and comment for the proposed findings. Pr ior to finalizing the Endangermen t Finding, EPA carefully reviewed many of the e-mails, and through this review, we determined that many of the issues raised

therein had also been raised th rough the public comments and were responded to at the time (see, for example, Volume 2 of the RTC document). Based on that initial review, we concluded that

the scientific conclusions of the assessment literature remained sound as to the state of the science on GHGs and climate change. We did not inappropriately “plow ahead,” as one petitioner claims. Rather, we assessed the issu es raised by commenters and the CRU e-mails in light of our comprehensive review of climate science, and in light of all of the objections to the science that were raised by comme nters, and concluded that our review of the science and the

conclusions based on it were sound. As explained in more detail in the other volumes of this Response to Petitions (RTP) document, the petitioners make unfounded leaps regarding implication of the CRU e-mails to the overall state of climate change science.

6Following issuance of the Endangerment Finding, peti tioners raised m ore sp ecific concerns with respect to the CRU e-mails. EPA has reviewed a ll of the e-mails in light of the petitioners’ assertions, and our substantive responses on th e science are provided in the Decision and the

three volumes of the RTP document. On the basis of our analysis of the sc ientific issues raised, and our thorough review of the contents of the e-mails, we disagree with the petitioners’ contention that additional “searching reanalysis ” of the Endangerment Finding is required. Our examination of the CRU e-mails in light of th e current science shows that the petitioners routinely misunderstand or mischara cterize the scientific issues they are raising, and draw faulty

conclusions on the state of th e science. We show throughout this RTP document multiple examples where petitioners have resorted to hyperbole, broadly impugned the ethics and scientific integrity of climate scientists in general, and characterized actions as “falsification” and “manipulation” with no basis or support. As we reviewed the many footnotes in their documents, we found an inordinate reliance on blogs, news stories, a nd literature that is neither peer-reviewed nor accurately summ arized in their petitions.

Nothing has been presented that challenges the current understanding of climate change science and the causal linkage between human-caused GHG emissions and warming of the climate system. Indeed, EPA finds that petitioners most often rely on “cherry-picked” language from select e-mails that creates the suggestion or a ppearance of impropriety, without looking deeper into the issues or providi ng corroborating evidence that im proper action actually occurred. Throughout the three volumes of this document, we have provided detailed and specific responses to petitioners’ asser tions based on the CRU e-mails.

3.1.3 Assessment of Issues Raised in Public Comments and Re-Raised in Petitions for

Reconsideration

The Administrator Exercised Her Judgment in Reviewing the Scien ce and Making the Findings

Comment (3-2) : Several petitioners (the Coalit ion for Responsible Regulation, the Commonwealth of Virginia, the Ohio Coal Association, Peabody Energy, the State of Texas, the Southeastern Legal Foundation, and Arthur Ra ndol) argue that the Administrator did not independently judge the primary scientific literature and data. Instead, they claim that she improperly relied on summary scientific reports produced by third parties or “foreign entities.” Th ey argue this is a violation of Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 202(a)’s requiremen t that the Administrator exercise her own expert judgment. EPA res ponded to similar arguments dur ing notice and comment on the Findings. More recently, petitioners re-raise this argument in light of new information that they claim calls into greater question EPA’s reliance on the assessment literature. For example, the Southeastern Legal Foundation argues that “the Administrator cannot possibly exercise the form of ‘judgment’ required by the Clean Air Act based on data or procedures from other agencies that are potentially faulty, manipulated, contrived, or otherwise subject to the kinds of irregularities that have been alleged with respect to curre nt climate information.” The Coalition for Responsible Regulation and the Commonwealth of Virginia argue that in relying on the assessment reports of the IPCC, EPA ceded or su b-delegated its responsibility for independent judgment to the IPCC, which the petitioners char acterize as “an internat ional body not subject to

7U.S. data quality and transparency standards and whose reports were prepar ed in total disrega rd to those standards,” and whose processes ar e politically motivated and advance “policy objectives masquerading as science.”

Several petitioners (the Coaliti on for Responsible Regulation, the State of Texas, Arthur Randol, the Pacific Legal Foundation, and Peabody Energy) make the related argument that EPA violated the IQA and Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because it “did not independently investigate and confirm the quality and transparency of the information cited in the ‘assessment literature,’ relying instead on its review of the written pr ocedures of the organizations preparing that

literature to conclude that thos e organizations had ensured qualit y and transparency.” Finally, the Coalition for Responsible Regulation and Pe abody Energy argue that EPA cannot rely on the

IPCC because the CRU e-mails demonstrate that infl uential IPCC scientists failed to meet EPA’s data quality and transparency obligations under the IQA.

Response (3-2) : As noted previously, we find that these issues raised by petitioners are not new, and were, in fact, raised and responded to through the notice and co mment process. Thus, objections based on EPA’s general reliance on assessment reports, rather than EPA’s undertaking a separate assessment itself, were not impracticable to raise during the public comment period and the reasons for the objection did not arise between June 24, 2009, and February 16, 2010.

To the extent petitioners argue that new inform ation in the CRU e-mails calls into question the reasoning behind EPA’s position on the use of as sessment reports in the final Findings, the petitioners do not demonstrate that additional information has become available that merits reconsideration of the Findings, or EPA’s use of th e assessment literature. Nonetheless, we have carefully reviewed the new concerns raised re garding the implications of the CRU e-mails. Here, we focus specifically on the issue of whet her information in the CRU e-mails requires us to undertake additional procedural steps with respect to the Endangerment Finding. Our response to each of the issues ra ised by petitioners follows. Note that we respond to petitioners’ allegations on substantive science issues elsewhere in this RTP document.

With respect to the petitioners’ claims that EPA should have conducte d its own independent assessment of the primary scientific literature and not relied on scientif ic reports produced by third parties or “foreign entitie s,” we note that the Administra tor provided a detailed discussion of her position in Section III.A of the Findings (see “The Science on Which the Decisions Are Based”). In other sections of this RTP doc ument, we have already explained why the CRU

e-mails and the nature and number of reported errors in the IPCC report, as well as arguments or objections over the scientific conclusions EPA reached in the Findings, do not lead EPA to change its scientific conclusions and do not neces sitate the reconsideratio n of the Findings. We

find that the issues rais ed by petitioners do not lead us to change our decision regarding our approach and do not demonstrate that an additiona l or separate review is either required or appropriate.

For the same reasons, these claims do not warrant revisiting EPA’s approach to analyzing that science. We note that the IPCC reports are a primary but not the only source of scientific information underlying the Findings. As is clea rly stated in the Findings, the Administrator

8relied on nume rous other assessment reports prepared by the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), the National Research C ouncil (NRC), and others. In addition, the Administrator tested her approach and proposed conclusions by subjecting them to notice and comment, and in reaching final conclusions drew on the wealth of information submitted through public comments to inform her decision. Ma ny commenters provided additional scientific literature, which we carefully reviewed, consider ed, and responded to. A cursory examination of the detailed discussions in the multi-volume RTC document demonstrates the care and rigor with which EPA approached the underlying science. Therefore, we reje ct Peabody Energy’s allegation that EPA “used a rulemaking process that effectively permits no replies and no

rebuttals” to the science that formed the technical basis fo r the Findings. In addition, in May 2010 the NRC issued another major climate change assessment report that further solidifies the science supporting the Administrator’s decision a nd supports that decision . This recent NRC report is discussed further in the Deni al and Volume 1 of the RTP document.

In responding to petitioners’ objections that the Administrator failed to exercise her own judgment in reaching the Endangerment Finding, we note that this issue is not new and petitioners have not raised new arguments calling into question the process for the Endangerment Finding. Nonetheless, it is useful to desc ribe the process EPA followed in compiling and analyzing the science to suppor t the Administrator’s Endanger ment Finding. Contrary to petitioners’ assertions, EPA did not passively accept a scientific judgment or conclusion supplied to it by outsiders. Instead, EPA evaluated all of the scientific information before it, and

determined from this information the current state of the science on climate change and the degree of scientific consensus on this science. The Administrator then considered this information in light of the legal criteria for de termining endangerment. This process included EPA presenting its scientific views and judgmen ts for public comment and then evaluating and considering all such comments received. The Ad ministrator properly and carefully exercised her judgment in all matters relate d to the Endangerment Finding.

The following is an outline of the actions taken that evidence EPA’s comprehensive and in-depth exercise of judgment:

1. EPA has a strong scientific background a nd understanding in global climate change science. EPA scientists have worked for year s in this area, and many EPA scientists have been part of the development of the Inte rgovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and USGCRP assessment reports. EPA has strong in-house science expertise in this area, while recognizing that no one organization wi ll have experts or expe rtise in all of the variety of areas involved. However, EPA has a solid grounding in the core areas of science involved in climate change. Many EP A scientists were part of the development of the various assessment reports.

2. EPA’s goal was to evaluate the current state of the science for all of the relevant areas at issue for the Endangerment Finding, and to evalua te the degree of scie ntific consensus in these areas. EPA performed a detailed review of all elements of the various assessment reports as part of evaluating this.

3. EPA evaluated the assessment reports and their conclusions in several ways:

9o EPA reviewed the process employed to devel op the reports, relying in part on its own experience and involvem ent in various parts of the process for the IPCC and USGCRP reports. EPA concluded that th e lengthy, comprehensive process was very robust, with checks and steps included to produce high-quality, unbiased reports.

o EPA reviewed the content of the reports in light of its in-house science expertise. EPA found the reports’ contents to be comprehensive, balanced, carefully caveated with respect to certainty, clearly identifying supporting as well as non-supporting evidence, with conclusions drawn based on the entire body of the evidence, not just one part of it.

o EPA took into consideration the depth of scientific consen sus the reports represented. They reflect a very strong consensus of the scientific community across the world. EPA has never claimed that there is unanimity on all aspects of the science, but there is a very broad scientific consensus on the multiple lines of evidence on which the Findings are based (as described in Secti on III.B of the Denial). This consensus

includes concurrence and clea rance within the U.S. government science community, on many of the major assessment reports.

o EPA took into consideration the trends in the science. Over the last 30-plus years, as we study more, learn more, and advance our understanding, the general trend is toward more certainty that warming is occurring, that it is caused by anthropogenic emissions, and that we are currently on a path to future increases in warming.

4. After conducting this review of the state of the science, EP A reached an initial conclusion that the assessment reports provide a reliable and credible assessment of the current state of the science, reflecting the many areas of consensus across the science community, and also documenting those areas that are less settled and where uncertainty remains.

5. EPA then provided an opportunity for public comment on EPA’s initial conclusions and judgments on the science and the question of endangerment, with a detailed explanation

of the basis for these conclu sions and judgments. The public and all of the petitioners had the opportunity to present their views, agreeing or disagreeing, and why. EPA did

this twice—on the Advance Notice of Pr oposed Rulemaking (ANPR) and on the Proposed Findings.

This public process was designe d to provide a full opportuni ty to test EPA’s initial conclusions and judgments and allow anyone to present scientific evidence or argument showing that EPA’s judgments on the science were inaccurate.

6. EPA carefully reviewed all of the comment s submitted on the science and its judgments.

o In general, people who opposed EPA’s initial conclusion presented evidence and argument on one side or one part of an i ssue, discussing a limited number of old or

10o EPA reviewed the st udies, arguments, and evidence presented by commenters, assessed them in light of the entire body of evidence, and responded to the comments. These responses can be found in the Fi ndings and the 11 volumes of the RTC

document.

o Commenters who opposed EPA’s initial conc lusion on the science did not provide a comprehensive peer-reviewed alternative a ssessment of the science showing how the body of evidence as a whole supports thei r conclusion and does not support EPA’s

initial conclusion. We note that some commenters (who are also petitioners) submitted a non-peer reviewed assessment report by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change during notice and comment and recommended

it as an alternative to the assessment re ports prepared by the IPCC, USGCRP, and NRC. Response 1-12 in Volume 1 of the RT C document explains that we reviewed the process for preparing this report, as well as its content, and f ound that it lacked the depth, breadth, and rigor of the assessme nt reports on which the Findings rely.

7. After reviewing and considering all of the comments and argument s, EPA reached final

conclusions on the state of the science. EP A generally confirmed its initial view, while making a variety of changes and modifications in various places of the TSD where it was

warranted.

8. The Administrator carefully evaluated the scope of her legal di scretion under section 202(a) in making a decision on endangerment, af ter providing notice of her initial legal views and receiving comments on that initial view.

9. In making the decision on endangerment, the Administrator exercised her own judgment by applying the science to the legal fra mework provided in section 202(a).

The core of petitioners’ objection is that they do not agree with im portant parts of the scientific information on which the Endangerment Finding is ba sed. They frame this as a failure of EPA or the Administrator to exercise independent ju dgment, or as EPA ceding to an outside body its responsibility to exercise independent judgment. The above makes it clear that neither EPA nor the Administrator did such a thing. EPA exer cised its own judgment when reviewing the assessment reports, and did not cede or sub-delega te its authority or judgment to anyone. The petitioners disagree with the information EPA relied on and the conclusions EPA drew, and EPA addresses those objections thr oughout this document and the record for the Endangerment Finding. However, a disagreement over whether a sour ce of information is useful or credible is

not evidence of a lack of exer cise of discretion or judgment.

There has been considerable criticism of EPA’s use of the IPCC as a source for the TSD (U.S. EPA, 2009a), with some petitioners going so far as to refer to it as “an overt sc ientific organization with a covert political agenda of making the science conform to the desired result.” A high level of vitriol has been directed at th e IPCC, and gross misstatements have been made

11regarding the quality and integrity of their processes and reports. We strongly disagree with these mischaracterizations. The Findings, Volume 1 of the RTC document, and Volume 2 of the RTP document rebut petitioners’ allegations th at the IPCC is a political, not scientific, organization and that it does not adhere to U.S. standards of transpar ency and data quality.

We respond to petitioners’ argument regarding th e existence of errors in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) in Volume 2, Section 2.1, of this document and find that the errors are minimal, mischaracterized and inconsequential to the Findings. We respond to petitioners’ arguments that the IPCC is a biased organizatio n that advances a policy agenda in Volume 2, Section 2.2 of this RTP document, and we find th at petitioners provide no evidence to support their claims that IPCC authors supported or promoted a unified policy agenda. Throughout Volume 1 of this RTP document, we also respond to petitioners’ scientific arguments that the IPCC and other assessment reports presented the body of science in a biased or incomplete manner or reached inappropriate scientific conclu sions. On issue after issue, we review the scientific evidence provided by pe titioners and find that they mi sunderstand or mischaracterize

the issues and the evidence.

The petitioners’ arguments that the Agency viol ated the IQA and APA are also not new, and EPA provided a detailed response in Volume 1 of the RTC document. Several commenters previously raised specific scientific concer ns, which they claimed demonstrated that EPA violated the IQA and APA. These were ad dressed in both Volume 1 and the accompanying scientific volumes of the RTC. The petitioners now make essentially the same general argument that EPA’s use of third-party assessment reports vi olates the IQA and APA. As noted in Volume 1 of the RTC, the IQA requires that an agency issue guidelines regarding data quality and ensure their implementation. EPA complied with the IQA by issuing its Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility and Integrity of Informati on Disseminated by the Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA, 2002) and has acted consistently with these guidelines in developing the Findings. As stat ed in Volume 1 of the RTC, EPA’s use of the assessment literature as a basis for the Endangerm ent Finding “is consistent with these guidelines because we thoroughly reviewed and evaluated the author selection, report preparation, expert review, public review, information quality, and approval procedures of IPCC, USGCRP/CCSP,

and NRC to ensure the information adhered to a basic standard of quality, including objectivity, utility, and integrity.” The CRU e-mails do not u ndermine this view. Our detailed responses on the science issues raised by peti tioners concerning these e-mails are provided in several other sections of this RTP document, and show that pe titioners’ science claims do not support the view that the IPCC or other assessment reports were bi ased, inaccurate, or scie ntifically incorrect. Likewise, the few scientific or technical errors identified by petitioners in the IPCC report, such

as the amount of land in the Netherlands that is below sea level, are all minor errors that are

irrelevant in the context of EPA’s Endangerment Finding. See Volume 2 of this RTP document for more detail regarding our response to this spec ific issue. Given the vast number of factual and scientific issues addressed by these comprehe nsive assessment reports, the existence of only a very limited number of these kinds of errors does not show a failure to employ and implement a high degree of control on the sc ientific quality of the report.

Comment (3-3) :

12In support of its argument to Comment 3-2, the Southeastern Legal Foundation provides the

announcem ent that the InterAcademy Council would conduct an independent review of the IPCC and its assessment report development process. The petitioner argues that “the IPCC itself is reconsidering its own work,” and claims that this investigation “impeach[es] the reporting” of the IPCC and undermines the science used in developing the Endangerment Finding.

Response (3-3) : On February 27, 2010, the IPCC announced that the InterAcademy Council is conducting an independent review of the policies and procedures of the IPCC (IPCC, 2010). Upon completion, the InterAcademy Council will issue a report with recommended measures and actions to strengthen the IPCC’s processes and procedures to better respond to future challenges and ensure the ongoing quality of its re ports (InterAcademy Council, 2010). The IPCC’s (2010)

announcement stated that:

The IPCC strives to ensure that its proce dures for use of published material in the preparation of its assessment reports are follo wed in all respects. But we recognize the

criticism that has been leveled at us and th e need to respond. While embarking on the preparation of its Fifth Assessment Report it was the intention of the IPCC that an independent committee of distinguished experts evaluate means by which IPCC procedures must be implemented fully and that they should also examine any changes in procedure that may be required.

The petitioner improperly assumes that the IP CC is discredited becau se it has announced an evaluation of its report development process. In fact, the IPCC’s announcem ent also stated that:

We stand firmly behind the rigour and robustness of the 4th Assessment Report’s conclusions, and are encouraged by the suppor t demonstrated recently by scientists and governments around the world. The 4th Assessment Report’s key conclusions are based on an overwhelming body of evidence from thousands of peer-reviewed and independent scientific studies. Most significantly, they rest on multiple lines of analysis and datasets.

The evidence provided by the petitioner does not show that the InterAca demy Council’s review was initiated based on a presumption of wrongdoi ng. EPA’s review of available information clearly reveals that th e petitioner is wrong to assert that the IPCC is “reconsidering” its

conclusions. We have addressed the specific scientific arguments raised by the petitions in the

RTP document and find that th e scientific eviden ce supporting the Endangerment Finding remains strong. Thus, as stated in the Findings, these reports continue to “represent the best reference materials for determining the general st ate of knowledge on the sc ientific and technical issues before the agency in making an enda ngerment decision,” and the petitioner has not provided evidence to suggest that EPA’s judgmen t was anything less than credible, objective,

and robust.

Comment (3-4) : As evidence to support its argument that EPA dele gated its duty and instead relied on the flawed IPCC assessment reports, the State of Texas stat es that “Dr. William Sprigg, who oversaw the IPCC’s first assessment report, recently commente d at a climate change conference: ‘The IPCC is biased, conflicted, [and] pushing political agen das. We need to stick to our scientific

13principles. We need to improve our peer review process, and expand the stakeholders’ role to keep us all honest.’”

Response (3-4) : See Response 3-2 for our conclusion that we did no t delegate our duty and that the petitioners are incorrect in alleging that the Administrator failed to exercise her own judgment in reaching the Endangerment Finding.

In response to this specific evidence, the peti tioner mischaracterizes w ho William Sprigg is and what his role was in the IPCC. The petitioner claims that Sprigg oversaw development of the IPCC’s First Assessment Report. However, af ter reviewing the repor ts of these Working Groups, there is no indication that Sprigg was in volved in overseeing the development of any part of the entire report. The following peopl e oversaw the development of the report: John Houghton, Chair of Working Group I; Yuri A. Iz rael, Chair of Working Group II; and Frederick Bernthal, Chair of Working Group III. Sprigg is only mentioned as having been a contributing author on Chapter 6 (“World Oceans and Coastal Zones”) of the Working Group II report on impacts for the First Assessment, which was releas ed in 1990. Clearly the petitioner did not take the time to determine Sprigg’s actual role in developing the IPCC’s First Assessment Report, and significantly overstated his involvement.

Although the petitioner did not provide a transcript of Sprigg’s statement or a citation for it, the evidence provided indicates merely that Sprigg does not approve of the IPCC’s report development process. The petitioner provides th is conclusion but provi des no details about the basis for Sprigg’s concerns, nor any evidence to support them. Throughout this document and the overall record, we have responded to both general and specific comments and find that Sprigg’s comments do not provide any new information or evidence. The conclusory, unsupported statements of one former IPCC au thor, who has not been involved with the organization for almost two decades, do not prov ide evidence that the IPCC does not develop objective, sound, and unbiased assessme nts of climate change science.

EPA Provided Sufficient Opportunities for Public Comment

Comment (3-5) : Peabody Energy describes that “a number of comm enters sought an extension of the 60-day comment period for the Endangerment Finding, comp laining that 60 days was insufficient to review and comment on the complex climatologica l and policy issues rais ed in the proposed finding.” The petitioner goes on to argue that in the Technical Support Document (TSD), “EPA elected to rely on secondary source s for which it has had no real scie ntific testing of any kind. It has used a rulemaking process that effectivel y permits no replies and no rebuttals.” Peabody Energy argues that “EPA’s use of the public co mment periods in the processes that led to development of the ‘assessment literature’ as justification for the short comment period here [of the proposed findings] is further evidence of EP A’s near total reliance on that literature.”

Response (3-5) : EPA received several requests to extend the 60- day public comment period for the Proposed Findings. The main justification for these reque sts was that the record for this rulemaking,

14which was made up of the assessment literature that EPA relied on in developing the TSD, was extensive and that additional time was needed to fully review all of the materials. In its denial of these requests, EPA noted, among other things, that a large majority of the underlying information and analysis supporting the Proposed Findings, and EPA’s intension of using this information, had been in the public domain for a lmost one year prior to publishing the Proposed Findings. This was because a very large part of the underlying information and analysis for the Proposed Findings were previously released for a public comment period of 120 days on July 11, 2008, as part of the Advance Notice of Proposed Rule making: Regulating Greenhouse Gas

Emissions under the Clean Air Act (73 FR 44353). EPA also noted that the major recent scientific assessments on which the Agency relied all had their own public review processes, and had been publicly available for some time. Under these circumst ances, EPA determined that the 60-day comment period provided adequate opportuni ty for the public to review and comment on the Proposed Findings. We maintain that the 60-day comment period was reasonable and we note that the petitioner is not asking that EPA re consider the Findings based on the length of the comment period.

Instead, Peabody Energy alleges that EPA’s justif ication for the length of the comment period on the Proposed Findings “is further evidence of EPA’s total reliance on that lit erature,” and that the Agency “did not independently judge the sc ience and instead relied primarily on summary scientific reports produced by third parties. ” The fact that EPA acknowledged the prior opportunity for public comment on the assessment reports does not evidence that EPA did not exercise independent scientific judgment. Rather, the evidence shows, as clearly stated in the proposed and final Findings, that EPA reviewed the major assessments of the USGCRP, the IPCC, and the NRC as the primary scientific and technical basis for the Administrator’s endangerment decision. As described in Respons e 3-2, EPA and the Administrator properly and carefully exercised our own j udgment in all matters related to the Endangerment Finding.

Finally, we note that was not impracticable to raise the objection during the public comment period and the reasons for the objection did not arise between June 24, 2009, and February 16, 2010. In making their argument, the petitioners have provided no new evidence and have not shown why it would have been impracticable for them to raise this issue during the public comment period, especially given th e fact that the public has been aware that EPA relied, in part, on the IPCC assessments since the July 2008 ANPR.

EPA Complied With the In formation Quality Act

Comment (3-6) : The Coalition for Responsible Regulation, the St ate of Texas, and Peabody Energy allege that EPA violated the IQA and APA by failing to make underlying data and studies relied on by the

assessment literature available for public review by placing them in the docket. Peabody Energy concludes that EPA’s approach to the science meant “there could be no genuine interchange between an open-minded EPA and the public on what EPA’s scientific judgment should be because the Agency did not intend to exercise any such judgment.”

Response (3-6) :

15First, we note that the petitione rs are re-rais ing this issue in the petitions for reconsideration because they believe that the CRU e-mails show that “IPCC authors deleted information and hid behind foreign laws to avoid disclosure of key data” (from petition of the Coalition for Responsible Regulation). EPA responds to allegati ons involving the behavi or of CRU scientists, including the allegation that data were destroyed, in Volume 1 and also in Sections 3.3 and 3.4 of

this Volume of the RTP document. As stated in these sections, the evidence submitted by the petitioners in the form of the CRU e-mails doe s not support their allega tion that data were destroyed. Therefore, the “new” information presented by the petitioners does not call into question the overall integrity of the science, nor does it call into question the process EPA used in developing the Findings.

As noted in Volume 1 of the RTC document, EP A is required to docket the information on which it relies, and, as explained in Section III.A of the Findings and in Volume 1 of the RTC document, the Administrator reasonably relied on the major assessments of the USGCRP, the IPCC, and the NRC as the primary scientific an d technical basis of her endangerment decision. 1
Where EPA used or described any data in the TS D, the source of the data is listed, including

where it can be accessed and downloaded. Furthe r, each report, study, or dataset we relied on was clearly identified in the TSD bibliography and was placed in the docket. Information regarding the underlying data, models, and studi es used by the IPCC, the USGCRP, the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), and th e NRC in developing their assessment reports can be accessed by consulting thes e reports. EPA also made av ailable all studies and other information submitted by commenters. Given that some of these reports relied on thousands of underlying studies, docketing ever y underlying study and the data that were used in their development would be unreasonable and unnecessar y, and it is not required by the IQA or any

other law.

Cases cited by the petitioner do not indicate otherwise. In American Relay Radio League, Inc. v.

FCC , 524 F.3d 227 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the D.C. Circu it held that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) did not provide appropriate notice and commentwhen it redacted FCC staffproduced data integral to the ba sis for the rule. That is not the case for the Findings. EPA has provided and made available all st udies relied on by the agency. American Relay Radio League also indicates that failure to provide data must be “prejudicial” to the commenter ( American Relay Radio League , 524 F.3d at 237-238). Petitioners ha ve had multiple opportunities to engage in this process, and the Agency has fully addressed this i ssue throughout. The D.C.

Circuit itself noted the “na rrowness” of its holding in American Relay Radio League , indicating that agencies are free to choose which studies they credit, as l ong as the Agency itself does not “redact parts of those studies” necessary to s upport the Agency’s conclusion. EPA has provided

and made available for comment all st udies relied on for its final conclusion. 2

1 See, for example, American Trucking Ass’n v. EPA , 293 F.3d 355, 372 (D.C. Cir. 2002). (EPA is not required to obtain and publicize the data underlying all the studies on which it relies.); Coalition of Battery Recyclers Assn. v.

EPA , 604 F.3d 613, 622-24 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (same).

2 Petitioners cite a case, Solite Corp. v. EPA , 952 F.2d 473 (D.C. Cir. 1991), where the court rejected a claim that EPA did not appropriately disclose data. In fact, this cas e holds that courts will only strike down agency action based on lack of disclosure of data when the agency hides or disguises “the information it used, or otherwise conducted the rulemaking in bad faith” ( Solite Corp. , 952 F.2d at 484). That is certainly not the case here.

16The public was able to review all docume nts used by EPA in developing the TSD, including copyrighted material, by request ing a copy or visiting EPA’s Ai r Docket. There was a full opportunity to review and comment on ev ery piece of data relied on by EPA.

EPA’s Review Process for the TSD Was Appropriate

Comment (3-7) : Several petitioners (the Coalit ion for Responsible Regulation, the Pacific Legal Foundation, and Peabody Energy) make the overarching argument that EPA’s TSD did not go through a truly independent peer-review process. The petitioners argue that past EPA peer review of the science is now insufficient in light of new information in the CRU e-mails, and that the SAB must be given an opportunity to conduct an independent review of the Findings. They argue that the “SAB has not been able to perform its statutor y function as an independe nt scientific review panel.” More specifically, one petitioner states that review by the SAB is required under 42 U.S.C. § 4365(c)(1), because the substant ial uncertainty surrounding EPA’s scientific determination warrants reopening of the commen t period. The Pacific Legal Foundation states that Section 4365(c) requires EPA to submit releva nt technical information and data to the SAB

for their review whenever the public comment period is open.

Response (3-7) : The general issue raised by petiti oners regarding review of the TS D is not new and, in fact, was raised and responded to through the public comment process (see Volume 1 of the RTC document). Thus, it was not impracticable to raise the objection dur ing the public comment period and the reasons for the objection did not arise between June 24, 2009, and February 16, 2010. To the extent petitioners argue that new information in the CRU e-mails calls into question the reasoning behind EPA’s position on this issue in the final Findings, the petitioners

do not demonstrate that additional information has become available that merits reconsideration of the Findings. We have careful ly reviewed the issue raised re garding the implications of the CRU e-mails, and considered whether information in the CRU e-mails calls for EPA to reconsider the procedural steps w ith respect to the scientific and technical information used as basis for the endangerment determination. We fi nd nothing in the CRU e-mails that relates to EPA’s decision regarding peer review of the TSD. Also, and as explained in detail elsewhere in this document and the Denial, the e-mails and other “new” information provided by petitioners do not call into question the underlying science of climate change, nor the validity of the

assessment reports.

As stated in Volume 1 of the RTC document, th e purpose of the federal expert review was to ensure that the TSD accurately summarized the c onclusions and associated uncertainties from the assessment reports. This is reasonable given our a pproach to the scientific literature (described in Section III.A of the Findings and Volume 1 of the RTC document). We also note that the federal expert review was only one part of a mu ch larger process of developing the TSD from 2007 until the present. In addition to the thr ee rounds of technical review by the 12 federal experts, the TSD has also gone through two rounds of public comment. The scope and depth of the record on the Endangerment Finding—inclu ding an 11-volume RTC document responding to comments on all aspects of the science, law, and procedure—demonstrat e both the volume of

information the Administrator considered in de veloping the Findings and the seriousness with

17which the task of assessing the science was appr oached. Based on this, E PA rejects the Pacific Legal Foundation’s allegation that the peer-review process EPA employed was insufficient in light of new information in the CRU e-mails. S ee other sections of this RTP document for our response to petitioner arguments regardi ng the implications of the CRU e-mails.

The petitioner’s argument regarding the SAB is so mewhat unclear. To the extent the petitioner is claiming that EPA was required to submit the proposed Endangerment Finding to the SAB when it was proposed, the petitione r clearly could have raised th is objection during the comment period, and thus this objection is not a basis for reconsideration of the Endangerment Finding. To the extent that the petitioner is claiming that EPA is required to submit the Endangerment Finding to the SAB for review at this time, b ecause the various other grounds raised in the petitions to reconsider warrant reopening of the public comment period, EPA interprets this as a claim that SAB review will be required under th is provision if EPA grants the petition to reconsider and reopens the comment period. For all of the reasons disc ussed elsewhere in the Decision and the RTP document, EPA is not gran ting the petitions to re consider and is not reopening the comment period. Thus , there is no reopening of the comment period to trigger the SAB review claimed by the petitioner.

In addition, this statutory provi sion did not require EPA to submit the proposed Endangerment Finding to SAB for review. Under its terms, th e provision calls for EPA to make a “proposed criteria document, standard, limitation, or regul ation” available to the SAB for review. The proposed Endangerment Finding is not a criteria document, standard, limitation, or regulation, and is thus not in the scope of this provision. In addition, the requirement to submit the proposed document to the SAB applies when “any proposed criteria document, standard, limitation, or regulation ... is provided to any other Federal agency for formal review and comment.” It is not

clear whether this includes the kind of info rmal interagency review conducted pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, as co mpared to the more formal agency review envisioned in statutory provisions such as 49 U.S.C. 32902(j).

Finally, the objection does not provide substantial support for the argument that the Endangerment Finding should be revised. In the Endangerment Finding the Administrator determined that the body of scientific eviden ce compellingly supports a positive endangerment finding. The major assessments by the USGCRP, the IPCC, and the NRC (published before 2010) served as the primary scientific basis supporting the Administ rator’s Endangerment Finding. The objections raised by the various petitioners have not changed EPA’s view of the science. In May 2010, the NRC of the U.S. National Academies published its comprehensive assessment, “Advancing the Science of Climate Cha nge.” It concluded that “climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses si gnificant risks for—and in many cases is already affecting—a broad range of huma n and natural systems.” Furthermore, the NRC stated that this conclusion is based on findings th at are “consistent with the conclusions of recent assessments by the U.S. Global Change Resear ch Program, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment Report, and other assessments of th e state of scientific knowledge on climate change.” These are the sa me assessments that served as the primary scientific references underlyi ng the Administrator’s Endangerme nt Finding. Importantly, this recent NRC assessment represents another independe nt and critical scientific inquiry into the state of climate change scien ce, separate and apart from the previous IPCC and USGCRP

18assessments. The NRC a ssessment is a clear affirm ation that the scientific underpinnings of the Administrator’s Endangerment Fi nding are robust, credible, and appropriately characterized by EPA. Petitioners provide no basis to suggest th at lack of review by the SAB undermines this scientific basis in any way.

EPA Did Consider Positive Impacts of Elevated Carbon Dioxide Concentrations

Comment (3-8) : Peabody Energy argues that “EPA fails to come to grips with the fact that CO 2 [carbon dioxide] is a benign, naturally-occurring gas that is necessary for life on earth” and that the Administrator’s finding of endangerment to public health fails to recognize this fact. The petitioner goes on to describe that in making the endangerm ent determination, EPA did not account for the “wide variety of positive impacts for plant life, including agricultural crops.” Finally, referring to the IPCC reports , the petitioner argues that “E PA’s attempt to transform the benign naturally-occurring substance into a danger air pollutant is based on evidence it should never have used in the first place.”

Response (3-8) : First, we note that the issue rais ed by petitioner is not at all ne w and was raised and responded to at length through the public co mment process after the Proposed Findings and very directly within the Endangerment Finding itself (see Sections I and IV of the Findings and Volume 1, Section 4, of the RTC document). Second, the petit ioner is simply incorrect in claiming that

EPA did not account for some of the beneficial effects of CO 2 , such as the fertilization effect on agricultural crops; these issues have been addr essed at length by EPA in the RTC document and in the Findings. Thus, it was not impracticable to raise the ob jection during the public comment period and the reasons for the objection did not arise between June 24, 2009, and February 16,

2010.

To the extent petitioners argue that new inform ation in the CRU e-mails calls into question the reasoning behind EPA’s position on this issue in the final Findings, the petitioners do not

demonstrate that additional information has become available that merits reconsideration of the Findings. Based on our review of the CRU e-mails , we find that they do not contain information that should cause us to question the conclusions of the assessment literature as to the state of the science on GHGs, climate change, and the associat ed risks and impacts to public health and welfare. In the context of the allegation by Peabody Energy, the CRU e-mails also do not cause

us to reconsider our considera tion of net (adverse and benefici al) effects. We note that the petitioner did not provide any new information (e.g., peer-reviewed, publishe d scientific studies) to support their argum ent regarding the CO 2 fertilization issue. Rather, the petitioner refers to the comments they submitted on the Proposed Findi ngs, which, as stated above, we have already responded to at length in the RTC document.

3.1.4 Summary

After reviewing the petitioners’ ar guments, EPA finds that many of them are based on a either a mischaracterization of or a fundamental disagr eement with our approach to the scientific literature in developing the TSD fo r the final Findings, or the Ad ministrator’s consideration of

19that science in her Findings. Almost all of their arguments are not new, and we responded to them in the Findings and RTC document. None of the petitioners’ arguments regarding the approaches and processes EPA used to develop the scientific support for the Findings justifies

reconsideration.

EPA reasonably chose to rely on the existing as sessment reports of the USGCRP, the IPCC, and the NRC as the primary sources for determining the current state of the science relating to climate change, and for determining the degree of scientific consensus on these issues, based on: 1) the goals of these reports to provide such in formation, in the context of the broad scope and complexity of the climate science that woul d be considered in an Endangerment Finding; 2) EPA’s review of the rigorous and transparen t procedures for development of the various assessment reports; 3) EPA’s review of the conten ts of these reports; and 4) EPA’s use of the public comment process to test and evaluate its in itial scientific conclusions and judgments based primarily on the assessment literature. It is our conclusion that by plac ing primary reliance on the major assessment reports, EPA ensured that the endangerment determinations are based on reports that have considered a nd weighed all views. Our review of the objections raised by petitioners to the process and the substance of the various as sessment reports does not support changing this view. EPA fully exercised its ju dgment and discretion under section 202(a), as evidenced throughout the comprehensive and r obust record suppor ting the Endangerment Finding.

The petitioners appear to believe that there is a substantial likeli hood that EPA would have

drawn different conclusions had it conducted its own separate assessment instead of relying on

the conclusions of the assessment literature. Th ey further claim that the CRU e-mails and other new information prove that such separate assessment is absolutely necessary. After examining the breadth and quality of the USGCRP, IPCC , and NRC assessments, as well as the new information provided by petitioners , we disagree. Overall scien tific understanding is not shaped by any single study; one must look across a range of studies that togeth er serve to advance scientific knowledge. These a ssessment reports already reflect significant input from EPA’s

scientists and the scientists of many other government agencies. They have been reviewed and formally accepted, commissioned, or in some cases authored by U.S. government agencies and individual government scientists. By relying on the assessment literature, EPA is benefitting from the confidence and strength of an entire federal research enterprise and a robust process involving the scientists from around the world, and we find no reason, for reasons described throughout this RTP document, to believe that th ese reports do not represent the best primary

source material to determine the state of science on the issues central to making an Endangerment Finding for GHGs.

3.2 Response to Claims That the Assessments by the USGCRP and NRC Are Not Separate and Independent Assessments

3.2.1 Overview

Two petitioners (the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the State of Texas) argue that EPA misled the public into thinking that the Agen cy relied on three separate and independent assessment reports when in reality, they conte nd, the assessment reports developed by two of the

20groups (USGCRP and NRC) are not separate an d independent assessme nts of the available science because the USGCRP and NRC “regular ly cite and rely on data, resources and conclusions in the IPCC reports.” These petitioners further argue that since the IPCC reports are unreliable, the USGCRP and NRC reports are also unreliable, a nd thus all of the assessment literature EPA relied on is flawed. Following th is logic, the petitioners argue that the Endangerment Finding must thus be reconsidered.

First, as explained in detail in this document and the Denial, the IPCC re ports are not unreliable, and continue to provide a robust foundation fo r the Findings. Moreover, the IPCC, USGCRP, and NRC assessments are separate and independ ent of each other. The organizational and personnel differences, and the detailed and r obust report development procedures employed by the IPCC, USGCRP, and NRC, demonstrate that these assessment repor ts are separate and independent, and petitioners’ claims to the contra ry are insufficient and unsubstantiated. EPA’s

reliance on these three sets of asse ssment reports was and is reasona ble. The fact that different assessments, developed by different organizations using different report development procedures, refer to each other’s work and arrive at similar conclusions does not imply flawed work. To the contrary, when multiple independent sources arrive at similar conclusions, those findings are strengthened.

3.2.2 EPA’s Response to Petitioners’ Arguments

Comment (3-9) : Both the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the State of Texas note that EPA relied on the findings of the assessment literature to serve as a basis for the Endangerment Finding. They argue that EPA misled the public into believing th at the Agency relied on assessments from three independent climate science entities, when in fact the TSD discusses and references findings from IPCC assessment reports far more frequently and in greater depth than those of the USGCRP and NRC. For example, the State of Te xas argues that “the Administrator attempts to justify outsourcing her sc ientific assessment by purporting to re ly on three outside organizations – which creates the appearance of a more thorou gh review.” In discussing this issue, the Competitive Enterprise Institute claims that the USGCRP and NRC assessments “are actually extensions of the IPCC findings, incorporating its faults and errors. Contrary to EPA claims, they do not provide any independent scientific support whatsoever.” The petitioners argue that the Endangerment Finding must be reconsidered because the USGCRP and NRC assessments are as flawed as the IPCC reports because they ar e not separate and independent from the IPCC

reports.

Response (3-9) : The issues of EPA’s reliance on the assessment l iterature and whether the assessments by IPCC, USGCRP, and NRC are independent are not new and not only could have been, but were, the subject of comment during the public comment pe riod. Thus, it was not impracticable to raise the objection during the public comment period and the reasons for the objection did not arise between June 24, 2009, and February 16, 2010. As such, they do not justify reconsideration of the Findings. The Administrator’s rationale for relying on the major assessments of the USGCRP, IPCC, and NRC as the primary scie ntific and technical basis for making the endangerment decision is explained in detail in the Findings, and our responses on this issue are

21included in Section 1.1 of Volume 1 of the RTC docum ent, as well as Section 3.1 of this volume

and Section 2.2 of Volume 2 of this RTP document.

To the extent petitioners are arguing that ne w evidence casts further doubt on a practice they already criticized du ring the public comment period, we disagr ee. As discussed in Volume 2 and the Denial, it is abundantly clear that the issues raised in the CRU e-mails and errors found in the IPCC report do not cast doubt on th e EPA’s reliance on the IPCC and other assessment literature relied for the Endangerment Finding.

Moreover, contrary to the ar guments of the petitioners, th e USGCRP, IPCC, and NRC are separate and independent of each other. Although we thoroughly addressed this issue previously in Volume 1 of the RTC doc ument, we will respond again here.

There can be no doubt that the USGCRP, the IPCC, and the NRC are distinct organizations, with separate report development procedures. Be low, we summarize the differences in the organizations, the groups of scientists who developed the assessments, and scope of the assessments produced by each body.

 The IPCC, created in 1988 by the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), is open to all member countries of the United Nations and the WMO. At regular in tervals, the IPCC prepares comprehensive assessments of scientific, technical, and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of human induced climate cha nge, potential impacts of climate change, and options for mitigation and adaptation all at global and regional scales. The most

recent assessment—the AR4—included thousands of scientists from all over the world, who participated on a voluntary basis as au thors, contributors, and reviewers (IPCC, 2007a). While many federal and nonfederal sc ientists from the United States were involved in the development of the AR4, the United States is just one of 194 countries

that contribute to the assessments.

 The USGCRP is part of the United States Executive Branch. Thirteen departments and agencies participate in the USGCRP, including EPA. A critical role of the interagency program is to coordinate research and inte grate and synthesize information to achieve results that no single agency, or small group of agencies, could attain. Between 2004 and 2009, the USGCRP produced 21 synthesis and assessment reports on a wide range of topics (e.g., temperature trends in the lower atmosphere; weather and climate extremes in a changing climate; and the effects of clim ate change on agriculture, land resources, water resources, and biodiversity). The US GCRP assessment report s are developed to enhance understanding of natural and huma n-induced changes in the Earth’s global environmental system; to monitor, understa nd, and predict global change in the United States; and to provide a sound scientific ba sis for national and in ternational decisionmaking. Each of these reports had a unique team of authors, drawn from relevant disciplines. Many authors were federal sc ientists, and in some cases, nonfederal scientists contribute their expertise to the process. While some of the USGCRP authors participated in the development of the IPCC AR4, most did not.

22 The NRC is an independent sc ientific organiza tion that is not affiliated with either the

IPCC or USGCRP. As describe d in Appendix C of Volume 1 of the RTC document, the

NRC:

“enlist(s) the nation’s foremost scientists, engineers, health professionals, and other experts to address the scientific and technical aspects of society’s most pressing problems. Each year, more than 6,000 of these experts are selected to serve on hundreds of study committees that are convened to answ er specific sets of questions. All serve without pay. Federal agencies are the primary financial sponsors of the Academies’ work. Additional studies are funded by state agencies, foundations, other private sponsors, and the National Academies endowme nt. The Academies provide independent advice; the external sponsors have no control over the conduct of a study once the statement of task and budget are finalized. Study committees gather information from many sources in public meetings but they carry out their deliberations in private in order to avoid political, special interest, and sponsor influence.”

Ten NRC reports are cited in the Endangermen t Finding and TSD. Each of these reports has a unique author committee, selected based on their areas of exper tise. While some of the NRC study committee members have partic ipated in either the IPCC or USGCRP report development processes, many have not.

With this background on the three organizations and their report development processes, the flaws of the petitioners’ allegatio ns become clear. Not only are the three organizations separate and distinct, but there is additional independe nce among the multiple reports that they each produce. Within the IPCC, each chapter has a unique , dedicated team of authors, and the same is true for each NRC and USGCRP report. It should be no surprise that some scientists participate in reports produced by more than one organizat ion, but petitioners have provided no evidence that any scientists exerted influence on a number of the reports produced by these three organizations. Moreover, there is no overlap in the personnel at the IP CC, NRC, and USGCRP who supervised the review and pr eparation of the final reports.

Finally, the petitioners state that EPA cited and referenced the IP CC AR4 more frequently and in more depth than the USGCRP and NRC assessment reports in the Findings and the TSD. While this is accurate, the TSD also references many of the USGCRP and NRC assessment conclusions. For example, the Chapter 15 of the TSD on “U.S. Regional Climate Change Impacts” primarily cited and referenced the USGCRP’s 2009 assessment (Karl et al., 2009) for its focus on impacts in the United States. Rega rdless, counting references is a misguided and trivial criterion to apply. As described in the Endangerment Finding, we relied on the IPCC AR4 because it is a comprehensive synthesis of the latest science on: “(1) the amount of greenhouse gases being emitted by human activities; (2) how greenhouse gases have been and continue to accumulate in the atmosphere as a result of human activities; (3) changes to the Earth’s energy balance as a result of the buildup of atmosphe ric greenhouse gases; (4) observed temperature and other climatic changes at the gl obal and regional scales ; (5) observed changes in other climatesensitive sectors and systems of the human and natural environment; (6) the extent to which observed climate change and other changes in climate-sensitive systems can be attributed to the human-induced buildup of atmosphe ric greenhouse gases; (7) future projected climate change under a range of different scenarios of cha nging greenhouse gas emission rates; and (8) the

23projected risks and impacts to hum an health, society and the environment.” As discussed throughout this document, this statement still holds true.

Our reliance on the IPCC is entirely reasonable gi ven the breadth of the issues covered and the credibility and quality of the information presen ted in the AR4. As discussed in Volume 2 of this RTP document, the recent revelations about a small number of specific factual errors in the IPCC AR4 do not call into question the overall cred ibility of the report such that it would render

EPA’s reliance on it unreasonable. Nor do the CRU e-mails call into question the scientific integrity of the IPCC report or th e underlying studies considered therein. Importantly, during the public comment period, we received many comm ents on specific scientific issues and conclusions of the IPCC AR4 and the other reports on which we relied. These comments were fully responded to in the multiple volumes of the RTC document, and insights from the

comments were reflected in the Administrator’s fi nal determination. The scope and depth of the record on the Endangerment Finding—including an 11-volume RTC document responding to comments on all aspects of the science, law, a nd procedure—demonstrates both the volume of

information the Administrator considered in de veloping the Findings and the seriousness with which EPA approached the task of assessing the science. The ge neral claims by the petitioners

that the IPCC is “unreliable” or “flawed” are not valid becau se, as discussed in Volume 2, Section 2.1, of the RTP document, th ey are not backed by specific ev idence or credible scientific studies that support their views.

Comment (3-10) : The Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Stat e of Texas argue that EPA misled the public into believing that the Agency relied on assessments from three independent climate science entities, when in fact the USGCRP and NRC repo rts regularly cite and re ly on data, resources, and conclusions in the IPCC reports, thereby c ontradicting arguments th at all three of the assessments are separate and independent.

Response (3-10) : These allegations are not new and not only could have been, but were, the subject of comment during the public comment period. It was not im practicable to raise th e objection during the public comment period and the reasons for the objection did not arise between June 24, 2009, and February 16, 2010.

In their recent assessment reports, the US GCRP and NRC relied on and referenced many conclusions from the IPCC AR4 chapters. All thr ee bodies are tasked with identifying the best

available scientific information on which to base their assessments. Th erefore it is reasonable and expected that the NRC and USGCRP would cite the IPCC; this is a reflection of the confidence that the NRC and USGCRP place in the work of the IPCC, not evidence that there is a lack of separation and independence. We disa gree with the petitioners ’ conclusion that since the reports produced by the different organizations referenced many of the same studies, or each other, or arrived at consistent conclusions this means that th ese reports are not independent

assessments of the available science related to climate change. Given the clear separation and independence in the organizations, the personne l performing supervisi on and review, and the differences in the groups of scientists working on the assessment, the a ppropriate conclusion to

24draw is that the consistency in the conclu sions reached by multiple reports of the three organizations provides more, not less, weight and confidence in these conclusions.

Petitioners appear to believe that EPA shoul d conclude, from the fact that subsequent assessments of climate change science have reaffi rmed and strengthened the core conclusions of previous reports, that the assessments are not se parate and independent. However, the test of separation and independence is not whether one reaches a different result or conclusion, but rather whether independent discretion and judgment was exercised. For example, it is routine in science for different researchers to perform similar or related analyses or assessments. Reaching a similar result provides increased confidence in the entire set of results. The similarity in results does not prove, nor should it ev en suggest, that the researcher s failed to be separate and independent. Petitioners’ logic fails , as it is driven by an inappropr iate results-oriented criterion.

The fact that each successive assessment report, performed by a different organization and group of scientists and reviewers, reexamines the work of previous reports in light of new scientific information, and in many cases cites them, result s in greater confidence in the reliability and objectivity of the scientific conclusions on wh ich the Endangerment Finding relies. In this manner, the USGCRP, the IPCC, and the NRC have all taken a fresh look at the literature and existing assessments and reached similar, consis tent, and compelling conclusions regarding the threat of climate change.

It is also reasonable and scientifically credib le that the USGCRP and NRC would reference the IPCC AR4. Despite the allegations of petitione rs, we have found no evidence that the IPCC processes do not produce credible reports or th at the IPCC has reached flawed conclusions on specific scientific issues. Our response to pe titioners’ claims regarding the IPCC processes are detailed in Volume 2, and our response on the science issues are in Volume 1 of this RTP

document. Petitioners’ evidence does not support thei r claim that the USGCRP and NRC blindly accept the conclusions and assessments reports of the IPCC. To the contrary, the evidence shows that they independently reviewed the co nclusions of the assessm ent reports, including in some cases the literature underlying the assessments, and also reviewed the mo re recent literature

to determine the current state of the science. In some cases, USGCRP reviewed the underlying science and referenced the IPCC where they agr eed with the conclusions and how they were developed. For example, in their assessments the USGCRP referenced IPCC findings for many context-setting issues such as gl obal observations, attribution, a nd radiative forcing. In other cases, USGCRP reviewed the availa ble literature, includ ing any studies reviewed or referenced in the AR4, and made their own key conclusions regarding the state of the science. The USGCRP predominantly employed this approach in describing observed and projected impacts in the United States (Karl et al., 2009). A very similar approach was used by the NRC in their assessments (NRC, 2008). As a result, USGC RP’s and NRC’s assessments contain both references for the AR4 chapters and individual studies.

The USCGRP and NRC also give the public oppor tunities to provide input and comment during report development (see Volume 1 of the RTC document for more information on USGCRP’s and NRC’s report development processes). Sp ecifically, the USGCRP holds public comment periods when developing the prospectus for each assessment and again once the report has been drafted. The NRC employs a diffe rent, yet entirely r obust and reasonable process. Informationgathering meetings of the NRC study committ ees are open to the public, and any written

25ma terials provided to the committee by individuals ar e maintained in a public access file that is available for examination. In developing the draft findings and recommendations for each report, the study committees deliberate in meetings closed to the public in order to maintain independence from outside influences. Fi nally, the NRC reports undergo a rigorous, independent external review by experts whos e comments are provided anonymously to the

committee members.

Comment (3-11) : Peabody Energy contends that the principal au thority for EPA’s centr al conclusion that anthropogenic GHG emissions are causing deleterious climate change is the IPCC, rather than other “assessment literature” or any other studies. They note that of the 67 citations in the attribution section of the TSD (Section 5) that discusses the linkage between observed climate change and GHGs, 47 are from the IPCC. Additi onally, Peabody Energy is cr itical of the fact that “only eight pages” of the TSD are devoted to this issue.

Response (3-11):

Section 5 of the TSD addresses attributing observed changes in climate to anthropogenic GHGs,

and the IPCC does serve as a core reference to the assessment literature for Section 5. The IPCC’s findings on attribution, as summarized in the TSD, draw from modeling experiments using 14 atmosphere-ocean general circulation m odels and scores of simulations, as well as literally hundreds of studies. The IPCC’s chapter on attribution is 80 pages long. It is therefore the most comprehensive resource on attribution available in the scientific literature on this subject. Peabody Energy provides no substantive comment on its content.

While we reference the IPCC for large parts of ou r discussion of attribu tion, we also reviewed

and cited several USGCRP assessments that cover attribution issues. These include:

 CCSP 1.3: Reanalysis of Hist orical Climate Data for Key Atmospheric Features: Implications for Attribution of Causes of Observed Change (CCSP, 2008a)

 Subsections on attribution in CCSP 3.3: Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate (CCSP, 2008b)

 Global Change Impacts in the Un ited States (Karl et al., 2009)

While Peabody Energy’s points to th e length in pages of the TSD discussion, it does not identify any general or specific issues that were omitte d or inappropriately handled. Peabody Energy’s focus on counting references and pages is not a credible, science-based argument against the scientific information that supports the E ndangerment Finding. We did receive many public comments on attribution, and our responses are provided in Volume 3 of the RTC document. Furthermore, the National Academy of Scien ces recent report “Advancing the Science of Climate Change” (NRC, 2010) supports and rea ffirms the conclusions from the earlier assessment literature synthesized in the TSD pert aining to attribution as mentioned in Section

1.1.2.4 of this RTP document.

EPA’s evaluation of the attributi on issue relies on appropriate a ssessment literature, as well as any information or studies provided in the public comment process. EPA’s evaluation, and it’s

26responses to comments on the issue of attribu tion, provide a comp rehe nsive and appropriate evaluation of this issue. Peabody Energy’ s comment on citations and pages provides no

scientific basis to believe otherwise.

3.2.3 Summary

The evidence provided by the petitioners does not support their allega tions that the IPCC, USGCRP, and NRC assessments are not separate and independent, and the alleged flaws with the IPCC attach to the USGCRP and NRC reports as well. The organizational and personnel differences, and the detailed and robust report development procedures employed by the IPCC, USGCRP, and NRC, demonstrate that these asse ssment reports are separate and independent, and petitioners’ claims to the contrary are insuffi cient and unsubstantiated. Thus, the petitioners’ claims that EPA misled the public regarding th e breadth and independence of the information relied on by the Administrator are unfounded. C ontrary to petitioners’ allegation, the USGCRP and NRC are independent and separate assessmen ts. Furthermore, the similarity of the conclusions among the assessment reports from the three bodies provid es evidence of the strength of the underlying science and does not re present a lack of inde pendence, as alleged by the petitioners. The evidence does not support changing EPA’s use of those assessments, or justify the reconsiderat ion of the Findings.

Separate and apart from the issue of the independ ence of these assessment reports, the petitioners provide no information to demonstrate that the sc ientific conclusions of the IPCC, USGCRP, and NRC are wrong or that EPA erred in relying on them. The specific science issues raised by petitioners are discussed in Volumes 1 and 2. Thus, whether or not th e various assessment reports are separate and indepe ndent, EPA reasonably relied on th em as reflecting the current state of the science and the degree of broad c onsensus within the science community on these

issues.

3.3 Issues Concerning the Integrity of Peer-Reviewed Literature

3.3.1 Overview

Several petitioners (the Coalit ion for Responsible Regulation, the Ohio Coal Association, the Pacific Legal Foundation, Peabody Energy, the S outheastern Legal Found ation, the State of Texas) argue that leading climate scientists associated with the CRU e-mails conspired to keep dissenting views of anthropogenic climate cha nge out of the peer-reviewed literature. Specifically, petitioners claim that these scient ists unfairly gave favorable reviews of each other’s manuscripts while providing negative re views of manuscripts au thored by those with opposing views, made efforts to unfairly expedite publication of their re sponses to papers by with opposing views, conspired to remove editors of prominent journals that had published dissenting views of climate change , and boycotted certain journals in reprisal for publication of articles with which they disagree d. The petitioners conclude that all of these acti ons advantaged the positions of the climate scientists associat ed with the CRU e-mails in getting their views published and legitimized, while making it very diffi cult if not impossible for dissenting views to

27be publishe d. Thus, petitioners argue that th e peer-reviewed climate change literature is

unbalanced and reflects an ar tificial consensus about anthropogenic climate change.

Our review of the petitioners ’ claims and the evidence they rely upon shows many cases in which the petitioners make overly broad generali zations based on suggestions of inappropriate actions that are not supported by the information they provided. Most of the quotes from the emails that petitioners allege shows impropriety are taken out of context from the e-mails. Further, petitioners do not provide corrobor ating evidence that im proper action actually occurred, let alone evidence that any alleged improper action led to biased or inaccurate science that was ultimately used by EPA to support the Fi ndings. In addition, the petitioners make broad leaps in logic to impugn the overall integrity of the peer-reviewed c limate change literature based on very limited examples and largely speculative assertions. Based on our review, the e-mails do not contain information that causes us to question the integrity of the assessment literature or its

conclusions as to the state of the science on GHG s, climate change, and the associated risks and impacts to public health and welfare.

The following sections provide our responses to the arguments ma de by petitioners regarding the integrity of peer-reviewed literature. Section 3.3.2 responds to allegations regarding reviews of manuscripts. Section 3.3.3 responds to allegatio ns of unfair journal pub lications practices. Section 3.3.4 responds to allegations of efforts to remove editors and boycott journals. Section 3.3.5 responds to allegations of intimidating junior scientists and those with opposing views. Finally, Section 3.3.6 summarizes our responses.

3.3.2 Allegations Regarding Reviews of Manuscripts

Comment (3-12) : Peabody Energy cites one example from the CRU e-mails that it claims demonstrates that the

scientists “bent the rules to ensure publication of papers that supported thei r position regardless of quality.” Specifically, the peti tioner argues that Michael Mann (a professor at Pennsylvania State University and former editor for the Journal of Climate ) inappropriately recommended that Phil Jones of CRU should review a manuscrip t submitted for publication by Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Tom Wigley of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research. Peabody Energy argues that Jones’ close associat ion with the authors limited his ability to act as an impartial review er. In addition, Peabody Energy cites an e-mail written by Tom Wigley from September 22, 2000, on which Jones was copied and which shows Santer and Wigley discussing their submitted manuscript:

Ben (or, really, everybody else),

I don’t know whether you have all seen the pa per analyzing the observed data that Ben and I sent to J. Climate ?? This is where the JGR [ Journal of Geophysical Research ] paper began, and it is useful to compare both papers. In the J. Climate paper we assessed the best fits using a subjective balance of raw and lowpass filtered results. The reason for this was because of the difficulty of setti ng up an automated procedure -- which is the problem that Ben is currently having to deal with. In the next iteration of the JGR paper, the reason for moving to a more automated procedure will be explained. Both the subjective and automated procedures have thei r advantages and disadvantages. The latter

28procedure, of course, is in no way ‘objectiv e’. Many subjective choices have to be made in setting up the procedure. This is why the word ‘automated’ is used above, rather than ‘objective’.

If you have not seen the J. Climate paper, let me know and I will send you a copy. There is a companion paper that has been accepted by GRL [ Geophysical Research Letters ] that

I will send at the same time. 3

Peabody Energy argues that this e-mail gave Jones advance knowledge of the paper’s content and thus limited his ability to act as an impar tial reviewer of their manuscript. The petitioner states that on October 24, 2000, Jones wrote a positive review with minimal comments:

Dear Brendaw, My review of the paper JCL [ Journal of Climate ] 3435 is attached. My recommendation is to accept the paper subject to minor chang es. I don’t wish to see it again. If there are any problems with the attachment, let me know and I can fax the 2 pages. 4

Peabody Energy asserts that Jones did not act as an impartial, objective reviewer because he clearly had problems with the manuscript, but recommended the paper fo r publication anyway. As evidence of Jones’ problems with the manuscr ipt, the petitioner cites the following excerpt of an e-mail written by Jones on October 25, 2000, to Santer:

Also just sent back comments to Mike Mann on the paper by Tom and you factoring out ENSO [the El Niño Southern Oscillation] and Volcanoes. Felt like writing red ink all over it, but sent back a short publish subject to minor revision to Mike. 5

Peabody Energy concludes that this exchange is evidence that “peer-rev iew publication rules” were manipulated, and that “the peer-review process was tainted in favor of desired papers.” Peabody Energy argues that the Endangerment Findi ng should be reconsidered because it relies on biased peer-reviewed literature that publis hed papers supporting anthropogenic climate change regardless of th eir scientific quality.

Response (3-12) : The emails do not support the petitioner’s arguments because the petitioner provides no evidence to support its claim that past co llaborations among these climate researchers led Jones to skew his review. The petitioner makes much of Jones’ statement that he “felt like writing red ink all over it,” but the meaning of this statement is uncl ear from the e-mail. Jones does not say that he disagreed with the paper’s conclusions, and it is equally plausible the he thought the paper was poorly written or that he believed the conclusions could have been improved. The fact that he wanted to edit the paper (for an unknown reason) does not support th e view that he should have rejected it for publication.

3 E-mail file 969652057.txt, (September 22, 2000), page 285, line 42 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf

4 E-mail file 972415204.txt, (October 24, 2000), page 295, line 33 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf

5 E-mail file 972499087.txt, (October 25, 2000), page 296, line 9 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf

29Petitioner alleges that Mann ina ppropriately asked Jones to revi ew the paper and that Jones

should have declined because he knew the aut hors and m ay have had prior knowledge of the paper’s content. Neither of these events is uncommon in scientific publishing; however, in a small field like paleoclimate research, there is ofte n substantial interaction of this type. In order to demonstrate manipulation, petitioners need to prove that the paper was flawed, which they fail to do. In fact, they do not provide any discussion of the scientific mer its of the paper. In addition, all peer-reviewed publications have multiple reviewers, so Jones was not in position to determine whether or not it would be approved for publication.

In addition, this incident, even if it supported the claim peti tioner alleges, does not support petitioners allegations of broad ranging efforts by multiple scientists to manipulate the entire spectrum of peer-reviewed literature. All this in cident could possibly prove, if the petitioner’s claims were substantiated (which they are not) is that Phil Jones gave a favorable review to one paper published by people he inte racted with professionally.

These e-mails do not support the claim that Jones or others “bent the rules” on the peer review process for this specific paper, and they pres ent no other evidence to support the petitioner’s claim of a broader effort by many scientists th at affected an unknown num ber of other journal articles. Even if the allegations were corroborated for this one paper, they deal with only one of thousands of papers that make up the body of scie ntific literature on climate change. To claim, as the petitioner does, that one pa per or the actions of one scien tist could somehow bias the vast wealth of climate change studies or call into question the overall conclusions reached from those thousands of papers is unwarranted and unsupporte d. Finally, the petition er fails to make any arguments as to why the paper at issue was scient ifically flawed and should have been rejected for publication. Instead of arguing about the scientif ic merits of the paper, the petitioner relies upon speculation.

Comment (3-13):

Petitioners claim that the CRU e-mails indicate that certain scientists unfairly wrote negative reviews of manuscripts authored by “climate skeptic s” in order to keep opposing views out of the peer-reviewed literature. Peabody Energy argues that:

As leading scientists in the climate field, sever al of the authors involved in AR4 were in a position to affect the types of papers that were published in the peer-reviewed literature...They abused their positions of infl uence, however, by manipulating the peerreview publication process to prevent publicati on of papers at odds with their own views and even to oust editors who had published such papers.

More specifically, Peabody Energy claims that Tom Wigley of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research unfairly reviewed and recommended rejecting a manuscript by Patrick Michaels of the University of Virginia. The petitioner suggests that Wigl ey was motivated by a desire to keep dissenting views out of the peer-r eviewed climate change literature because “other peer reviewers not connected with the Jones et al. group had accepted it in the normal course and the refereeing process had been more rigorous than usual.” The petitioner cites an e-mail from Wigley in which he discusses his rejection of the manuscript:

30Danny Harvey [of the University of Toronto] and I refereed this and said it should be rejected. We questioned the editor (deFreitas again!) and he responded, saying... “The [manuscript] was reviewed initially by five referees...The other three referees, all reputable atmospheric scientists, agreed it shoul d be published subject to minor revision. Even then I used a sixth person to help me decide. I took his advice and that of the three other referees and sent the [manuscript] back for revision. It was later accepted for publication. The refereeing process was more rigorous than usual.”

On the surface this looks to be above board —although, as referees who advised rejection, it is clear that Danny and I should have been kept in the loop and seen how our criticisms were responded to. 6

In a related example, Peabody Energy and the Stat e of Texas quote an excerpt of an e-mail from Phil Jones to Michael Mann on March 31, 2004, in whic h he discusses his unfavorable reviews of two papers for Geophysical Research Letters and the Journal of Geophysical Research :

Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL. 7

The petitioners claim that Jones’ negative revi ews attempted to “prevent a manuscript from being published that questioned th e CRU’s research” and were motivated by a desire to keep dissenting views out of the peer-reviewed liter ature. The petitioner concludes that these examples provide evidence that “peer-review pub lication rules” were manipulated to suppress dissenting views of anthropogenic climate change. The petitioners argue that the Endangerment Finding should be reconsidered because it relied on biased peer-reviewed literature that does not

reflect the true breadth of the science.

Response (3-13) : As part of the peer-review process, scientists are justified in recommending that any given manuscript not be published if, based on their expert scientific judgment, they determine that the manuscript does not meet a certain standard of methodological rigor or its conclusions are questionable, given the evidence presented. The petitioners assume that the papers at issue

received unjustified unfavorable reviews by Wigley, Ha rvey, and Jones, and assume the unjustified views were motivated by a desire to suppress dissenting views about climate change. Regarding the paper reviewed by Wigley and Harv ey, petitioners neither entertain nor address the most straightforward possibility: that thes e scientists, based on th eir expert judgment, concluded that the paper was not up to stan dards for publication, while the other reviewers simply came to a different conclusion. Disagr eement among reviewers is extremely common in scientific publishing. This issue was examined by the Independent Climate-Change E-mail Review, which stated, “There is always the risk of group-think among experts which resists alternative perspectives. Editors try to redu ce the risk of group-think by sending papers to

6 E-mail file 1051156418.txt, (April 23, 2003), page 486, line 27 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf

7 E-mail file 1051156418.txt, (March 31, 2004), page 664, line 1 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf

31different and widely dispersed reviewers, de liberately seeking or even provoking critical reviews” (Russell, 2010).

Regarding the Jones review, the petitioners pr ovide no evidence to support their claim that Jones’ actions were inappropriate o r that his reviews of these two particular papers were not scientifically justified. In addition, all peer-r eviewed publications have multiple reviewers, so Jones was not in position to determine whether or not these papers w ould be approved for publication. Thus, we find that the reviews by Wigley, Harvey, and Jones were completely within the norms of scientific practice.

Beyond these e-mails, Peabody Energy provides no ev idence to support thei r claim that these scientists “bent the rules” of the peer-review pr ocess to bias the peer-reviewed process for these papers or for the literature as a whole. Petitione rs also provide no evidence that the papers were not in fact published, which would seem to be an important fact if they are concerned that the goals was to “keep opposing views out of the peer-revi ewed literature.” It appears that at least one paper was published, and there is no informat ion on the other two. So, petitioners fail to show any actual bias in the literature that might have occurred. Even if the allegations were supported for these papers, which they are not, the petitioner’s allegations involve only three out of thousands of papers that make up the body of scientific literature on climate change. To claim, as the petitioner does, that a few papers or the actions of a few scientists could somehow

bias the vast wealth of climat e change studies or call into question the overall conclusions reached from those many papers is unwarranted and unsupported.

Comment (3-14): In another example, Peabody Energy claims th at on June 4, 2003, Keith Briffa of CRU asked Edward Cook of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Obse rvatory at Columbia University to provide evidence for rejecting a manuscript because Briffa disagreed with its auth ors’ views on climate change. According to the petitioner, in making his request, Briffa apparently inappropriately disclosed the identity and recommendation of the other reviewer, Dave Stahle.

I am really sorry but I have to nag about th at review - Confidentially I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting - to support Dave Stahle’s and really as soon as you can. Please 8

According to the petitioner, Cook replied to Briffa the same day to ask for help regarding a manuscript review for the Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Sciences

. Peabody Energy states that rather than providing his own independent an alysis of the paper’s suitability for publication, Cook enlisted Briffa’s help to write an unfavorable review for the paper. The petitioner co ncludes that this provides evidence that “peer-review publication rules” were manipulated to suppress dissenting view s of anthropogenic climate change. Peabody Energy argues that the Endangerment Finding should be reconsidered because it relies on biased peer-reviewed literature that did not re flect the true breadth of the science.

8 E-mail file 1054748574.txt, (June 4, 2003), page 514, line 1 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf

32Response (3-14): The Independent Climate-Change E-mail Review examined in detail the claims regarding the manuscript review Keith Briffa requested from Edward Cook. Based on the CRU e-mails and additional evidence submitted to the Independent Climate-Change E-mail Review panel, they concluded the following:

Although much has been made of the e- mail in paragraph 15 as evidence of an unprincipled approach to the role of ed itor, we see nothing in these exchanges that supports the interpretations of subverting the peer review process that have been placed upon it. It appears to reflect an Editor with a strongly negative review in hand, and who presumably has read the paper, asking for confirmation that the paper should be rejected, possibly to reduce one of the many complications that assail an editor; and in view of the delay in communicating to authors, hoping fo r a strong decision from the referee. On receiving a second, more equivocal review, he offers the authors the opportunity to resubmit. These exchanges illustrate some of the complications of an Editor’s life ... They do not provide evidence of subversion of pr ocess in rejecting contradictory ideas as has been alleged. (Russell, 2010)

Regarding the claim that Cook enlisted Briffa’s help in reviewing a ma nuscript, the petitioner does not quote Cook’s e-mail in its entirety. The full text of the e-mail provides important

context:

Hi Keith, Okay, today. Promise! Now something to ask from you. Actually somewhat important too. I got a paper to review (submitted to the Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Sciences), written by a Kor ean guy and someone from Berkeley, that claims that the method of reconstruction that we use in dendroclimatology (reverse regression) is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc. They use your Tornetrask recon as the main whipping boy. I have a file that you gave me in 1993 that comes from your 1992 paper. Below is part of that file. Is this the right one? Also, is it possible to resurrect the column headings? I would like to play with it in an effort to refute their claims. If published as is, this paper could really do some damage. It is also an ugly paper to review because it is rather mathematical, with a lot of Box-Jenkins stuff in it. It won’t be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appear s to be correct theoretically, but it suffers from the classic problem of pointing out theo retical deficiencies, without showing that their improved inverse regression method is actually better in a practical sense. So they do lots of monte carlo stuff that shows the superiority of their method and the deficiencies of our way of doing things, but NEVER actually show how their method would change the Tornetrask reconstruction from what you produced. Your assistance here is greatly appreciated. Otherwise, I will let Tornetrask sink into the melting permafrost of northern Sweden (just kidding of course). Cheers, Ed 9

As is clearly stated in the e-mail, Cook only asks Briffa to confirm if a specific dataset was the same as the one Briffa used in an early pape r (and which was the focus of the paper Cook was being asked to review) and to provide column head ings for the data. Cook does not ask Briffa to

9 E-mail file 1054756929.txt, (June 4, 2003), page 514, line 44 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf

33read the ma nuscript, nor does he ask for Briffa’s help in writing the review. These examples do not support the petitioner’s arguments that the peer-review process was manipulated.

Comment (3-15) : In another example, Peabody Energy claims th at Jones influenced the editor of the International Journal of Climatology (IJC) to select reviewers who woul d be biased against a paper submitted by Stephen McIntyre, editor of th e blog ClimateAudit, and Ross McKi trick of the University of Guelph. Peabody cites the following e-mail Jone s wrote to Ben Santer on January 29, 2009:

I’ve just seen that M+M [McIntyre and McKitrick] have submitted a paper to IJC on your H2 statistic - using more years, up to 2007... Anyway you’ll likely get this for review, or poor Francis will. Best if both Francis and Myles did this. If I get an email from Glenn I’ll suggest this. 10

In a related example, the Coalition for Responsib le Regulation claims that Jones encouraged his co-authors on a paper “to submit the names of fi ve scientists as reco mmended peer reviewers because they ‘know the sort of things to say’. 11 ” The petitioner provide s no additional context

about the title or conten t of paper, but asserts that true scientific scrutiny and close review “cannot be expected from hand-picked, wholly-s upportive reviewers.” The petitioner argues that Jones’ actions bias the peer review process and “endors[e] fi ndings that may prove to be scientifically erroneous or uns ubstantiated.” The petitioners conclude that Jones acted unethically to manipulate the normal peer-review process in order to k eep dissenting views out of the peer-reviewed literature, and that the Endangerment Finding should be reconsidered because it relies on biased peer-reviewed literature that did not reflect the true state of the

science.

Response (3-15) : It is customary for scientific journal editors to ask authors or associat es to provide names of recommended reviewers during the process of submitting a manuscript. Thus, Jones’ actions do not appear inappropriate and th ere is no explanation how this could have biased the peer reviewed literature, as alleged by the petitioners. Regarding the firs t example, it is clear from the e-mail that Jones had not yet been asked to pr ovide any recommendations; rather, he was simply stating his intentions if the editor decided to contact him. The petitioner does not provide any

evidence that Jones was ever cont acted by the editor, or if he wa s, how he responded. Similarly, in the second example, petitioners again provide no evidence that Jones’ co-authors submitted names of peer-reviewers, or if they did, that th e scientists they suggested were asked to peer review and that they then said “t he sorts of things” Jones wanted.

In both examples, the petitioners make an uns ubstantiated assumption that the reviewers suggested by Jones would be bias ed, either against the McIntyre and McKitrick paper, or biased in favor of the paper Jones wrote with his co -authors. There is no evidence to support the petitioners’ claims that any revi ewers suggested by Jones and sele cted by the editor would be

10 E-mail file 1233249393.txt, (January 29, 2009), page 1626, line 33 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf

11 E-mail file 1249503274.txt, (August 5, 2009), page 1722, line 32 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf

34unable or unwilling to provide objec tive critique of a m anuscript. In addition, Jones was not in a position to “hand-pick” any reviewers because a ny decisions regarding the selection of peer reviewers are solely the purview of the journal editor. In sum, these examples do not support the petitioner’s arguments that the journa l publication process was manipulated.

In summary, the various claims by petitioners of biased peer re view processes or bending of

rules to achieve this result are not supported by the evidence they present. Their evidence shows only the typical peer review pro cess being followed, with reviewer s presenting their views pro or con. There is no evidence that any papers were not published and, if they were not, that the basis was any reason other than scientific inadequacy. There is no evidence or scientific argument that the literature is biased, even fo r the specific papers at issue, ju st unsupported allegations of an improper process. Petitioners’ claims and eviden ce do not provide a basis for EPA to question or change its view that the science supporting th e Endangerment Finding is robust, is compelling, and has been appropriately characterized by EPA.

3.3.3 Allegations Regarding Journal Publication Practices

Comment (3-16) : Peabody Energy argues that the CRU materials reveal that Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and various co lleagues exerted improper influence to pressure IJC to delay publication of a paper by Davi d Douglass of University of Rochester and his colleagues— Douglass et al. (2007)—and to expedite publicat ion of their response—Santer et al. (2008). According to Peabody Energy, the overall effect of these actions was to give Santer et al. the “last word” and prevent Douglass et al. from responding according to “customary conventions.” Peabody Energy asserts that a number of e-mails 12 reveal inappropriate conduct on the part of the authors and journal editors, includin g:

(a) unusual cooperation between authors and ed itor that undermined the independence of each, (b) misstatement of known facts, (c) outright character assassination, (d) avoidance of traditional scientific give-and-take, (e ) use of confidential information, (f) misrepresentation, or at a minimum misunderstanding, of the scientific question posed by Douglass et al. (2007), [and] (g) withholding of material data.

The Southeastern Legal Foundation also argues that the CRU e-mail authors engaged in improper actions with regard to the Douglass et al. paper, quo ting an opinion article by David Douglass of the University of Rochester and John Christy of the University of Alabama published in the daily Internet publication American Thinker : “The CRU e-mails have revealed how the normal conventions of the peer review process appear to have been compromised by a

12 E-mail file 119679584 4.txt, (December 4, 2007), page 1360, line 4; e-mail file 1196877845.txt, (December 5, 2007), page 1365, line 7; e-mail file 1196956362.txt, (December 6, 2007) page 1370, line 36; e-mail file 1196964260.txt, (December 6, 2007) page 1371, line 22; e-mail file 119732503 4.txt, (December 10, 2007) page 1374, line 13; e-mail file 1197507092.txt, (Decembe r 12, 2007) page 1376, line 8; e-mail file 1199988028.txt, (January 10, 2008) page 1424, line 3; e-mail file 1199999668.txt, (January 10, 2008), page 1426, line 43 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf ; e-mail file 1200059003.txt, (January 11, 2008) page 1432, line 8; email file 1200076878.txt, (January 11, 2008) page 1432, line 46; and e-mail file 1215712600.txt, (July 10, 2008),page 1531, line 29 of PDF vers ion entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf)

35te am of global warming scientists, with the will ing cooperation of the edit or of the IJC, Glenn McGregor” (Douglass and Christy, 2009).

Prior to submitting the Santer et al. article to IJC, Peabody Energy asserts, Santer strategized to get the study published “in a way that customary conventions ar e ignored and the authors are prevented from responding.” Peabody Energy refers to an e-mail from Santer to Peter Thorne, a climate scientist working at the UK Met Office, on December 5, 2007:

Peter, I think you’ve done a nice job capturing some of my concerns about the Douglass et al. paper ... I don’t think it’s a good strategy to subm it a response to the Douglass et al. paper to the International Journal of Climatology (IJC). As Phil [Jones] pointed out, IJC has a large backlog, so it might take some time to get a response published. Furthermore, Douglass et al. probably would be given the final word. 13

Peabody Energy then describes how Tim Osborn, pa rt of IJC’s editorial board , “inserted himself into the process” by recommending th at Santer submit to the journal and by contacting IJC editor Glenn McGregor to “see what he can do” to ensure a quick turnaround in publishing the Santer et al . submission. Peabody Energy states that McGregor was “clearly not unbiased, and the journal was persuaded to disregard proper peer-review procedures in order to hurry the team’s [Santer et al.’s] response into print.” Peabody Energy quotes an email from Tim Osborn to Santer and Phil Jones on January 10, 2008:

I just contacted the editor, Glenn McGregor, to see what he can do. He promises to do everything he can to achieve a quick turn-around time (he didn’t quantify this) and he will also “ask (the publishers) for priority in terms of getting the paper online asap after the authors have received proofs.” He genuinely seems keen to correct the scientific record as quickly as possible.

He also said (and please treat this in confidence, which is why I e-mailed to you and Phil only) that he may be able to hol d back the hardcopy (i.e. the print/paper version) appearance of Douglass et al., possibly so that any accepted Santer et al. comment could appear alongside it. Presumably depends on speed of the review

process.

If this does persuade you to go with IJC, Glenn suggested that I could help (because he is in Kathmandu at present) with achieving the quick turn-around time by identifying in advance reviewers who are both suitable and available. Obviously one reviewer could be someone who is already familiar with this discussion, because that would enable a fast review - i.e., someone on the e-mail list you’ve been using - though I don’t know which of these people you will be asking to be co-authors and hence which won’t be available as possible reviewers... 14

13 E-mail file 119687784 51..txt, (December 5, 2007), pa ge 1365, line 23 of PDF vers ion entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf

14 E-mail file 1199999668.txt, (January 10, 2008), page 1426, line 43 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf

36Peabody Energy then cites the following e-ma il in which Santer states his conditions for submitting to IJC to Tim Osborn (copying Phil Jones), also in an e-mail from January 10,

2008:

1) Our paper should be regarded as an independent contribution, not as a comment on Douglass et

al. ...

2) If IJC agrees to 1), then Douglass et al. s hould have the opportunity to respond to our contribution, and we should be given the chance to reply. Any response and reply should be published side-by-side, in the same issue of IJC.

I’d be grateful if you and Phil could provide me with some guidance on 1) and 2), and on whether you think we should submit to IJC. Feel fr ee to forward my email to Glenn McGregor. 15

Peabody Energy subsequently states:

The final approval of the strategy (Santer’s conditions) to deny Douglass and his collaborators an opportunity to respond in the normal way was acknowledged by Osborn to Santer and Jones in that Osborn wrote that McGregor, as editor, is “prepared to treat it as a new submission rather than a comment on Douglass et al.” and “[McGre gor’s] offer of a quick turn around time etc still

stands.” 16

Peabody Energy concludes by arguing that the Santer et al. paper was pub lished in print only 36 days after it was published online, while Douglass et al. had waited more than 11 months for their print publication. In addition, the petitioner argues th at Douglass and his co-authors were never informed of Santer’s intention to publis h a response, nor were they contacted for an explanation at any point in the process regarding Santer et al.’s concerns with their paper. Peabody Energy concludes that “The strategy of preventing Douglass and hi s collaborators from having any opportunity for a simultaneous response to Santer et al. had been achieved. The gamesmanship behind this strategy diverted the pro cess of scientific inquiry from its proper path and tainted the materials on which the Agency now seeks to rely.” Peabody Energy concludes that the CRU e-mail authors’ improper conduct places Santer et al.’s work on questionable footing and casts doubt on the cr edibility of their critique of Douglass et al. (2007).

Response (3-16) : As discussed in Volume 1, Section 1.2.1.2 , the petitioners’ complaint focuses on the timing of the hardcopy publication of the Douglass et al. (2007) paper (whi ch was previously published on-line), and does not provide any su bstantive evaluation or analysis of the scientific content of Santer et al. (2008). Petitione r does not explain why the findings presented in Douglass et al. (2007) are correct despite the findings presented in Santer et al. (2008). Peabody Energy also offers no substantive evaluation of any of the assessment literature (i.e., Karl et al., 2009) or other studies relied on by EPA that provide evidence for an anthropogenic fingerprint in the

15 E-mail file 1200076878.txt, (January 11, 2008), page 1433, line 41 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf

16 E-mail file 1200076878.txt, (January 11, 2008), page 1433, line 9 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf

37tropics. In addition, Douglass and the other author s of the 2007 study have not provided a

scientific res ponse or rebuttal to the scientific positi on presented in the Santer et al. (2008) paper.

In addition to the petitioner’s focus on the ti ming of the hard copy publication rather than scientific content, we note th at Peabody Energy extensively quotes from an article entitled “A Climate Conspiracy” (Douglass and Christy

, 2009), published in the da ily Internet publication

American Thinker . In this article, two authors of Douglass et al. (2007) (Douglass and University of Alabama–Huntsville scientist John Christy) discuss the CRU e-mails pertinent to the Santer et al. and Douglass et al. studies, and pose the fo llowing challenge to readers:

We will let the reader judge whether this team effort [of Santer and colleagues], revealed in dozens of e-mails and taking nearly a year, involves inappropriate behavior, including (a) unusual cooperation between authors and edito r, (b) misstatement of known facts, (c) character assassination, (d) avoidance of tr aditional scientific give-and-take, (e) using confidential information, (f) misrepresenta tion (or misunderstanding) of the scientific question posed by DCPS [the authors of Douglass et al. (2007): Douglass, David; Christy, John; Pearson, Benjamin; Singer , Fred], (g) withholding data, and more. (Douglass and Christy, 2009)

Peabody Energy’s allegations of misconduct on the part of Santer and colleagues identically match the examples of “inappropriate behavior ” put forward by Douglass and Christy in the

American Thinker article though Peabody Energy does not ci te this article as the underlying source. Peabody Energy has no independent basis for their allegations; they are uncritically repeating the objections of Douglass and Christy.

In February (2010), Santer publ ished lengthy counterarguments to Douglass and Christy (2009) on the blog RealClimate (Santer, 2010a) and, separately, in an open letter to the scientific community (Santer, 2010b). The following ex cerpt from Santer (2010a) describes his counterarguments to the allegations set out in D ouglass and Christy (2009) and an article by Fred

Pearce in the Guardian (Pearce, 2010):

In December 2009, shortly after the public release of the stolen emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Res earch Unit, Professors David Douglass and John Christy accused me of leading a conspiracy to delay publication of the print version of the Douglass et al. paper. This accusation was based on a selective analysis of the stolen

emails. It is false.

In Mr. Pearce’s account of this issue, he stat es that “There is no doubt the (sic) Santer and his colleagues sought to use the power they held to the utmost...” So what are the facts of this matter? What is the “power” Fred Pearce is referring to?

 Fact 1: The only “power” that I had was the power to choose which scientific journal to submit our paper to. I chose the Interna tional Journal of Climatology. I did this because the International Journal of Climatology had published (in their online edition) the seriously flawed Douglass et al. paper. I wanted to give the journal the opportunity to set the scientific record straight.

 Fact 2: I had never previously submitted a paper to the International Journal of Climatology. I had never met the editor of the journal (Professor Glenn McGregor).

38 Fact 3: Prior to submitting our paper, I wrote an email to Dr. Tim Osborn on January 10, 2008. Tim Osborn was on the editorial board of the International Journal of Climatology. I told Dr. Osborn that, befo re deciding whether we would submit our paper to the International Journal of Climat ology, I wanted to have some assurance that our paper would “be regarded as an independent contribution, not as a comment on Douglass et al.” This request was entirely reasonable in view of the substantial

amount of new work that we had done. I have described this new work above.

 Fact 4: I did not want to submit our paper to the International Journal of Climatology if there was a possibility that our submission would be regarded as a mere “comment” on Douglass et al. Under this scenario, Douglass et al. would have

received the last word. Given the extraord inary claims they had made, I thought it unlikely that their “last word” would have acknowledged the serious statistical error in their original paper. As subsequent events showed, I was right to be concerned – they have not admitted any error in their work.

 Fact 5: As I clearly stated in my email of January 10 to Dr. Tim Osborn, if the International Journal of Climatology agreed to classify our paper as an independent contribution, “Douglass et al. should have the opportunity to respond to our contribution, and we should be given the chance to reply. Any response and reply should be published side-by-side...”

 Fact 6: The decision to hold back the print version of the Douglass et al. paper was not mine. It was the editor’s decision. I had no “power” over the publishing decisions of the International Journal of Climatology.

This whole episode should be filed under the category “No good deed goes unpunished”. My colleagues and I were simply trying to set the scientific record straight. There was no conspiracy to subvert the peer-review process. Unfortunately, conspiracy theories are easy to disseminate. Many are willing to accept these theories at face value. The distribution of facts on complex scientific issues is a slower, more difficult process.

Peabody Energy provides numerous quotations from the CRU e-mails and narrates its interpretations of events, but its examples do not materially change the narrow and limited nature of its overall argument, which is that the Santer et al. paper was improperly published in print at the same time as the Douglass et al. paper. P eabody makes no claims or arguments as to the validity of the science in the Sa nter et al. (2008) pape r, just that its hard-copy publication date was advanced by the editor, and another paper’s wa s delayed. Decisions regarding the selection of peer reviewers, the timing of peer review , and whether and when a paper is published are solely the responsibility of the journa l editor, not the study authors.

Crucially, we also note that the Douglass et al . paper was freely available online for almost a year before it came out in print. Online publica tions are considered to be official records of publication and generally attract th e majority of the scientific a nd media attention. At the point of online publication, the Douglass et al. paper wa s considered to be a legitimate contribution to the literature, which is why the ye ar of citation is 2007 while the year of citation for the Santer et al. paper is 2008. Thus, Peabody Energy’s argu ment that the Douglass et al. paper was “improperly delayed” and S outheastern Legal Foundation’s argument that “the normal conventions of the peer review process appear to have been compromised” are without merit;

39when it was published online, Douglass et al. were “on the record” as part of the peer-reviewed

academic literatu re.

The decision of IJC editor Glenn McGregor to delay the print publication of Douglass et al. and expedite the review of Santer et al. so that they would be published simultaneously was motivated by McGregor’s desire to “correct the scientific record 17 ” after the editor became aware of problems with the Douglass et al. paper. Santer had made the case for doing so when he e-mailed Tim Osborne at IJC stating his conditions for submittal on January 10, 2008—which the petitioner did not include in its summary of events:

IJC published a paper with egregious statistical errors. Douglass et al. was essentially a commentary on work by myself and colleagues—work that had been previously published in Science in 2005 and in Chapter 5 of the first U. S. CCSP Report in 2006. To my knowledge, none

of the authors or co-authors of the Santer et al. Science paper or of CCSP 1.1 Chapter 5 were used as reviewers of Douglass et al. I am assuming that, when he submitted his paper to IJC, Douglass specifically requested that certain scientists shoul d be excluded from the review process. Such an approach is not defensible for a paper which is largely a comment on previously-published work.

It would be fair and reasonable to give IJC the opportunity to “set the record straight”, and correct the harm they have done by publication of Douglass et al. I use the word “harm” advisedly. The author and coauthors of the Douglass et al. IJC pape r are using this paper to argue that “Nature, not CO2, rules the climate”, and that the findings of Douglass et al. invalidate the “discernible human influence” conclusions of previous nati onal and international scientific assessments.

Quick publication of a response to Douglass et al . in IJC would go some way towards setting the record straight. I am troubled, however, by the very real possibility that Douglass et al. will have the last word on this subject. In my opinion (b ased on many years of interaction with these guys), neither Douglass, Christy or Singer are capable of admitting that their paper contained serious

scientific errors. Their “last word” will be an attempt to obfuscate rather than illuminate. They are not interested in improving our scientific understanding of the nature and causes of recent changes in atmospheric temperature. They are sole ly interested in advancing their own agendas. It is telling and troubling that Douglass et al . ignored radiosonde data showing substantial warming of the tropical troposphere—data that we re in accord with model results—even though such data were in their possession. Such behaviour constitutes intellectual dishonesty. I strongly believe that leaving these guys the last word is inherently unfair. 18

Given Santer’s serious scientific concerns about the substance of the Douglass et al. paper, as well as the process for publishing it, McGregor clearly felt it was his prerogative as the journal editor to accept Santer’s request for a quick turn-around and inclus ion as a new submission. This is demonstrated by the e-mail cited by the petition er in which Osborne says to Santer on January 11, 2008:

17 E-mail file 1199999668.txt, (January 10, 2008), page 1427, line 43 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf

18 E-mail file 1200076878.txt, (January 11, 2008), page 1433, line 18 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf

40just heard back from Glenn. He’s prepared to treat it as a new submission rather than a comment on Douglass et al. and he also reiterates that “Need less to say my offer of a quick turn around

time etc still stands.” 19

The petitioner is correct that the publication of Santer as a new submission, rather than a comment gave Santer the last wo rd on the subject in that partic ular issue of the journal. However, as stated above, Santer had made clear to IJC “Douglass et al. should have the opportunity to respond to our cont ribution.” As discussed in Volume 1, Section 1.2.1.2, we note that to date, Douglass et al. have not published a peer reviewed rebut tal to Santer et al.’s study or

other literature on the issu e, although they have had ample time to do so.

In summary, the evidence does not suggest and no logical conclusion can be drawn that two papers being printed simultaneou sly “tainted the materials on which the Agency now seeks to rely” or challenges the key conclusions of the totali ty of scientific literature on the issue of an anthropogenic fingerprint in the tropics—as discussed in Volume 1, Section 1.2.1.2. Peabody Energy makes no arguments that the scientific re asoning or conclusions in the Santer et al. (2008) paper were inappropriate in any way, and instead draws broad, unsupported conclusions solely based on the timing of the various articles, wh ich is irrelevant to their scientific merit.

Various additional allegations of misconduct on th e part of Santer and colleagues from Peabody Energy are discussed in several subs equent responses in this section.

Comment (3-17) : Peabody Energy states that Glenn McGregor, editor of IJC, intended to:

....identify in “advance reviewers who are both suitabl e and available [to review the Santer et al. submission],” perhaps including “someone on the email list you’ve been using.” 20

It concludes “this appears to be a flagrant abuse of the review process, where reviewers are not permitted to be close associates of the author.”

Response (3-17) : It is standard practice when submitting a journa l article for journal editors to request from authors a list of appropriate reviewers. Revi ewers should not be direc tly contributing to the research of the authors, but may be colleagues who are experts on matters related to the subject and/or have published on related work.

As a matter of fact, Tim Osborn, an editor at IJC, stated criteria for suggest ing co-authors in an e-mail (partially cited by Peabody Energy):

Obviously one reviewer could be someone w ho is already familiar with this discussion,

because that would enable a fast review - i.e., someone on the email list you’ve been using - though I don’t know which of these people you will be asking to be co-authors

19 E-mail file 1200076878.txt, (January 11, 2008), page 1433, line 9 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf

20 E-mail file 1200076878.txt, (January 11, 2008), page 1434, line 25 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf

41and hence which won’t be available as possible reviewers. For objectivity the other reviewer would need to be independent , but you could still suggest suitable names. 21

And, in fact, on January 11, 2008, Santer submitted a list of names to Tim Osborn, with the following preface:

Here are some suggestions for potential review ers of a Santer et al. IJoC submission on issues related to the consistency between m odeled and observed atmospheric temperature

trends. None of the suggested reviewers have b een involved in the recent “focus group” that has discussed problems with the Douglass et al. IJoC paper. 22

Thus, Peabody Energy’s allegation of “flagrant abus e of the review proces s” is not supported.

Comment (3-18) : Peabody Energy states:

On January 10, 2008, Jones told the team [i .e. many of the scientists Santer and his colleagues corresponded with on this issue] (Wig ley, K. Taylor, Lanzante, Mears, Bader, Zwiers, Wentz, Haimberger, Free, MacCrack en, Jones, Sherwood, Klein, Solomon, Thorne, Osborn, Schmidt, and Hack) a “secret ” he had learned from Osborn: that one of the recipients on the Santer e-mail list was one of the original reviewers of Douglass et al. (2007) who did not reject the article.

The problem !! The person who said they would leave it to the editor’s discretion is on your email list! I don’t know who it is - Tim does - maybe they have told you? I don’t want to put pressure on Tim. He doesn’t know I’m sending this. It isn’t me by the way - nor Tim ! Tim said it was someone who

hasn’t contributed to the discussion - which does narrow the possibilities down! 23

Response (3-18) : The petitioner excerpts this e-mail with no comment as it to its significanc e or implications. It appears to be simply an example of scientists , in a private communica tion, trying to determine who among them might have approv ed publication of a paper (i.e., Douglass et al.) that many of

them felt was substandard. It has no demonstrated relevance to the integrit y of the publication of the Santer et al. paper or the underlying science.

Comment (3-19) : Peabody Energy claims that this statement in an e-mail from Osborn to Santer and Jones on January 11, 2008 demonstrates “the impropriety of the situation” in which the Douglass et al. paper publication is delayed:

21 E-mail file 1199999668.txt, (January 10, 2008), page 1428, line 4 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf

22 E-mail file 1200059003.txt, (January 11, 2008), page 1432, line 17 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf

23 E-mail file 1199999668.txt, (January 10, 2008), page 1427, line 9 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf

42the only thing I didn’t want to make more generally known was the suggestion that print publication of Douglass et al. might be delayed ... all other aspects of this discussion are

unrestricted. 24

Response (3-19) : The petitioner does not explain why it is improper or of any scientific relevance that Osborn, an editor of IJC, would want to keep quiet the possibility that the print publicati on of Douglass et al. might be delayed. It is also not clear why Osborn wanted to keep it quiet. Instead of arguing the merits of the science, the petitioner relies inst ead on speculation of motivations. There is not material evidence of “impropriety.”

As stated in our response (3-16) above, the electronic version of Douglass et al.—an official record of the publication—had been av ailable to the public for months

Comment (3-20) : Peabody Energy ends its narrative discussion of th is issue by referencing a series of e-mails composed during the Santer et al. paper review process, suggesting the jo urnal editor, McGregor,

had made efforts to “accommodate” Santer:

McGregor informed Santer that he had recei ved one set of comments and though he “... would normally wait for all comments to come in before providing them to you, I thought in this case I would give you a head start in your preparation of revisions.” 25 Later, Santer wrote to Jones on July 10, 2008, thatthe two subsequent reviews were in, but

reviewer number two was “somewhat crankier.” 26 Santer indicated that McGregor had

told him that he would not resend the co ming revised manuscript to the “crankier” reviewer in another apparent effort by McGregor to accommodate Santer. 27

Response (3-20) : The petitioner does not explain w hy or how McGregor’s actions ar e relevant to the scientific legitimacy of Santer et al.’s study. First, the petitioner does not demonstrate how McGregor providing Santer et al. with one reviewer’s comments before the other two has any effect on the substance of Santer’s study or the legitimacy of the review process. The following e-mail from

Santer to his co-autho rs on April 24, 2008, details how seriously Santer considered the comments from this first reviewer and discusses at length Santer’s initial thoughts on how to be responsive:

Dear folks,

I’m forwarding an email from Prof. Glenn McGregor, the IJoC editor who is handling our paper.
The email contains the comments of Reviewer #1, and notes that comments from two additional

24 E-mail file 1200076878.txt, (January 11, 2008), page 1433, line 13 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf

25 E-mail file 1209080077.txt, (April 24, 2008), page 1484, line 23 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf

26 E-mail file 1215712600.txt, (July 10 , 2008), page 1536, line 12 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf

27 E-mail file 1215712600.txt, (July 10 , 2008), page 1536, line 12 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf

43Reviewers will be available shortly. Reviewer #1 read the paper very thoroughly, and makes a

number of useful comments. The Reviewer al so makes some comments that I disagree with.

The good news is that Reviewer #1 begins hi s review (I use this personal pronoun because I’m pretty sure I know the Reviewer’s identity!) by affi rming the existence of serious statistical errors in DCPS07 [Douglass, Christy, Pearson, and Singer, 2007]

“I’ve read the paper under review, and also DCPS07, and I think the present authors are entirely correct in their main point. DCPS07 failed to account for the sampling variability in the individual model trends and, especially, in the ob servational trend. This was, as I see it, a clearcut statistical error, and the authors deserve th e opportunity to present their counter-argument in print.”

Reviewer #1 has two major concerns about our statistical analysis. Here is my initial reaction to

these concerns.

CONCERN #1: Assumption of an AR-1 [autoregressive] model for regression residuals.

In calculating our “adjusted” standard errors, we assume that the persistence of the regression residuals is well-described by an AR-1 model. This assumption is not unique to our analysis, and has been made in a number of other investigati ons. The Reviewer would “like to see at least some sensitivity check of the standard error formula against alternative model assumptions .” Effectively, the Reviewer is asking whether a more complex time series model is required to describe the persistence.

Estimating the order of a more complex AR model is a tricky business. Typically, something like the BIC (Bayesian Information Criterion) or AIC (Akaike Information Criterion) is used to do

this. We could, of course, use the BIC or AIC to estimate the order of the AR model that best fits the regression residuals. This would be a non-trivia l undertaking. I think we would find that, for different time series, we would obtain diffe rent estimates of the “best-fit” AR model. For example, 20c3m runs without volcanic forcing might yield a different AR model order than 20c3m runs with volcanic forcing. It’s also entirely likely (based on Rick ’ Katz’s experience with such AR model-fitting exercises) that th e AIC- and BIC-based estimates of the AR model

order could differ in some cases.

As the Reviewer himself points out, DCPS07 “ didn’t make any attempt to calculate the standard

error of individual trend estimates and this rema ins the major difference between the two papers .” In other words, our paired trends test incorpor ates statistical uncertainties for both simulated and

observed trends. In estimating these uncertainties, we account for non-independence of the regression residuals. In contrast, the DCPS07 tr end “consistency test” does not incorporate ANY

statistical uncertainties in either observed or si mulated trends. This difference in treatment of trend uncertainties is the primary issue. The issue of whether an AR-1 model is the most appropriate model to use for the purpose of calcu lating adjusted standard errors is really a subsidiary issue. My concern is that we could waste a lot of time looking at this issue, without really enlightening the reader about key differences between our significance testing procedure and the DCPS07 approach.

One solution is to calculate (for each model and observational time series used in our paper) the parameters of an AR(K) model, where K is the total number of time lags, and then apply equation 8.39 in Wilks (1995) to estimate the effective sample size. We could do this for several different

44K values (e.g., K=2, K=3, and K=4; we’ve already done the K=1 case). We could then very briefly mention the sensitivity of our “paired trend” test results to choice of order K of the AR

model. This would involve some work, but would be easier to explain than use of the AIC and BIC to determine, for each time series, the best-estimate of the order of the AR model.

CONCERN #2: No “attempt to combine data across model runs”

The Reviewer is claiming that none of our model- vs-observed trend tests made use of data that had been combined (averaged) across model runs. This is incorrect. In fact, our two modified versions of the DCPS07 test (page 29, equation 12 , and page 30, equation 13) both make use of

the multi-model ensemble-mean trend.

The Reviewer argues that our paired trends test should involve the ensemble-mean trends for each model (something which we have not done) rath er than the trends for each of 49 individual

20c3m realizations. I’m not sure whether the rationale for doing this is as “clear-cut” as the

Reviewer contends.

Furthermore, there are at least two different ways of performing the paired trends tests with the

ensemble-mean model trends. One way (which seems to be what the Reviewer is advocating) involves replacing in our equation (3) the standard error of the trend for an individual realization performed with model A with model A’s intra-ensemble standard deviation of trends. I’m a little concerned about mixing an estimate of the statistical uncertainty of the observed trend with an estimate of the sampling uncertainty of model A’s trend.

Alternately, one could use the average (over different realizations) of model A’s adjusted standard errors, or the adjusted standard erro r calculated from the ensemble-mean model A time

series. I’m willing to try some of these things, but I’m not sure how much they will enlighten the

reader. And they will not help to make an al ready-lengthy manuscript any shorter.

The Reviewer seems to be arguing that the main advantage of his approach #2 (use of ensemblemean model trends in significance testing) relative to our paired trends test (his approach #1) is that non-independence of tests is less of an issue w ith approach #2. I’m not sure whether I agree. Are results from tests involving GFDL CM2.0 and GFDL CM2.0 temperature data truly “independent” given that both models were fo rced with the same historical changes in anthropogenic and natural external forcings? The same concerns apply to the high- and lowresolution versions of the MIROC model, the GISS models, etc.

I am puzzled by some of the comments the Reviewer has made at the top of page 3 of his review. I guess the Reviewer is making these comments in th e context of the pair-wise tests described on page 2. Crucially, the comment that we should use “...t he standard error if testing the average model trend” (and by “standard error” he means ’ DCPS07’s sigma{SE}) IS INCONSISTENT

with the Reviewer’s approach #3, which involves use of th e inter-model standard deviation in testing the average model trend.

And I disagree with the Reviewer’s comments regarding the superfluous nature of Section 6. The Reviewer states that, “when simulating from a known (statistical) model... the test statistics should by definition give the correct answer. The whole point of Section 6 is that the DCPS07 consistency test does NOT give the correct answ er when applied to randomly-generated data!

45In order to satisfy the Reviewer’s curiosity, I’m perfectly willing to repeat the simulations described in Section 6 with a higher-order AR model. However, I don’t like the idea of simulation of synthetic volcanoes, etc. This w ould be a huge time sink, and would not help to illustrate or clarify the statistical mistakes in DCPS07.

It’s obvious that Reviewer #1 has put a substantia l amount of effort into reading and commenting on our paper (and even performing some simple simulations). I’m grateful for the effort and the
constructive comments, but feel that a number of comments are off-base. Am I misinterpreting

the Reviewer’s comments?

With best regards,

Ben 28

As evidenced by this detailed a nd substantive scientific discu ssion of the reviewers comments, Santer treated the peer review pr ocess seriously and focused carefu lly on the scientific merits of the reviewer’s comments. Petitioners, however, have raised no scientific arguments or objections, and instead rely solely on speculation concerning motivations.

Concerning the second review, th e petitioner does not discuss w hy McGregor’s decision not to send Santer’s revised manuscript back to the s econd reviewer is an ac commodation or somehow irregular. Santer’s e-mail to his co-authors about the sec ond reviewer’s comments simply indicates that McGregor—as j ournal editor—had communicated to Santer that he was not sending the next draft of the manuscript back to this reviewer. The CRU e-mails do not explain McGregor’s reasoning, and the peti tioner relies on speculation.

Although Santer was told the second reviewer would not see the manuscript again, he was diligent in describing to McGregor why one of the second reviewer’s cr iticisms was not of

central relevance. Santer wrot e to McGregor on July 10, 2008:

Dear Glenn,

I thought you might be interested in this em ail exchange with Francis Zwiers [one of
Santer’s co-authors]. It’s directly relevant to the third criticism raised by Reviewer 2.

With best regards,

Ben 29

Santer attached a detailed, highly technical discussion from Zwiers pertaining to this third criticism and his response to Zwiers in which he stated his agreement.

Thanks - this information will be extremely he lpful in responding to Reviewer 2. I really do feel that the Reviewer is getting overly exercised about a relatively minor technical point. 30

28 E-mail file 1209080077.txt, (April 24, 2008), page 1482, line 1 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf

29 E-mail file 1215713915.txt, (July 10 , 2008), page 1537, line 25 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf

46To summarize, the petitioner does not substantiate any im proper procedures on the part of either Santer or McGregor in this process, nor does the petitione r present any scientific basis to question the scientific validity of the analysis and conclusions contained in the Santer et al. (2008) paper.

Comment (3-21) : Peabody Energy states that it appears that Glenn McGregor, editor of IJC, breached confidentiality obligations by di sclosing the page proofs of Dougl ass et al. (2007) to New York Times reporter Andrew Revkin, who then disclo sed them to Santer and two other unnamed scientists a week before initial publication online. The petitioner makes a general claim that “use

of confidential information” should cause EPA to question Santer et al .’s work. Peabody Energy quotes Revkin’s e-mail: “Sorry to take your time up, but really do need a scrub of singer/christy/etc effort.” 31

Response (3-21) : It is customary for journals to provide embargoe d versions of articles to journalists prior to publication. Thus, it does not appear that confidentiality was breached by McGregor. Furthermore, the petitioner does not discuss how the alleged breach of confidentiality bears on the legitimacy of the publication pr ocess of either the Douglass et al . or Santer et al. papers, or on the scientific validity of the analyses and concussion in either paper. Our evaluation of the scientific issues involved with the Douglass and Santer papers is provide d in Volume 1, Section

1.2.1.2 of this RTP document.

Petitioners’ evidence does not support their claim that the journal publication process was manipulated or improper, nor do the petitioners provide any other evidence that would cause EPA to question the conclusions drawn about the scie ntific merits of the i ssues involved in these

papers.

Comment (3-22) : Peabody Energy argues that Mich ael Mann and Kevin Trenberth (of the National Center for Atmospheric Research) improperly sought special treatment to get their comment (Foster et al. 2010) on a paper by McLean et al. ( 2009) published immediately in the Journal of Geophysical

Research . According to the petitioner, their imprope r actions included violating the journal’s policy that reviewers recommende d by the authors could not be th eir close associates, and giving a copy of their manuscript to Michael McPhaden , president of the American Geophysical Union (AGU), which publishes the journal. The petitio ner concludes that these examples provide evidence that “peer-review publi cation rules” were manipulated in an attempt to favor publication of supporting views of anthropogenic climate change. Peabody Energy argues that the Endangerment Finding should be reconsidered because it relied on biased peer-reviewed

literature that does not reflect th e true breadth of the science.

30 E-mail file 1215713915.txt, (July 10 , 2008), page 1538, line 18 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf

31 E-mail file 119679584 4.txt, (December 4, 2007). pa ge 1360, line 4 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf

47Response (3-22) : First, we note that McLean et al. (2009) wa s published on July 23, 2009, and Foster et al. (2010) was published about 10 months later on May 14, 2010. This fact alone refutes the petitioner’s claim that there was any “special treatment” that resulted in immediate publication of Foster et al. (2010). Furthermore, the peti tioner’s argument does not discuss the merits of the science in either paper, or any alleged harm to the Mc Lean et al. (2009) pape r resulting from the publication of Foster et al. (2010). It is well within the norms of the scientific community to write and attempt to publish rebuttals to published journal articles if one can demonstrate that there are scientific insufficiencies. Responses ca n be submitted either as separate manuscripts or as “comments” on a given paper. There is no cred ible evidence to suggest that the authors of Foster et al. (2010) overstepped the bounds of common practice in submitting their response and asking that it be reviewed expeditiously. In addition, the petitioner makes an unsubstantiated assumption that the reviewers suggested by the author s of Foster et al. (2010) would be biased in favor of the paper. There is no evidence to support the petitioner’s claim that these

recommended reviewers would be unable or un willing to provide objective critique of a manuscript. Ultimately, any decisions as to the timing of review, the selection of peer reviewers, and whether and when a paper is published are sole ly the responsibility of the journal editor.

This example does not support the petitioner’s argument that the journal publication process was manipulated, nor does the petitione r provide any other evidence that would cause EPA to change

its view on the scientific issues involved in these papers. Peti tioner has failed to provide any arguments based on the science.

To summarize Section 3.3.3, petitioners argue that the scientific record for the Endangerment Finding is biased because of improper practices in publication of certain j ournal articles. Their evidence is limited to only a few articles. They focus on claims of when the hard copy of one article was published, as well as changes in the ed itorial board at one journal. Their claims of improper practices are broad and sweeping, but are not supported by the evidence they present. Their claims are based largely on speculation, and th ey fail to provide any sc ientific argument to contest the scientific analysis or conclusions of the articles they object to. They fail to show improper action, whether for the articles at issue or more broadly. They fail provide a basis to question EPA’s views on the scientific issues involved in the papers.

3.3.4 Allegations Regarding Efforts to Remove Editors and Boycott Journals

Comment (3-23) : The Coalition for Responsible Regulation, the Ohio Coal Association, Peabody Energy, the Southeastern Legal Foundation, and the State of Texas argue that the CRU e-mail authors threatened to boycott the journal Climate Research and endeavored to have one of its editors, Chris de Freitas, removed because the jour nal had published a paper by Soon and Baliunas (2003) with which that they di d not agree. The Southeastern Legal Foundation asserts that

“After Messrs. Jones and Mann th reatened a boycott of publications and reviews, half of the

editorial board of Climate Research resigned.” Peabody Energy claims that “[i]n response to these protests, wholesale changes were made in the editorial staff at Climate Research.” The State of Texas argues that when “the group learned that Climate Research planned to publish so48called skeptical literature, the cl imatologists respo nded less like objective scientists eager to let the science determine the answer, and more like activists working to advance their preferred result.” The Southeastern Legal Foundation claims that this is an example of “a concerted effort to purge dissenting views from the scientific literature.” The Pacific Legal Foundation also references this example, stating that the CRU e-ma ils “...appear to show attempts to ‘discipline’ scientists and journalists who published skeptical information.” The petitioners quote a number of CRU e-mails in support of their arguments.

More specifically, the Ohio Coal Association and Peabody Energy quote a statement from Phil Jones: “I will be e-mailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they

rid themselves of this troublesome editor. 32 ” The Southeastern Le gal Foundation and Peabody Energy quote the following e-mail from Michael Mann:

I think we have to stop considering ‘Climate Resear ch’ as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. 33

Peabody Energy quotes an e-mail from Tom Wigle y, characterizing his words as “urging a fullscale assault on the editorial board”:

PS Re CR [ Climate Research ], I do not know the best way to handle the specifics of the editoring [sic]. Hans von Storch [another editor at Climate

Research ] is partly to blame -- he encourag es the publication of crap science ‘in order to stimulate debate’. One approach is to go direct to the publishers and point out the fact that their journal is perc eived as being a medium for disseminating misinformation under the guise of refereed work. I use the word ‘perceived’ here, since whether it is true or not is not what the publishers care about -- it is how the journal is seen by the community that counts.

I think we could get a large group of highly credentialed scientists to sign such a letter -- 50+ people. Note that I am c opying this view only to Mike Hulme and Phil Jones. Mike’s idea to get editorial board members to resign will probably not work -- must get rid of von Storch too, otherwise holes will eventually fill up with people like Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Michaels, Singer, etc. I have heard that the publishers are not happy with von Storch, so the above approach might remove that

hurdle too 34 .”

Peabody Energy then quotes a st atement from th e publisher of Climate Research , Otto Kinne, which attempts to defend de Freitas’ deci sion to publish the So on and Baliunas paper:

32 E-mail file 1047388489.txt, (March 11 , 2003), page 456, line 30 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf

33 E-mail file 1047388489.txt, (March 11 , 2003), page 457, line 13 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf

34 E-mail file 1051190249.txt, (April 24, 2003), page 488, line 11 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf.

49Dear colleagues, In my [June, 20 2003] e-mail to you I stated, among other things, that I would ask C[limate] R[esear ch] editor Chris de Freitas to present to me copies of the reviewers’ evaluations for the 2 Soon et al. papers. I have received and studied the material requested. Conclusions: 1) The reviewers consulted (4 for each ms) by the editor presented detailed, critical and helpful

evaluations. 2) The editor properly analyzed the evaluations and requested appropriate revisions. 3) The authors revised their manuscripts accordingly. Summary: Chris de Freitas has done a good and correct job as editor. 35

As further evidence of the CRU e-mail authors’ protests against this editor and journal, Peabody Energy quotes Mann’s response that Kinne’s word s were “disingenuous” and said “I think that the community should, as previous ly suggested in this eventualit y, terminate its involvement with this journal at all levels--re viewing, editing, and submitting, and leave it to wither way into oblivion and disrepute.” 36

Peabody Energy then quotes Wigley’s response: “I agree that Kinne seems like he could be a deFreitas clone. However, what would be our legal position if we were to openly and extensively tell people to avoid the journal?” 37 The petitioner also quotes Santer’s response: “Based on Kinne’s editorial, I see little hope for more en lightened editorial decision making at Climate Research. Tom, Richard Smith and I will eventually publish a rebuttal to the Douglass et al. paper. We’ll publish this rebuttal in JGR - not in Climate Research.” 38

The petitioner concludes that these e-mails provide evidence that the e-mail authors interfered with journal editorial boards in an attempt to suppress publication of dissenting views about anthropogenic climate change. Peabody Energy argues that the Endangerment Finding should be reconsidered because it relied on biased peer-revi ewed literature that does not reflect the true

breadth of the science.

Response (3-23) : The context to the petitioners’ arguments is the Soon and Baliuna s (2003) paper published in the journal Climate Research . This paper was subsequently heavily and broadly criticized by the scientific community in peer-r eviewed journals. A scientific rebuttal to Soon and Baliunas (2003) was published in the AGU journal Eos (Mann et al., 2003).

The publication of this paper revealed pr oblems with the peer review process at Climate

Research , which eventually resulted in the resigna tion of three people on the editorial board when they could not come to an agreement with the publisher on how to revamp the peer-review process in the wake of the c ontroversy (Kinne, 2003). Petitio ners assume that because the resignations occurred after the CRU e-mail auth ors threatened to boycott the journal, the

35 E-mail file 1057941657.txt, (July 11, 2003), page 546, line 13 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf.

36 E-mail file 1057941657.txt (July 11, 2003), page 547, line 18 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf

37 E-mail file 1057941657.txt (July 11, 2003), page 547, line 12 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf

38 E-mail file 1057941657.txt (July 11, 2003), page 547, line 1 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf

50resignations must be a result of that threat. However, Climate Research publisher Otto Kinne

later admitted in a statem ent published in the journal that the Soon and Baliunas paper was flawed and should not have been published, expre ssed regret that the j ournal had lost three editors due to the controversy, and promised to strengthen the journals ’ peer review policies (Kinne, 2003). Thus, the petiti oners’ claims that it was the ac tions of the CRU e-mail authors that resulted in changes to the editorial board of Climate Research are without merit.

It is clear from the quoted e-mails that the CRU sc ientists and their collea gues believed that there was a failure of the peer review process at Climate Research that allowed a scientifically flawed paper to be published. Subsequent events have demonstrated that their views were justified; as shown by the publication of Mann et al.’s (2003) scientific rebuttal. It is not inappropriate or uncommon for scientists to challenge the validity of each ’others work. It is well within the norms of the scientific community to write a nd publish comments or responses and otherwise challenge published journal ar ticles if one can demonstrate that there are scientific insufficiencies. Such challenges are indeed esse ntial to the progress of science. The critical issue is that such challenges should be focused on scientific and factual grounds. The scientists reacted reasonably by pub lishing a rebuttal to the Soon and Ba liunas paper in a different peerreviewed journal (Mann et al., 2003).

Science is a community-based prof essional enterprise in which it is expected and appropriate that researchers choose in which journals to publish, as well as recommend to th eir peers journals in which to publish or not publish. In this case, the bottom line is that the underlying science at

issue has been shown to be flawed. The scientists ’ actions were focused on this lack of scientific merit and the process that lead to it, and not an attempt to distor t the science or the scientific literature. We disagree with the petitioner’ s claim that the CRU e-mail authors acted like “activists” and not like scientists. Their focus was clearly on the scientific merits of the study at

issue and the scientific in tegrity of the peer review process. There is no evidence to suggest that the CRU e-mail authors were attempting to manipulate the peer-reviewed lit erature. If anything, their actions aimed to police the peer review process and rectify a problem that threatened its scientific integrity.

We also note that the e-mails cited by the petiti oner are simply statements of displeasure, not indications that any actions were undertaken. It is legitimate a nd entirely reasonable that these scientists expressed thei r opinions about a situation that conc erned them. There is no evidence that the CRU e-mail authors engaged in any actions that were unethical, or otherwise outside the norms of scientific practice. Moreover, there ar e hundreds of journals rele vant to climate science and many editors at each, so to claim that any change in the editorial board at one journal

somehow biased the vast wealth of climate cha nge studies or called into question the overall

conclusions reached from those thousands of papers is unwarranted and unsupported.

Comment (3-24) : The State of Texas and the Coalition for Res ponsible Regulation claim that the CRU e-mail authors sought to remove an editor from Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) because they did not agree with his views on climate science. They quote the following e-mail from Tom Wigley:

This is truly awful. GRL has gone dow nhill rapidly in recent years...Proving bad behavior here is very difficult. If you think that [the objectionable editor] is in the

51greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can fi nd documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted. 39

The Pacific Legal Foundation also references this example, stating that the CRU e-mails “...appear to show attempts to ‘discipline’ sc ientists and journalist s who published skeptical information.” The State of Texas argues that th e CRU e-mail authors’ language reflects an “us versus them” attitude more commonly associated with legal advocacy or team sports than the scientific method. The petitioner quotes an e- mail from Michael Mann: “What a shame that would be. It’s one thing to lose ‘Climate Research’ [sic]. We can’t afford to lose GRL.”

The State of Texas states that “Wigley’s goal of removing the editor” was successful, quoting a statement from Pat Michaels of the Cato Institute, who said that the depart ure of the GRL editor, James Saiers, “coincided with Mann, Wigley, and Dr. Jones’s plan to ‘get him ousted’” [Michaels, 2009a]. The State of Texas and th e Coalition for Responsible Regulation also quote

an e-mail from Michael Mann: “the GRL leak ma y have been plugged up now w/ new editorial leadership there.” 40

The petitioners conclude that these e-mails provide evidence that their authors interfered with journal editorial boards in an attempt to suppress publication of dissenting views about anthropogenic climate change. The petitioners argue that the Endangerment Finding should be reconsidered because it relied on biased peer-revi ewed literature that does not reflect the true

state of the science.

Response (3-24) : First, we note that there is no evidence that a ny actions by the CRU e-mail authors were taken or they resulted in the dismissal or replacement of th e editor, and there is also no evidence that they took inappropriate actions. The e-mails show the scientists discussing pl ans to record evidence of potential political bias by one of the journal’s editors. Michael Mann states, “If there is a clear body of evidence that somethin g is amiss, it could be take n through the proper channels” 41 The e-mails depict scientists’ reaction to what they belie ved was bias within the p eer review process.

Again, petitioners assume that because the resi gnation occurred after the CRU e-mail authors talked among themselves, it must be a result of actions by the e-mail authors. This claim is unsupported by any evidence provided by the petitioners, however, and they do not show that the scientists engaged in improper behavior or claimed sabotage of the journal or its editors. There is also no evidence that any acti on by the scientists resulted in the replacement of the journal editor. To the contrary, we note that the GR L editor in question was James Saiers, who was quoted in an article in the Guardian newspaper saying simply that “his three-year term was up” (Pearce, 2010). Saiers also stated, “My departur e had nothing to do with attempts by Wigley or

39 E-mail file 1106322460.txt (January 20, 2005), page 80 9, line 14 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf

40 E-mail file 1132094873.txt, (November 15, 2005), page 989, line 25 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf

41 E-mail file 1106322460.txt, (January 20, 2005), page 809, line 7 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf

52anyone else to have me sacked...nor was I censure d, as I have seen suggested on a blog posting written by McKitrick.” Thus, it app ears that Saiers left voluntarily when his term ended, and that his departure was unrelated to any actions of the CRU e-mail authors.

As stated in our previous respons e (3-23), it is not unethical or inappropriate for scientists to challenge or oppose—on scientific and factual grounds—the actions of a journal editor that approved the publication of research that they believe is flawed. Ju st as they were concerned for editorial integrity at Climate Research , the CRU scientists and thei r colleagues were concerned about what they viewed as a failure of the peer review process at GRL. The evidence does not suggest that the CRU e-mail authors were attemp ting to manipulate the peer-reviewed literature, nor that they engaged in any actions that were unethical or otherwise outside the norms of scientific practice. Moreover, there are hundreds of journals relevant to climate science and many editors at each, so to claim that any change in the editorial board at one journal somehow

biased the vast wealth of clim ate change studies or called into question the overall conclusions reached from those thousands of papers is unwarranted and unsupported.

Comment (3-25) : The Coalition for Responsible Regu lation claims that the CRU e-mails show that Phil Jones and

Ben Santer “went over the head of the editor of Weather , with Jones thre atening the Royal Meteorological Society [RMS] Chief Executive th at he would no longer submit information to Royal Meteorological Society journals if the Weather editor refused to ‘back down’ [1237496573.txt].” The Coalition for Responsible Re gulation provides no additional context for this exchange, but claims that it is another ex ample of the CRU scientists and their colleagues interfering with the editorial boards of scientific journals in order to publish only those papers that agreed with their positions.

The petitioners conclude that these e-mails provide evidence that their authors interfered with journal editorial boards in an attempt to favor publication of papers that supported their views about anthropogenic climate change. The petitioners argue that the Endangerment Finding

should be reconsidered because it relied on biased peer-reviewed literature that does not reflect

the true breadth of the science.

Response (3-25) : From our review of the CRU e-mails, the context for the petitioner’s quo te is that Phil Jones submitted a paper with fellow CRU scientist David Lister on urban heat islands (UHI) to the journal Weather— i.e., Jones and Lister (2009). Contrary to what the petitioner implies, Ben Santer was not involved with the paper; he simply received an e-mail about it from Jones. It appears that Jones received comm ents back from the editor at Weather with which he did not agree. Jones states:

I’ve written up the London paper for the RMS jour nal Weather, but having trouble with

their new editor. He’s coming up with the same naive comments that these responders

are. He can’t understand that London has a UHI of X, but that X has got no bigger since

1900. 42

42 E-mail file 1237474374.txt, (March 19 , 2009), page 1647, line 37 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf

53In another e-ma il, Jones states:

In my 2 slides worth at Bethesda I will be showing London’s UHI and the effect that it

hasn’tgot any bigger since 1900. It’s easy to do with 3 long time series. It is only one urban site (St James Park), but that is where the measurements are from. Heathrow has a bit of a UHI and it has go[t] bigger. I’m having a dispute with the new editor of

Weather. I’ve complained about him to the RMS Chief Exec. If I don’t get him to back
down, I won’t be sending any more papers to any RMS journals and I’ll be resigning

from the RMS. The paper is about London and its UHI! 43

First, we note that the science of UHIs and their relationship to climate change is addressed in Volume 1, Section 1.3.4 of this RTP document. However, the petitioner does not argue based on the scientific information presented in the manus cript in question, which wa s eventually accepted and published in Weather (Jones and Lister, 2009). Rather, the petitioner take s issue with the fact that Jones complained about the editor and made statements about boycotting the journal in the future, which the petitioner claims is evidence that Jones inappropriately interfered with the peer review and pub lication process at Weather . Phil Jones is within hi s rights as a scientist and author to choose the journals to which he submits his papers. We disagree with the petitioner that Jones’ statements constitute “interference” or inappropriate action.

The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review examined this genera l issue and reached a

similar conclusion:

In conclusion, it is common for editors to have multiple, intense, and sometimes sharp and passionate interactions with authors and reviewers. The tone of their exchanges and communications with editors can be attacking, accusatory, aggressive, and even personal. If a research paper is especially controversial a nd word of it is circulating in a particular scientific community, third-party scientists or critics with an interest in the work may get to hear of it and decide to contact the journa l. They might wish to warn or encourage editors. This kind of intervention is entirely normal. It is the task of editors to weigh up the passionate opinions of authors and reviewers, and to reflect on the comments (and motivations) of third parties.

This example does not support the petitioner’s ar guments that the journal publication process was manipulated.

To summarize Section 3.3.4, petitioners’ evidence does not support their clai ms that the journal publication process was improperly influenced. Their evidence shows sc ientists with strong scientific opinions on th e scientific merits of various pape rs, and opinions about the scientific integrity of the peer review pro cess at certain journals. It appe ars that in one case the journal determined that mistakes had been made in publis hing a flawed paper. In another case an editor resigned and publicly stated it ha d nothing to do with the scientis ts that petitioners point to.

43 E-mail file 1237496573.txt, (March 19 , 2009), page 1649, line 21 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf

54Petitioners’ broad, sweeping conclu sions about improper actions by the scientists are speculative and not supported by the evidence.

As in other claims discussed above , petitioners do not base their claims on scientific arguments. They do not argue that the scien tists at issue here were wrong in their scientific analyses or conclusions, or in their critiques of other studies. They do not pr ovide evidence of any scientific paper or research that was not but should have been published. Their broad claim that EPA relied upon a body of peer reviewed literature that was biased and di d not reflect th e true breadth of the science is not supported by the evidence they present. Th eir assertions are not based on any scientific arguments or evidence, but instead rely upon unwarranted speculation.

3.3.5 Allegations Regarding Objectivity of the Peer-Reviewed Literature

Comment (3-26) : Peabody Energy argues that “Michael Mann and his collaborators engaged in a decade-long campaign of preventing dissenting scientific voi ces from being heard.” Peabody Energy states that one of Mann’s former collaborators, Ra ymond Bradley, disassociated himself from comments made to the editor of the journal Science after it published a paper with which Mann disagreed. Peabody Energy quotes part of an e-mail written by Bradley on April 19, 1999 to the

editor at Science :

As for thinking that it is “Better that nothing appear, than something unacceptable to us”...as though we are the gatekeepers of all that is acceptable in the world of paleoclimatology seems amaz ingly arrogant. Science moves forward whether we agree with individual articles or not. 44

Peabody Energy asserts that in the end, Mann and his colleagues acted as gatekeepers to the peer-reviewed literature, in marked contrast to Mann’s stance in his 2009 le tter to the editor of The Wall Street Journal. Peabody Energy provi des the following excerpt from the letter:

Society relies upon the integrity of the scien tific literature to in form sound policy. It is thus a serious offense to compromise the peer-review system in such a way as to allow anyone—including proponents of climate change science—to promote

unsubstantiated claims and distortions [Mann, 2009].

Peabody Energy argues that the Endangerment Findi ng should be reconsidered because it relied on peer-reviewed literature that is biased in favor of views supporti ng anthropogenic climate change and does not reflect the true breadth of the science.

Response (3-26) : The petitioner quotes only one part of one e-mail from Bradley, and fails to provide the context for the incident they are desc ribing, which occurred more than 10 years ago. In context, it appears Mann is referring to specific language he objected to in a draft ar ticle he was reviewing for the journal Science . This drafting issue was later resolved to the satisfaction of the author of

44 E-mail file 0924532891.txt (April 19, 1999), page 155, line 16 of th e PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf

55the article, and does not indicate any attemp t to suppress opposi ng views or some “decades long” attempt to do so. To understand Mann’s statement in context, we include three relevant e-mails below, in full. The first is the full text of Bradley’s e-mail to the editor at Science , sent April 19,

1999. The second is an e-mail from Phil Jones to Michael Mann regard ing Mann’s reaction to

the draft article in Science , sent May 6, 1999. The third is an e-mail from Mann to Jones and others involved in writing, reviewing, or editing the draft article in Science , sent on May 12,

1999.

Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 10:06:52 -0400 To: juppenbrink@science-int.co.uk [editor at Science ] From: “Raymond S. Bradley” rbradley@geo.umass.edu Subject: Climate warming prespctives article Cc: mann@snow.geo.umass.edu, mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu

I have just returned from Finland and have now read all the correspondence regarding the Science perspectives article you asked Keith Briffa & Tim Osborn to write. I’ve sent Tim Osborn & Keith Briffa a few suggestions re their perspectives article. If you would like to see them, let me know. I would like to diasassociate myself from Mike Mann’s view that “xxxxxxxxxxx” [ original text x’ed out in released e-mails ] and that they “xxxxxxxxxxxxx” [ original text x’ed out in released e-mails ]. I find this notion quite absurd. I have worked with the UEA [Unive rsity of East Anglia] group for 20+ years and have great respect for them and for their work . Of course, I don’t agree with everything they write, and we often have long (but cordia l) arguments about what they think versus my views, but that is life. Indeed, I know that they have broad disagreements among themselves, so to refer to them as “the UE A group”, as though they all march in lock-step seems bizarre. As for thinking that it is “B etter that nothing appear, than something unnacceptable to us” .....as though we are the gate keepers of all that is acceptable in the world of paleoclimatology seems amazingly arrogant. Science moves forward whether we agree with individiual articles or not.... Sincerely, Raymond S. Bradley 45

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: Straight to the Point Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 17:37:34 +0100 Cc: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Mike, Just back from two weeks away and from discussions with Keith and Tim and some e-mails you seem quite pissed off with us all in CRU. I am somewhat at a loss to understand why. It is clear from the e-mails th at this relates to the emphasis placed on a few words/phrases in Keith/Tim’s Science piece. These may not be fully resolved but the piece comes out tomorrow. I don’t want to open more wounds but I might by the end of

the e-mail. I’ve not seen the censored e-mail that Ray has mentioned but this doesn’t, to my way of working, seem to be the way you should be responding - ie slanging us all off

45 E-mail file 0924532891.txt (April 19, 1999), page 155, line 16 of th e PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf.

56to Science. We are all trying to work together for the good of the ‘Science’. We have disagreements - Ray, Malcolm, Keith and me have in the past, but they get aired and eventually forgotten. We have never resorted to slanging one another off to a journal (as in this case) or in reviewing papers or proposals. You may think Keith or I have reviewed some of your papers but we have n’t. I’ve reviewed Ray’s and Malcolm’s - constructively I hope where I thought somethi ng could have been done better. I also know you’ve reviewed my paper w ith Gabi very constructively. So why all the beef now? Maybe it started with my Science piece last summer.

When asked to do this it was stressed to that I should discuss how your Nature paper fitted in to the current issues in paleoclimatology. This is what I thought I was doing. Julia Uppenbrink asked me to do the same with your GRL paper but I was too busy and passed it on to Keith. Again it seems a very reasoned comment. I would suspect that you’ve been unhappy about us coming out with a paper going back 1000 years only a few months after your Nature paper (back to 1400). Ray knew all

about this as he was one of the reviewers. Then the second Science comment has come out with a tentative series going back 2000 y ears. Both Science pieces give us a chance to discuss issues highly relevant to the ‘science’ , which is what we have both tried to do. Anyway that’s enough for now - I’ll see how you’ll respond, if at all. There are two things I’m going to say though: 1) Keith didn’t mention in his Science piece but both of us think that you’re on very dodgy ground with this long-term decline in temperatures on the 1000 year timescale. What the real world has done over the last 6000 years and what it ought to have done given our understanding of Milankovic forcing are two very different things. I don’t think the world was much warmer 6000 years ago - in a global sense compared to the average of the last 1000 years, but this is my opinion and I may change it given more

evidence. 2) The errors don’t include all the possible factors. Even though the tree-ring chronologies used have robust rbar statis tics for the whole 1000 years (ie they lose nothing because core numbers stay high thro ughout), they have lost low frequency because of standardization. We’ve all tried with RCS [regional curve standardized]/very stiff splines/hardly any detrending to keep this to a minimum, but until we know it is minimal it is still worth mentioning. It is better we (I mean all of us here) put the caveats in ourselves than let others put them in for us. 3) None of us here are trying to get material into IPCC. I’ve given you my input through the review of the chapter in Asheville. I may get a chance to see the whole thing again at some stage, but I won’t be worried if I don’t. I can’t think of a good ending, but hoping fo r a favourable response, so we can still work together. Cheers, Phil 46

From: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 13:00:09 -0400 (EDT) To: juppenbrink@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,

t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Cc: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

46 E-mail file 0926026654.txt (May 6, 1999), page 164 , line 18 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf.

57Dear all,

Thanks for working so hard to insure a fi nal product that was acceptable to all. I

think that Keith and Tim are to be commende d on a fine job w/ the final version of the Perspectives piece that appeared, and I thank Julia for her especially difficult editorial task. I appreciate having had the opportunity to respond to the original draft. I think this opportunity is very important in such cases (ie, where a particular author/groups work is the focus of a commentary by someone else), and hope that this would be considered standard procedure in the fu ture in such instances. I think we have some honest disagreements amonst us about some of the underlying issues, but these were fairly treated in the piece and that’s what is important (The choice of wording in the final version was much bette r too. Wording matters!). Thanks all for the hard work and a job well done. I like to think that may feedback helped here--so I take some pride here as well. best regards,

mike 47

We first note that the statement attributed to Michael Mann—“Better th at nothing appear, than something unacceptable to us”—is actually just inferred from Raymond Bradley’s email, which does not specifically identify Mann as the source of the quote. Regardless of its origin, however, the petitioner mischaracterizes and misinterpret s this statement attributed to Michael Mann by Bradley. The petitioner mistaken ly assumes that Mann was arguing that it would be better that nothing was published in the peer-r eviewed literature, rather th an dissenting viewpoints that

differed from his own. In actua lity, Mann was specifically commenting on a draft article written by Keith Briffa and Tim Osborn (Briffa and Osborn, 1999) for the journal Science . The Briffa

and Osborn article was comm issioned by an editor at Science and represents a review or synthesis, not original research. As the e-mails make clear, the background for their disagreement stems from a negative review of the Briffa and Osborn article that Mann sent to an

editor at Science . We do not have access to the re view Mann sent to the editor at Science

because it was not included in the released CRU e-mails, but it can be observed from other CRU e-mails that Mann disagreed with some of the language and descriptions used in the article. 48
For example, in one of his comments to Briffa and Osborn, Mann states, “One additional new comment: 0) 1st page, ‘In attemping [sic] to do this...Mann at al...exemp lifies’ is unacceptable language to us. We confront the ve ry problems that are being discu ssed here, so it is a disservice to us to say our paper ‘exemplifies’ these probl ems. It ‘exposes’ or ‘conf ronts’ would be fair language, but ‘exmemplifies’[sic] is unacceptable.” 49

The e-mails also make it clear that the disagreemen ts were amicably resolved; in the final e-mail, Mann states, “Thanks for working so hard to insu re a final product that was acceptable to all.” 50

47 E-mail file 0924532891.txt (April 20, 1999), page 155, line 46 of th e PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf

48 e.g., E-mail file 0924030302.txt (April 13, 1999), page 146, line 45, e-mail file 0924120405.txt (April 14, 1999), page 153, line 15, and e-mail file 0924613924.txt (April 20, 1999), page 155, line 46 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf.

49 E-mail file 0924120405.txt (April 14, 1999), page 153, line 15 of th e PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf.

50 E-mail file 0926681134.txt (May 14, 1999), page 166, line 45 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf

58The mo st reasonable conclusion is that the statement “Better that nothing appear, than something unacceptable to us” apparently referred to sp ecific language in the paper with which Mann strongly disagreed. We find no evidence to sugges t that the statement ha d anything to do with suppressing dissenting scientific views on climat e change or their publication, much less a “decade-long campaign” to keep them out of the peer-reviewed literature.

The petitioner’s evidence does not show that Mann’ s actions were inconsistent with his views on the peer review process, as desc ribed in his letter to the edito r of The Wall Street Journal. Although the petitioner only quotes part of the letter, we provide it here in full:

In his Dec. 18 op-ed “How to Manufacture a Climate Consensus,” Patrick J. Michaels of the Cato Institute falsely claims that work by him (and other fossil-fuel-funded climate change contrarians) has been unfairly bloc ked by me and others from appearing in mainstream science journals because the peer review process is supposedly biased against

climate science deniers.

In truth, the only bias that exists at such publications is for well-reasoned writing that is buttressed by facts.

That is why climate skeptics such as Richard Lindzen of MIT [Massachusetts Institute of Technology] or John Christy of the University of Alabama—who are widely regarded as credible and whose work contributes meaningfully to the scientific discourse—have no problem publishing their work in mainstream scientific journals.

And what about those who are not being published? Every scientist dealing with a major public issue must decide if he or she is going to be a scientist or a de facto politician.

Mr. Michaels and many climate science deniers have opted for the latter course of action. For example, presidential science adviser John Holdren notes that Mr. Michaels “has published little if anything of distinction . . . being noted rather for his shrill op-ed pieces and indiscriminate denunciations of virtually every finding of mainstream climate science.” This makes Mr. Michaels a perfect candidate for a Wall Street Journal op-ed and a decidedly poor submitter to a serious scientific journal.

Society relies upon the integrity of the scientific literature to inform sound policy. It is thus a serious offense to compromise the pee r-review system in such a way as to allow anyone—including proponents of climate change science—to promote unsubstantiated

claims and distortions.

The good news is that it is not happening toda y in relation to either climate scientists or

the deniers of climate science. Men and women who have dedicated their lives to advancing science need not apologize for keeping their rigorous professional journals free of the pollution of what is purely politics.

Thus, we conclude that the petitioner leap s from the Bradley quote to an unsupported conclusions regarding Mann’s actions with respect to the specific issue in the e-mails and in general. The petitioner’s claim that Mann want ed to suppress the article is unsupported by the

59text they refe rence, and their claim that thes e e-mails somehow prove that Mann had a “decadeslong agenda” to suppress dissenti ng views is baseless. Mann’s letter to the ed itor of The Wall

Street Journal further clarifies th at he supports ensuring high standa rds of rigor and quality in the peer-reviewed literature. This example does not support the pe titioner’s arguments that the journal publication process was manipulated. The claim of a “gatekeeper” to the peer-reviewed literature is not supported by thei r evidence, and the petitioner pr ovides no evidence of any paper that it believes was not, but should have been, published as a result of the claimed “gatekeeping.” They make no arguments based on science, and in stead rely on unwarranted speculation.

Comment (3-27) : The Coalition for Responsible Regulation and the Southeastern Lega l Foundation argue that various actions by the CRU e-mail authors made it difficult or impossible for scientists with differing views to successfully publish their resear ch in peer-reviewed journals. The Coalition for Responsible Regulation claims that the CRU e-mail authors “tried mightily to allow only one perspective on the global warming debate to be p ublished and legitimized.” In support of this argument, petitioners repeat their allegations regarding re views of manuscripts, journal publication practices, and efforts to remove editors and boycott journals that are discussed in sections 3.3.2, 3.3.3, and 3.3.4 of this Volume. In addition, the Coalition for Responsible Regulation quotes part of an e- mail written by Roger Pielke, Sr., of Colorado State University on November 19, 2004:

There has been, however, in my view an unf ortunate change over time where reviewers who disagree with already published work recommend rejection of subsequent work rather than letting the community view and assess the different perspectives on a science

issue. 51

The Coalition for Responsible Regulation claims that “[t]his systemic suppression of differing viewpoints, in turn, has dissuaded prominent scientists from seeking publication in peerreviewed journals,” quoting as evidence an e-mail from Phil Jones: “Even here they [climate change skeptics] don’t seem to be bot hering with journals at all recently.” 52 The Southeastern Legal Foundation provides a quote supporti ng this argument from Pat Michaels:

Mr. Wigley repeatedly tells news reporters not to listen to ‘skeptics’ (or even nonskeptics like me), because they didn’t publish enough in the peer-reviewed li terature— even as he and his friends sought to make it difficult or impossible to do so. [Michaels, 2009]

Thus, the petitioners argue, sc ientists with dissent ing views were only able to publish their work in formats other than peer-reviewed journals, which both EPA and the IPCC ignored or downplayed. On this basis, the petitioners argue that the Endangerment Finding should be

reconsidered because it relies on peer-reviewed literature, which is biased in favor of views supporting anthropogenic climate change and does not reflect the true st ate of the science.

Response (3-27) :

51 E-mail file 1101133749.txt (November 18, 2004), page 752 lines 30-46 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf.

52 E-mail file 1256765544.txt (October 28, 2009), page 1837 , lines 28-29 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf.

60We respond to petitione rs’ allegations regardi ng reviews of manuscripts, journal publication practices, and efforts to remove editors and boycott journals in sect ions 3.3.2, 3.3.3, and 3.3.4 of this volume. As discussed there, the petiti oners’ broad, sweeping conc lusions about improper actions by the scientists are speculative and not supported by the evidence. The petitioners jump to the conclusion that papers with opposing views were systematically suppressed but do not provide any evidence of actions taken to prevent publication of otherwise acceptable research.

The petitioners quote the opinions of Roger Pi elke, Sr., and Pat Michaels as support for the proposition that research with opposing views of anthropogenic climate change cannot get published. The petitioners assume that such res earch should have been or would have been published in peer-reviewed literature if not fo r the opposition of the CRU e-mail authors, without providing any science-based analys is to support this argument. The petitioners assume, with no basis, that the CRU e-mail authors had the power both to influence the peer-review process for the many journals that publish research related to climate-change, and to prevent publication of manuscripts with opposing views of anthropogenic climate change.

The petitioner’s characterization of the scientific literature as biased and one-sided is incorrect. The Coalition for Responsible Regulation argues th at it has been “difficult or impossible” for climate “skeptics” to get their research publis hed in professional jo urnals. However, EPA reviewed numerous publications representing a wi de range of views on climate change, both here in the RTP document and in the RTC document for the Endangerment Finding. As Michael

Mann stated in his letter to th e editor of The Wall Street Journa l (reproduced in full in response 3-26 above): “[C]limate skeptics such as Rich ard Lindzen of MIT or John Christy of the University of Alabama—who are widely regard ed as credible and whose work contributes meaningfully to the scientific discourse—have no problem publis hing their work in mainstream scientific journals.” Petitioners’ evidence does not support their claims of “systematic suppression of differing viewpoi nts” in the literature.

EPA disagrees with the petitioners ’ argument that the Findings were based on a false consensus regarding anthropogenic global warming, and that the IPCC (and by extension EPA) disregarded contrary views or evidence because they were no t represented in the peer-reviewed literature. Contrary to the petitioners’ imp lication, there are many perspectives on climate change present in the peer-reviewed literature. In reality, many di verging viewpoints and a vast array of findings are represented in the scientific literature on c limate change. There is no single view in the literature as petitioners seem to claim, instead th ere are myriad examples in the literature of the robust back and forth process of sc ientific research for the broad range of scientific issues have been explored by many different scientists around the world. It is precisely this diversity in

research results that the IPCC describes in its assessment reports when it provides uncertainty ranges for its major conclusions. The assessmen t reports synthesize l iterally thousands of individual studies and look at the range of conclusions across multiple disciplines. The assessment reports comprehensively reviewed the science; their scientific conclusions routinely identified the degree of certain ty around any conclusion, driven by the degree of consistency and the depth of the science. These conclusions reflected a broad consensus of the scientific community, and recognized the existence of ongoi ng debate within the sc ientific community on all of these issues, as is the nor m in all science endeavors. We thoroughly address issues related to the use of consensus literature and the majo r assessment reports in Volume 1 of the RTC

61document for the Endangerm ent Finding and agai n in Volume 2, Section 2.2 of this RTP document. Thus we find no merit in the argum ent that the Endangerment Finding did not fully consider scientific evidence repr esenting a full range of views.

The Endangerment Finding was based on a careful cons ideration of the full weight of scientific evidence and a thorough review of hundreds of thousands of public comments. The major scientific conclusions that support the Endangerment Finding are themselves the product of decades of research, reflected in thousands of studies by numerous scientists, with varying opinions about how best to interpret the resu lts. EPA relied on these assessment reports precisely to avoid an over-reliance on and narrow consideration of individual studies from a

limited subset of scientific disc iplines or perspectives and to ensure that the Administrator’s decision would be based on a comprehensive assessm ent of the scientific literature. Even if something was missed in an assessment repor t, our notice and comment on the Endangerment Finding was designed to ensure th at EPA received information from all points of view. We received over 380,000 comments, incl uding hundreds of references to literature and reports for

our consideration. This materi al was reviewed and responded to in the 11 volumes of the RTC document for the Endangerment Finding. The notion that EPA did not consider the full range of scientific views is thus simply incorrect. We find that the objections raised by the petitioner have not changed EPA’s conclusion that the sc ience supporting the Endangerment Finding is robust, is compelling, and has been appropriately char acterized by EPA.

Comment (3-28) : Petitioners question the credibility of the peer re view process and the validity of the scientific consensus regarding anthropogeni c climate change. The South eastern Legal Foundation claims that the numerous examples (discussed in sections 3.3.2–3.3.4 above) of “persecution and blackballing of journals, editors, and reviewers” by th e CRU e-mail authors provide evidence that “the normal processes of peer review and objective scien tific evaluation that might ordinarily lead to

‘consensus’ have been shown to be so funda mentally degraded by collusion, intimidation, and deception that no one can seriously contend th at any consensus [about anthropogenic climate change] exists at this time.”

The Southeastern Legal Foundation argues that the CRU e-mail authors’ intimidation tactics have caused other journal editors to be concerned about the risk to their careers from allowing publication of anything contrary to the views of these scientis ts. The Southeastern Legal

Foundation states that “it can be difficult to di stinguish ‘consensus’ from enforced doctrinal orthodoxy,” quoting John Christy of the University of Alabama:

These people act in concert to diminish, reject, and otherwise denigrate findings with which they do not agree -- and they are ab le to do so because of their “establishment” positions. This is the preservation of “group think” at its most serious level.... The group represented by the bulk of these e-mails does ind eed have a message to defend. Those of us who see problems with that message are aware of how the data are manufactured and interpreted to support that message -- and worse, how these establishment scientists act as gatekeepers for the “consensus” reports to suppress alternative findings. [Hake, 2009]

The Southeastern Legal Foundation asserts that the CRU e-mail authors “manipulated the scientific literature to purge any and all contra ry opinions” and that this suppression of contrary

62opinions has resulted in bias in the type of papers cited in the IPCC reports and other ma jor assessments, and which were relied upon by EPA in making the Endangerment Finding. The petitioner quotes Pat Michaels in support of this argument:

When scientists make putative compendia of th at literature, such as is done by the U.N. climate change panel every six years, the writers assume that the peer-reviewed literature is a true and unbiased sample of the state of climate science. That can no longer be the

case. The alliance of scientists at East Anglia, Penn State, and the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (in Boul der, Colo.) has done its best to bias it. [Michaels, 2009]

The Pacific Legal Foundation claims that the CRU e-mails “appear to call into question the credibility of the peer review process” and argu es that that EPA’s Scientific Advisory Board should be given the opportunity to examine the CRU e-mails and determine if there was

scientific misconduct that would undermine the science on which the Endangerment Finding was based. The Competitive Enterprise Institute clai ms that “the IPCC scientific review process has a systematic bias of an unknowable magn itude in favor of human-induced warming. Consequently, the EPA Endangerment Finding is seve rely undermined by a systematic bias of an unknowable magnitude in favor of human-induced warming.”

The petitioners argue that the Endangerment Fi nding should be reconsidered because the peerreviewed literature on which it relies has been biased in favor of views supporting anthropogenic climate change and does not reflect a true consensus re garding anthropogenic climate change.

Response (3-28) : We respond to petitioners’ specific arguments regard ing the peer review process, journal editors, and journal publication practices in Sections 3.3.2–3.3.4 of this Volume of the RTP document. In our responses, we discuss the fact the eviden ce relied upon by petitione r is limited in nature,

involves at most a few ar ticles and the journals involved, that this evidence is of ten taken out of context and does not support the cl aims made by petitioners of uneth ical, or inappropriate actions taken against journals or their ed itors, or an attempt to prevent contrary opinions from entering

the literature. Petitione rs do not identify papers that were not, but should have been, published because of their scientific merit, and petitioners do not make any scientific arguments about the limited number of papers at issue. Southeastern Legal Foundation’s cla im that journal editors

would be concerned about the risk to thei r careers from publishing opposing science is not substantiated by the evidence. Southeastern Le gal Foundation’s sole support for this allegation is the personal opinions of Pat Michaels and John Christy. These statements of opinion, however, do not demonstrate or substantiate the petitioner’s claim that CRU scientists “manipulated the scientific literature.” In addi tion, as discussed in the preceding response (3- 27), the scientific litera ture is not one-sided and includes a wide variety of perspectives about climate change.

The evidence presented by petitioners does not support the claims that the CRU e-mail authors acted as “gatekeepers” to the literature to adva nce their views or were motivated by an activist agenda. As discussed in detail in our previous response (3-23) , the CRU scientists identified what they believed was flawed science in spec ific papers, and responded by publishing peer63reviewed, sc ientific rebuttals in professional journals. This is standard practice in the scientific community and in no way constitutes bias in the literature. The evidence does not support the claims that the content and substance of the body of peer-reviewed literature on climate change was manipulated by the CRU email authors.

The statement from John Christy provided by th e Southeastern Legal Fo undation (that “data are manufactured and interpreted to support [a] me ssage [of anthropogenic cl imate change]”) is an assertion; it contains no evidence of the clai med data manipulation. We respond to similar arguments that question the accuracy and credibil ity of the science in Volume 1 of this RTP

document. The scientific issues petitioners claim were hidden or presented in a biased manner were in fact fully and comprehensively discussed in the assessment reports. Our responses to the

science issues contained in Volu me 1 make this clear. The evidence we have examined does not call into question any of the fundamental conclusions of climate science research.

Finally, our notice and comment process on the Endangerment Finding was designed to ensure that EPA received information from all poin ts of view. We received over 380,000 comments, including hundreds of references to literature a nd reports for our consideration. This material was reviewed and responded to in the 11 volum es of the RTC document for the Endangerment Finding. The notion that EPA did not consider the full range of scie ntific views is thus simply incorrect. The objections raised by the petitione r do not support changing EPA’s conclusion that the science supporting the Endangerment Finding is robust, is compelling, and has been appropriately characterized by EPA.

Comment (3-29) : The State of Texas claims that the CRU e-mails “reveal a cadre of activ ist scientists colluding and scheming to advance what they want the science to be, even where the empirical data suggest a different outcome.” The State of Texa s concludes that the CRU e-mails “reflect a concerted effort to advance a specific scien tific theory—or perhaps more appropriately a scientific cause—rather than to reach the objecti ve truth. That is, the e-mails that have been

released indicate that the scientists were more concerned with advancing their agenda than with obtaining the objective resu lts required by the OMB and EPA guidelines.”

The State of Texas also claims that the CRU e-mail authors were opposed to the publication of dissenting views because they “had long maligned their sk eptical opponents’ positions by arguing that the opposition’s res earch had not been published by a peer-reviewed journal and

could therefore not be trusted.” The State of Texas argues that the CRU e-mail authors were worried that any publication of dissenting views gave support to “skeptics”, quoting as evidence an e-mail from Phil Jones: “I think the skeptics will use this paper to th eir own ends and it will set paleo [climate science] back a number of years if it goes unchallenged. 53 ” The petitioner argues that the Endangerment Fi nding should be reconsidered be cause it relies on peer-reviewed literature, which is biased in favor of view s supporting anthropogenic climate change and does

not reflect the true state of the science.

53 E-mail file 1047388489.txt (March 11, 2003), page 456, line 30 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf.

64Response (3-29) : The State of Texas claims that the CRU e-ma il authors’ scientific judgments regarding anthropogenic climate change are unsupported by “empirical data.” We respond to similar arguments that question the accuracy and credibil ity of the science in Volume 1 of this RTP

document. The scientific issues petitioners claim were hidden or presented in a biased manner were in fact fully and comprehensively disc ussed in the assessment reports, and include appropriate characterization of the degree of certainty around any conclusion. The evidence EPA has examined does not call into question an y of the fundamental conclusions of climate

science research.

The State of Texas argues that the CRU scie ntists were opposed to certain publications solely on ideological grounds, but the evidence does not support the petitioner’s claim. The petitioner quotes an e-mail from Phil Jones that refers to the controversial Soon and Baliunas (2003) paper pu blished in the journal Climate Research . As described in our response (3-23) above, the publication of this paper revealed problem s with the journal’s peer review process, which eventually resu lted in the resignation of three people on the editorial board. The publisher of Climate Research later admitted that the Soon and Baliunas paper was flawed and should not have been published (Kinne, 2003). Scientists, including Jones, did no more than challeng e the scientific valid ity of the Soon and Baliunas (2003) paper, which is an appropria te response within the scientific community and appears scientifically warranted in this case. Petitioners make no arguments that the scientific challenges were incorrect.

As stated in the above responses (3-23 and 3-24), scie ntists are justified in challenging or opposing—on scientific and factual grounds—any research that they believe is flawed. This is true regardless of whether the research had been published in a peer-reviewed journal, but is particularly so if a scientist has reason to be lieve that flawed science made it through the peer review process, which exists fo r the express purpose of ensuring scientific integrity of published

research. It is well within the norms of the scie ntific community to write comments or responses and otherwise challenge published j ournal articles if one can demons trate that there are scientific insufficiencies. The State of Texas implies that the CRU e-mail authors did not have scientific and factual grounds on which to oppose the pub lication of dissenting views; however, the petitioner does not provide eviden ce or even attempt to show th at the critiques of “skeptics’” research were scientifically unjustified. In a ddition, the State of Texas implies that “skeptics’” research should have been or would have been pu blished in peer-reviewed literature if not for the opposition of the CRU e-mail authors, but it does not provide any evidence or science-based analysis to support this argument.

In sum, the petitioners’ eviden ce does not support th eir claim of actions to manipulate the content and substance of the pe er-reviewed literature on climat e change, nor does the evidence provided by the petitioner warrant EPA to question the conclusion that the science supporting the Endangerment Finding is robust, is compelling, and has been appropria tely characterized by

EPA.

Comment (3-30) :

65The Coalition for Responsible Regulation argues th at “[p]rominent scientists have stated for years that th eir efforts to publish contrary science have been stifled and that they have seen their grant money dry up and research positions become unavailable to them. These same scientists claim they have been publicly ri diculed and their reputations made to suffer if they take issue with the supposed ‘consensus’ on the science (Carter, 2008).” The petitioner argues that because

certain researchers have been una ble to publish their research, the peer-reviewed literature is biased in favor of views suppor ting anthropogenic climate change and does not reflect the true

state of the science.

Response (3-30) : The petitioner’s evidence does not support its cl aim of broad, concerted efforts to exclude dissenting viewpoints that would in any way ch ange our understanding of key climate change science. The petitioner makes accusations of “public ridicule” and harm to “skeptics’” professional reputations, citing an article by Robert Carter, an Australian professor at James Cook University, in which he argues against the evidence for anthropogenic climate change. It appears that the petitioner bases its claim on the following statement in Carter’s article: “At the same time, unsolicited ad hominem attacks are made on qualified persons who espouse different views, and who are often disparag ed as ‘sceptics’, ‘deniers’, or worse.” Carter does not elaborate beyond this one statement, and there is no evidence presented to substantiate either

Carter’s or the Coalition for Re sponsible Regulation’s claims.

The petitioner claims that scientists with oppos ing views of anthropogenic climate change faced difficulties securing grant money and research positions; however, these are common challenges faced by research scientists in all disciplines of scientific research. The existence of such challenges does not mean the body of scientific literature on climat e change, which spans multiple scientific disciplines and reflects the res earch of thousands of scientists worldwide, is

flawed or biased. The evidence does not support the petitioner’s broad and sweeping conclusions about the merits of the broader body of scientific literature, and the arguments do not support changing EPA’s conclusion that the science supporting the Endangerment Finding is robust, is compelling, and has been appropriately char acterized by EPA.

3.3.6 Allegations of Intimidating Scientis ts and Those With Dissenting Views

Comment (3-31) : Peabody Energy claims that “The politics of climate research wa s enough to make at least one scientist contemplate leaving the field completel y.” The petitioner claims that Mann and other CRU colleagues engaged in “constant harangu ing” about a manuscript submitted by Ed Cook regarding the Medieval Warm Pe riod. The petitioner quotes part of an e-mail from Ed Cook to Keith Briffa, sent on September 10, 2001:

I never wanted to get involved in this qu ixotic game of producing the next great NH [Northern Hemisphere] temperature reconstruction because of the professional politics and sensitivities involved. ... This all reinforces my determination to leave this NH/global temperature reconstruction junk behind

66me once I get this paper submitted. It’s not worth the aggravation. However, the paper is something that I need to do for Jan. And I still think it is a good paper. 54

Peabody Energy concludes that th e goal of the CRU e-mail author s’ “intimidation/bad-mouthing [was] to influence scientific development” and effectively prevent “disse nting scientific voices from being heard” in the climate science l iterature. Peabody Energy argues that the Endangerment Finding should be reconsidered be cause it relies on peer-reviewed literature, which is biased in favor of views supporting an thropogenic climate change and does not reflect

the true breadth of the science. Response (3-31) : We disagree with the petitioner’s interpretation of this e-mail. Our review indicates that the context for this e-mail, which is not discussed by petitioner, was an e- mail discussion between Cook and Michael Mann and Keith Briffa, in which Mann and Briffa provided scientific feedback on a paper Cook was completing. The e-mails are provided below, and do not support the petitioner’s charge that Cook suffered “consta nt haranguing.” To th e contrary, the e-mails reflect a professional exchange on how best to characterize a complex scientific issue: 55

Ed I still believe you are not showing sufficient comparisons with series besides the MBH [Mann, Bradley, and Hughes]; necessary to demonstrate the true extent of “new” information in this work. At the very least this needs to acknowledge that other (and other tree-ring-based ) series are out there , that use at least some of the data you employ , and use the RCS method to process may of their constituent series - i.e. the Northern chronology series shown in my QSR [ Quaternary Science Reviews ] paper. What is similar and what is different in your series and this one? You give the impression here that you are using the RCS and new data to demonstrate the possibility of getting more low frequency signal from tree-ring data - but th en you base this on a comparison with MBH only. Surely what is needed here is to establish WHY MBH don’t get as much LIA [Little Ice Age]for example. By not showing that other tree-ring data that have also shown a LIA , and not exploring why MBH does not (despite using some of the same - and note -already RCS standardised data) is pe rhaps confusing rather than clarifying the issue. When we discussed this here, I also suggested the need to show separate “north” and more “south” curves ,separated in your data set, to try to get at least some handle on the independent expression of the centennial trends in a region south of the overexploited northern network. At the very least it should be clearly stated that many of the site data used here and in previous work (see our Science perspectives piece) are common and other series already produce more low-fre quency signal than is implied in MBH. Sorry for this rushed comment but I wanted to get this point over as we had talked about it before but you don’t seem to have taken it on board.

Cheers Keith 56

54 E-mail file 1000154718.txt (September 10, 2001), page 389, line 17 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf.

55 e.g., E-mail file 1000132513.txt (September 10, 2001), page 386, line 15, e-mail file 1000140042.txt (September 10, 2001), page 388, line 45, and e-mail file 1000168453.txt (September 10, 2001), page 390, line 26 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf.

56 E-mail file 1000168453.txt (September 10, 2001), page 390, line 26 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf

67Hi Ed, Just to reiterate one more key point---Superimposing the two series and their uncertainties is not the whole story (although it is a definite improvement over just showing the two reconstructions on top of each other w/ know assessment of uncertainty). However, doing the above still only poses the question: apple +/- [uncertainty in apple] =? orange +/- [uncertainty in orange]

As we discussed in a previous e-mail exchange (based on the correlations you calculated

between instrumental series w/ the trend re moved) , the two reconstructions should probably only share about 60% or so variance in common in the best case scenario, where there is no uncertainty at all, owing simply to the differing target regions/season... So weneed to be very careful w/ the following statement which you made in your previous email: “If so, this would not mean that the series are not significantly different from each other. One can’t dismiss the highly system atic differences at multi-centennial timescales quite so easily.” I’m not sure you can justify that statement based on sound statistical reasoning! I agree w/ your following stat ement “Why these differences are there is the crux question.”

However, I hope the discussion will accurately re flect the fact that the leading hypotheses to be rejected in answering that question are 1) random uncertainty in the two series owing to differing data quality and sampli ng, etc. can explain the difference and 2) systematic differences owing to differing target region and seasonality can explain any residual differences after (1). That may be a tough standard to beat, but it *is* the approach that Tom, Phil, Keith, and I have all been taking in addressing the issue of

whether our different reconstructions are or ar e not inconsistent and the conclusion has in general been (see e.g. IPCC which was really a consensus of many of us, though admittedly only I was a lead author) that, desp ite notable differences in the low-frequency variability, the different reconstructions proba bly cannot be considered inconsistent given the uncertainties and differences in seasonality/spatial sampling. I have a hard time understanding why the same standard should not be applied to comparisons w/ your current reconstruction? Does your RCS reconstr uction really not fall in the mix of all the other reconstructions? Is it truly an outlier w/ respect to Phil’s, Tom’s, MBH, and other existing N. hem reconstructions that are based on different seasonality and regional sampling???

We’ve probably had enough discussion now on this point, so I’ll leave it to you to discuss the results in the way you see most fit, but I really hope you take the above points into account, in fairness to the previous work... I look forward to seeing the final manuscript in one form or another, in any case, cheers,

mike 57

These e-mails provide no basis for the petiti oner’s charges of intimidation, bad mouthing, and constant haranguing, or that these dr ove Cook out of this area of re search. Cook has not left the field; he currently serves as the director of the Tree-Ring La boratory at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia Universit y. Although Cook may no longer work on this

57 E-mail file 1000132513.txt (September 10, 2001), page 386, line 15 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf

68particular type of temp erature reconstruction, there is no basis fo r the petitioner’s assertion that this was because of improper actions by Mann and Briffa.

We disagree that the comment s and critiques from Keith Br iffa, Michael Mann, and others constitute “haranguing” or indicate that politics were tainting climate researc h. It is evident from

the e-mails that the CRU scientists and their colleagues were providing detailed, science-based critiques of Cook’s manuscript in an attempt to imp rove it. There is no i ndication that they were pressuring or threatening Cook. In fact, Mann cl early tells Cook, “I’ll l eave it to you to discuss the results in the way you see most fit”. 58 We respond to the petitioner’s scientific arguments regarding the paleoclimate rec onstructions in the RTC document for the Endangerment Finding

and in Volume 1 of this RTP document.

Comment (3-32) : Peabody Energy claims that “[d]iverging opinion s were also left out of conferences and professional events” and that Michael Mann and Ph il Jones acted to exclude “skeptic” scientists from such events. Peabody Energy quotes an e-mail sent by Mann to Jones on August 25, 2005,

in which he refers to a conference invitee list that he has been sent, saying, “The last two on the list (w/ question marks) would be unwise choices because they are likely to cause conflict than to contribute to consensus and progress,” to which Ph il Jones responds, “I agr ee with Mike that the

last two names on the list should be removed”. 59 Peabody Energy then quotes another e-mail from Mann describing why he did not want to invite Zorita:

I’m afraid I don’t agree on Zorita. He has engaged in some very nasty, and in my opinion unprofessional e-mail exchanges with some close colleagues of mine

who have established some fundamental undisclosed errors in work he copublished with von Storch. Given this, I don’t believe he can be involved in constructive dialogue of the sort we’re looking for at this workshop. There are some similarly problematic issues w/ Cubasch, who like von Storch, who has engaged in inflammatory and ad hominem public commentary. There is no room for that on any side of the debate. 60

Peabody Energy concludes that th e goal of the CRU e-mail author s’ “intimidation/bad-mouthing [was] to influence scientific development” and effectively prevent “disse nting scientific voices from being heard” at conferences or in the climate science literatu re. Peabody Energy argues that the Endangerment Finding should be recons idered because it relies on peer-reviewed literature, which is biased in favor of view s supporting anthropogenic climate change and does

not reflect the true br eadth of the science.

Response (3-32) :

58 E-mail file 1000132513.txt (September 10, 2001), page 386, line 15 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf.

59 E-mail file 1124994521.txt (August 25, 2005), page 980, line 23 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf.

60 E-mail file 1125067952.txt (August 26, 2005), page 981, line 19 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf.

69Peabody Energy’s claim that there is a pattern of behavior of excl uding “skeptic” scientists from conferences and professional events is based on a specula tive interpretation of one e-mail chain involving one apparently by-invi tation-only workshop. As conveners of the workshop, Mann, Jones, and the other workshop planners have ever y right to decide who to invite and why, based on their goals for the workshop. Peabody Energy claims that Zorita and Cubasch were not invited because they were “skeptic scientists,” but Mann and Jones do not characterize them as such. Rather, the e-mail from Mann clearly indica tes that he had concerns regarding the quality

of their scientific work and th eir professional behavior. Mann makes a substantive comment that

Zorita had “fundamental undisclosed errors” in a paper he co-author ed, and that he was

concerned neither of them would be constructive at the workshop.

The petitioner does not make any arguments based on the science, but projects a claim of bias to

the breadth of the scientific literature ba sed on one e-mail involving one invitation-only workshop. There is no discussion of the validity of the scie ntific work of the in dividuals at issue, or whether their work is reflected in the peer reviewed literature, or whether their work shows that the body of scientific evid ence, when viewed as a whole, does not support the conclusions reached by EPA. Instead of basing arguments on th e science, the petitioner relies on very limited evidence of one workshop to draw an unwarrant ed assumption of bias across the body of the

scientific literature.

Comment (3-33) : Peabody Energy argues that Michael Mann engage d in “a pattern of scholarly intimidation” against those whose research challenged his own, and that this affected the way other researchers presented their resu lts in journal articles. Peabody Energy quotes an e-mail sent on November 30, 2001, from Keith Briffa to an editor at the journal Science regarding a manuscript he reviewed:

You will see that I think the work is genuinely interesting and potentially of wide significance. The bottom line is that you should publish this but the way the authors have chosen to present their results smacks of a lack of clarity of thought (and a lot of fudging!). I believe that they are more concerned with trying to temper their ideas so as not to “offend” Mann et al. 61

The petitioner describes an e-ma il exchange between Briffa and the authors of the manuscript, which Peabody Energy characterizes as “some less established paleoclimate researchers.” Briffa states in this e-mail, “I think you will start a minor explosion - but that is what science needs. 62 “ The researchers wrote back to offer Briffa a co-authorship on the paper; Peabody Energy asserts that they made this offer for protection from Mann, because Briffa, as a more well-established scientist, “could better shield them from” a ny backlash from Mann. Peabody Energy argues that this example demonstrates that scientists felt a “fear of reprisal from Mann.”

61 E-mail file 1014240346.txt (February 20, 2002), page 398, line 17 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf.

62 E-mail file 1066075033.txt (October 13, 2003), page 603, line 25 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf.

70Peabody Energy concludes that th e goal of the CRU e-m ail author s’ “intimidation/bad-mouthing [was] to influence scientific development” and effectively prevent “disse nting scientific voices from being heard” in the climate science l iterature. Peabody Energy argues that the Endangerment Finding should be reconsidered be cause it relies on peer-reviewed literature which is biased in favor of views supporting an thropogenic climate change and does not reflect

the true breadth of the science.

Response (3-33) : This is another instance of the petitioner claimi ng that there is a patter n of behavior based on speculation and innuendo. The first e-mail offers one scientist’s opinion on a manuscript, which he concludes has scientific merit and ought to be published. He offers his opinion that the research results could have been presented differe ntly, but it is clear from the e-mail that he is not questioning the validity of the research fi ndings themselves. The petitioner provides no analysis of the scientific content in the manuscript in question or evidence that Michael Mann played a material role in the de cision to present the research findi ngs any particular way. In fact, there is no evidence whatsoever that Mann had anyt hing to do with the paper either before or after it was published. The petitioner quote parts of the e-mail exchange between Briffa and the authors of the manuscript in ques tion (Jan Esper of th e Swiss Federal Resear ch Institute and Rob Wilson of the University of St. Andrews), but here we provide the e-mails in full to provide important context:

Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:21:03 +0200

To: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> From: Jan Esper <esper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> Subject: minor explosion Cc: Wilson Rob <rjwilson_dendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Hi Keith thank you for the message and the comments to the Siberia draft. We are intending to finalize a draft when Rob is coming over and we go on a sampling trip to the Bavarian Forest and E-Germany. We will then also discuss of data-overlap issue again and might include some extra figure with our record re-calculated (without Tornetraesk and Polar Ural). However, I (Jan) an not sure that we should have another figure with only the Mann and the (reduced) Esper series. Sec ond, it seems that Mann used the density records from these two sites only (not ring width) . Lets see. We would really like to send you the final draft, and ask you to become the fourth author? We ask this not only because of the “minor explosion” that might happen, but also because some of the arguments in the draft were made earlier by you anyway. What do you think?

Take care

Jan and Dave

Jan with respect to the overlap problem we could agree to differ for now -I think the problem is much more in the earlier period anyway but I suggest you go ahead and submit it anyway. There are some minor wording points bu t nothing that affects the meaning. You know that in my opinion the recent similarity in the records is driven by instrumental data inclusion (or calibration against instrumental data) and that Mann’s earlier data are strongly biased towards summer and northern land signals. I think you will start a minor explosion - but that is what science needs. I looked at your tree-line data and thought them very interesting. In my opinion the way you directed the interpretation was what

71drew your criticisms. For a climate jour nal you should have been pointing out the complicated regional responses (to the temperature record) rather than trying to state a simple overall response. The data are cl early important and you should have no trouble publishing them if you rethink the approach to the description (no work needed). I think Boreas or Arctic and Alpine Res. are better targets though. I enjoyed the discussions also and it is frustrating not to be able to get up to speed with your other projects. I will get back to you when I have looked more at the idea of the big review paper. the very best to you and all

Keith

At 09:55 AM 10/8/03 +0200, Jan Esper wrote:

Hi Keith with respect to our EOS draft, I am still thinking about the data overlap argument you

made. 1. I still believe that the overlap is not th at significant, and that the significance is changing dramatically with time (less in more recent centuries). 2. With respect to the aim of the paper, we do NOT intend to explain the similarity

between the records. We rather address th at the recons differ in the lower frequency

domains AND are much more similar in the hi gher frequency domains. I believe that this is crucial. (One could also say that we only address the dissimilarity, and the arguments related to that.) I appreciated the discussions we had very, ve ry much (especially the one in the night before the official meeting).

Take care

Jan 63

This e-mail exchange clearly shows that Briffa ma de substantive contributions to the manuscript, which would warrant the courtesy of offering co-authorship. As the petitioner acknowledges, Briffa did not accept the co-authorship, the paper was published, and there is no evidence of any “backlash” from Mann. These subsequent events demonstrate that the petitioner’s speculative claim of “fear of reprisal” was unfounded.

Beyond these e-mails, Peabody Energy provides no evidence to support their claim that Mann engaged in a “pattern of scholarly intimidati on,” implying that an unknown number of journal articles may have been affected by one scien tist’s purported actions. This allegation is not supported by evidence, but relies on unwarranted speculation and assumptions based on this email exchange involving only one of thousands of papers that compose the body of scientific literature on climate change, and for this one paper there was public ation and no apparent reprisal or other activity. To claim, as the petit ioner does, that concerns raised concerning this one paper could somehow bias the vast wealth of climate change studies or call into question the

overall conclusions reached from those thousan ds of papers is unwarranted speculation and unsupported. This example and the objections raised by the petitioner provide no basis for changing EPA’s conclusion that the science supp orting the Endangerment Finding is robust, is compelling, and has been appropriately characterized by EPA.

63 E-mail file 1066075033.txt (October 13, 2003), page 603, line 25 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf.

72Comment (3-34) : Peabody Energy claims that Michael Mann and Tom Wigley in partic ular “resorted to admonishment of those they disagreed with.” Peabody Energy cites the example of Mexican climate researcher Jorge Sánchez-Sesma, who, in an e-mail to Phil Jones sent December 3, 2004,

said that he met Mann at a conference. Accord ing to Peabody Energy, “a t first Mann was ‘very kind,’ but when Mann found out Sánchez-Sesma’ s work ran counter to some of Mann’s conclusions, Mann ‘changed his attitude.’” 64

In addition, Peabody Energy claims that Michae l Mann “continued his battle” against climate change “skeptics” like Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick in the press, quoting an e-mail from Mann to New York Times reporter A ndy Revkin, sent on February 8, 2005:

The McIntyre and McKitrick paper is pure scientific fraud. I think you’ll find this reinforced by just about any legitimate scientist in our field you discuss this with. To recap, I hope you don’t mention MM [McIntyre and McKitrick] at all. It really doesn’t deserve any additional publicity. 65

Peabody Energy also claims that Tom Wigley engaged in character assassination of two highly credentialed scientists—John Christy and Chris de Freitas—in an attempt to ruin their careers. As evidence, Peabody Energy qu otes the following e-mail from Wigley, sent on August 19, 2003:

Jim Titus mentioned to me that in the le gal profession here people are disbarred for behavior like that of De Freitas (and even John Christy -- although this is a more subtle case). We cannot do that of course, but we can alert the community of

honest scientists to such behavior and formally discredit these people. 66

Peabody Energy concludes that th e goal of the CRU e-mail author s’ “intimidation/bad-mouthing [was] to influence scientific development” and effectively prevent “disse nting scientific voices from being heard” at conferences or in the climate science literatu re. Peabody Energy argues that the Endangerment Finding should be recons idered because it relies on peer-reviewed literature, which is biased in favor of view s supporting anthropogenic climate change and does

not reflect the true br eadth of the science.

Response (3-34) : The petitioner uses language such as “adm onished,” “battled,” “engaged in character assassination,” and “intimidation/ bad mouthing” in an attempt to demonstrate that two scientists, Michael Mann and Tom Wigley, improperly biased the peer reviewed literature, making the body of peer reviewed literature unreliable. Examination of the petitioner’s argument does not support their claims. With resp ect to interaction between Mann and Jorge Sánchez-Sesma, we

64 E-mail file 1079384474.txt (March 15, 2004), page 661, line 45 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf.

65 E-mail file 1107899057.txt (February 8, 2005), page 825, line 31 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf.

66 E-mail file 1061298033.txt (August 19, 2003), page 566, line 15 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf.

73provide the full e-ma il that Sánchez-Sesma sent to Phil Jones, in which he described his

interaction with Michael Mann:

Dear Dr. Jones: I am very happy because I went to a Workshop in Kona Hawaii (with support of NASA-CRCES [National Aeronautics and Space Administration–Center for Research on the Changing Earth System] after to gain a contest with a review paper about global temperature reconstructions, it was a diffe rent version of the paper that you have read). There I met with Dr. Michael Mann. Mann was very kind with me, however when he did know my work he changed his attitude . I met there also Dr. Hans von Starch who presented a global temperature reconstructions with a AOCGCM [atmosphere-ocean coupled general circulation mode l] with natural and anthropogenic forcings. His results agree more or less with ECS, and my results. i am in contact with the GKSS group in order to compare and share information. However, the key point of my studies, as you have pointed out, is to justify that the ba ckground Ice Acidity (without volcanic activity) from polar caps could be considered as a proxy. I have contacted Dr. Hammer and Dr. Crowley to have information and advice. In order continue this kind of studies I would like to propose you again (as we have tried last year) to ask support the AMC (Mexican Academy of Sciences) to support a visit to CRU UEA next year to continue my work, with your help and advice, about global temperature for the Holocene. I will need only an official invitation for my visit. It would be in March 2005 for 3 or 4 weeks. Also, I am asking support to travel to Japan this year (this fall), however I would like to stop in England a week, in order to visit CRU-UEA a nd to continue our collaboration. I would like to know your opinion, cheers, Jorge 67

The quote from Sánchez-Sesma”Jorge—”he change d his attitude”—is un clear; there is no

substantive information in the e-mail to determ ine what it means. Assuming Mann did change his attitude to some degree, th e petitioners’ evidence does not show that he acted in a way that had any negative consequences for Sánchez-Sesma. In fact, it is clear from the full e-mail that Sánchez-Sesma was “very happy” with the works hop, and it appears that his brief contact with Mann did not adversely affect his experience there.

Regarding the e-mail from Michael Mann to Andy Revkin, Mann’s statements reflect his scientific judgment that the McIntyre and McKitrick (2005) pa per was flawed. As discussed thoroughly in our previous responses (e.g., 3-23), it is entirely acceptable and appropriate for scientists to express their opini ons and challenge papers that th ey believe are scientifically

flawed. It was on this basis that Mann reco mmended that McIntyre and McKitrick were not worth interviewing because their paper was flawed. In any case this e-mail concerns discussions with a journalist, and have no b earing on the publication of peer-reviewed liter ature in journals. We note that we have responded to the scien tific arguments presen ted in McIntyre and McKitrick (2005) as well as numerous other issues related to paleoclimat ic reconstructions, both in the RTC document for the Endangerment Finding and in Volume 1 of this RTP document.

Regarding the allegations of “character assa ssination,” the full e-mail sent on August 19, 2003, by Tom Wigley provides cont ext for his statements:

67 E-mail file 1079384474.txt (March 15, 2004), page 661, line 45 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf.

74Andre, I have been closely involved in the CR [Climate Research] fiasco. I have had papers that I refereed (and soundly rejected), under De Freitas’s editorship, appear later in the journal -- without me seeing any response from the authors. As I have said before to others, his strategy is first to use mainly referees that are in the anti-greenhouse community, and second, if a paper is rejected, to ignore that review and seek another more ‘sympathic’ reviewer. In the second case he can then (with enough reviews) claim that the honest review was an outlier. I ag ree that an ethics comm ittee is needed and I would be happy to serve on such a committee. It would have to have endorsement by international societies, like Roy. Soc., US Nat. Acad., Acad. Europ., plus RMS, AMS [American Meteorological Society], AGU, etc. Jim Titus mentioned to me that in the legal profession here people are disbarred for be havior like that of De Freitas (and even John Christy -- although this is a more subtle case). We cannot do that of course, but we can alert the community of honest scientists to such behavior and formally discredit these people. The Danish Acad. did something like this recently, but were not entirely successful. In the meantime, I urge pe ople to dissociate themselves from Climate Research. The residual ‘editorial’ (a word I use almost tongue in cheek) board is looking like a rogues’ gallery of skeptics. Those remaining who are credible scientists should resign.

Tom. 68

Wigely’s e-mail refers to the decision by an editor at Climate Research , Chris de Freitas, to publish the controversial Soon and Baliunas (2003) paper. As desc ribed in our response (3-23) above, the publication of this paper revealed prob lems with the journal’s peer review process. The publisher of Climate Research later admitted that the Soon and Baliunas paper was flawed and should not have been published (Kinne, 2003). Clearly, scientists, including Wigley, were justified in challenging the sc ientific merit of the Soon a nd Baliunas (2003) paper and to question the process that enabled such a paper to be published. It is clear from the e-mail that Wigley believed that Chris de Freitas acted in a way that was contrary to the practice of good science. Like anyone else, Wigley is entitled to speak his mind in personal communications to colleagues. To raise legitimate questions of scientific validity is not “character assassination,” nor are such actions unethical, or otherwise outside the norms of scientific practice. In sum, the evidence presented does not support the arguments and broad conclusions drawn by petitioners.

3.3.7 Summary

The petitioners rely upon a small number of papers and other circum stances to claim that leading climate scientists successfully conspired to keep dissenting views of clim ate change out of the broad body of peer-reviewed liter ature and create an artificial consensus about anthropogenic climate change. They claim these e-mails show th e broad body of scientific literature is biased and can not credibly be relied upon to make an Endangerment Finding. The examples proved by petitioners are extremely limited, and involve a small number of papers and a few specific situations. In all cases it appears the scientis ts involved were basically making their scientific objections known, and were basi ng their objections on the science and not on assumptions or speculation. The evidence presented by petitioners does not suppor t their claims of bias, either

68 E-mail file 1061298033.txt (August 19, 2003), page 566, line 15 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf.

75for the specific papers and indi viduals at issue, or for the mu c h broader and sweeping challenges made concerning the integrity of al l peer-reviewed climate literature. The arguments made of a biased peer review process relies on specu lation and subjective interpretations of quotes from the CRU e-mails, which are typically take n out of context, and involve a very small number of papers and situa tions. The e-mails themselves do not support the claims and conclusions drawn by petitioners, either for those specific papers and situations, or for the broader peer reviewed literature petitioners contest. Petitioners’ claims are not based on scientific analysis or argume nts, and their evidence does not support changing or revising EPA’s use of the major assessments of peer-reviewed literature or the overall scientific conclusions about climate change reached from the thousands of papers considered in the assessments. The objections raised by the petitione r have not called into questio n or changed EPA’s conclusion that the science supporting the Endangerment Finding is robust, is compelling, and has been appropriately characterized by EPA.

3.4 Issues Concerning Freedom of Information Act Requests

3.4.1 Overview

Several petitioners (the Coalit ion for Responsible Regulation, the Ohio Coal Association, the Pacific Legal Foundation, Peabody Energy, the S outheastern Legal Found ation, the State of Texas) claim that the CRU e-mails provide evid ence that leading climate scientists did not

conduct their research in a fully transparent manner and di d not appropriately respond to UK Freedom of Information (FOI) and U.S. Free dom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. Specifically, the petitioners argue that these sc ientists deliberately withheld key data and computer programming codes and attempted to obstruct or avoid FOI/FOIA requests from “climate skeptics.”

Our review of the CRU emails indi cates that in many cases, the data at issue were released by the scientists, including data concerning a human “fingerprint” in the tropics, data underlying the HadCRUT temperature record, and data concerning historic temperature r econstructions. In addition, significant data were also publicly available. Petition ers have not explained or shown why the amount of data and other informati on that was available was not adequate for researchers to replicate or othe rwise evaluate key findings, or to conduct other research. In addition, there was a robust and public process to submit, review, and publicly respond to

comments on the scientific issues involved in all parts of the IPCC AR4. Petitioners do not rely on science or science based arguments to support th eir claim that the assessment report resulting from this robust process should not be relied upon by EPA. Instead, they rely on unsupported conclusions drawn from e-mails concerning a FO I request for personal communications between various scientists, where it appears that the appr opriate University FOI officers had determined that these emails were exempt from release. Th is evidence does not support petitioners’ claims

that the IPCC AR4 should not be considered as part of the scie ntific basis for the Endangerment Finding.

EPA agrees with the results of the various invest igations, which found that the scientists at issue conducted their research with scientific integrit y and rigor, the research utilized methods which are fair and satisfactory, and th at their actions were consiste nt with the common practice in

76climate research at that tim e. EPA also agr ees with the recommendations of the Independent Climate Change E-mails Review supporting greater tr ansparency in the future in this area of climate research. Petitioners’ evidence, howev er, does not support their conclusions that the research produced by these scientists was suspect , flawed, or biased, or that the AR4 or other assessment reports were suspect, flawed, or biased. Their eviden ce does not support the

conclusion that the science at i ssue should not be relied upon by EP A. Greater transparency in

the future will facilitate scientif ic research; however, concluding that greater transparency would be helpful for a particular element of climate ch ange science is not the equivalent of providing

evidence that the scientific basis fo r EPA’s Endangerment Finding is flawed.

The following sections provide our response to petitioners’ sp ecific arguments. Section 3.4.2

deals with claims that the CRU e-mail authors refused requests to make their data, computer programming codes, and other information on whic h some of their research was based publicly available, and inappropriately limited other researcher s’ ability to replicate and verify results.

Section 3.4.3 addresses claims of improper conduct with regard to UK FOI and U.S. FOIA laws, including general non-compliance allegations, a llegations regarding a specific FOI request related to the IPCC, and allegations of improperly influencing University FO I officials. Finally,

Section 3.4.4 summarizes our re sponse to these issues.

3.4.2 Allegations of Withholding Key Data and Information

Comment (3-35) : The Southeastern Legal Foundation claims that “t hree prominent British sc ientific organizations have condemned the practices of top IPCC climate scientists as revealed by the Climategate documents [i.e., the CRU e-mails].” The group provide s quotes from the Institute of Physics, the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC), and the Royal Statistical Society (RSS) taken from

statements submitted to the UK House of Co mmons Science and Tec hnology Committee (2010a) during its investigation of the CRU e-mails. The Southeastern Le gal Foundation states that these three organizations “concluded that the refusal of the CRU researchers to disclose their data and methods was contrary to the scientific method a nd cast doubt on the integrity of their research.” In addition, the petitioner highli ghts the organizations’ statements regarding data availability, stating that they call for the “data and methods of climate research to be made freely available as required by the canons of the scientific method.” On the basis of these statements, the Southeastern Legal Foundation conc ludes that the CRU e-mails have “grave implications for the integrity of the science upon which the IPCC’s re porting is based” and th at “EPA cannot dismiss the conclusions of institutions having the prestige and reputation of the Institute of Physics, the Royal Society of Chemistry, and the Royal Statistical Society.”

Response (3-35) : During the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee’s investigation of the CRU e-mails, it accepted written eviden ce regarding the following questions:

1. What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?

2. Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA adequate?

3. How independent are the other two international datasets?

77In addition, the UK House of Commons Scien ce and Technology Commit tee held one oral

evidence session to take informati on from the following five panels:

1. The Right Honourable Lord Lawson of Blaby, Chairman, and Dr. Benny Peiser, Director, Global Warming Policy Foundation.

2. Richard Thomas Commander of the Order of the British Empire, former Information

Commissioner.

3. Professor Edward Acton, Vice-Chancellor at UE A, and Professor Phil Jones, Director of

CRU.

4. Sir Muir Russell, Head of the Indepe ndent Climate Change E-Mails Review.

5. Professor John Beddington, Government Chief Sc ientific Adviser; Professor Julia Slingo Officer of the Order of the British Empire, Ch ief Scientist, UK Met Office; and Professor Bob Watson, Chief Scientist, Department fo r Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

The Committee received 57 submissions of written evidence (see UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, 2010a). The petitioner cites selec tive quotes from only

three of these submissions. The full transcri pts of the three statements discussed by the petitioner are provided in the reference docum ent entitled, “Memoranda Submitted to the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee Investigation” in the docket (http://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID EP A-HQ-OAR-2009-0171). We respond to the petitioner’s allegations with regard to the three submissions below.

First, the petitioner mischaracterizes or exaggerate s the statements from th e Institute of Physics, the RSC, and the RSS to claim that they “condemned the practices of top IPCC climate scientists.” The Institute of Physics states that there is “reason for concern” as well as “a need for a review of [the] adequacy and objectivity” of the peer-review process (Institute of Physics, 2010). The institute also states it s opinion that further inquiry into the imp lications of the CRU e-mails on scientific integrity is warranted. C ontrary to the petitione r’s claims, however, the institute does not assume misconduct or wrongdoing on the part of the CRU e-mail authors, nor

does it “condemn” their work.

The RSC states that the CRU e-mails have been “w idely portrayed as an indication of a lack of integrity in scientific research,” but the RSC itsel f does not state or concl ude that there has been lack of integrity in climate science research (RSC, 2010). Th e RSC statement does not have language that represents a condemnation of IPCC climate scientists. Similarly, the RSS discusses in detail its argument s for placing climate change data , analysis methods, and models in the public domain, but does not condemn the work of IPCC scie ntists nor allege a lack of integrity in climate science research.

Second, the petitioner ex aggerates the organizations’ statements when it states that the organizations agree that the CRU e-mails “cast do ubt on the integrity of their research.” The Institute of Physics states that questions have be en raised about the inte grity of some historic temperature reconstructions and the way in whic h they have been graphically represented by entities such as the IPCC. It is misleading a nd inaccurate to interpret this statement—which states that “questions have been raised” but doe s not take a position on the merits of the issue— as casting doubt on all of the research c onducted throughout the years by the CRU e-mail

authors.

78The RSC describes the implicati ons of “[a] lack of willingne ss to dis seminate scientific information” in general or hypothetical terms, without making claims or drawing conclusions

about CRU researchers or their work. In additi on, in part of the statement not quoted by the petitioner, the RSC highlights th e importance of transparency a nd valid science on both sides of the climate change debate (point 10 in their submission):

10. The issue of misinformation in the public domain must also be tackled. Just as the scientific community must be open with regard to their evidence base, those who disagree must also provide a clear and verifiable back ing for their argument, if they wish their opinions to be given weight. When disagreemen ts occur, the validity of the analysis must be established before credence can be given to any opinion. Increased understanding of the process of scientific research, firstly in the government, but also within the media and general public, is vital in order to fost er a more open sharing of information.

Similarly, the RSS makes broad statements and recommendations about the importance of open access to data without making claims or drawing conclusions about CRU researchers or their work. In part of the statement not quoted by the petitioner, the RSS also discusses important caveats to its position that raw data and associated metadata used for scientific analyses should be publicly available within reason ( point 8 in their statement):

8. It is also clearly unreasonable to require that any given scientist having published some research is then condemned to answer each and every question that might possibly arise

from it. For example, requests under the Freedom of Information act or the Environmental Information Regulations could overwhelm small groups of scientists. To avoid this it is best if data are stored in data centres that are professionally run and properly funded.

These statements from the Institute of Physics, RSC, or RSS do not constitute agreement that the integrity of CRU e-mail authors’ research is now in question. We note that the Institute of Physics, the RSC, and the RSS are offering thei r opinions on the questions posed to them by the

UK House of Commons Science a nd Technology Committee. Neither the Institute of Physics, the RSC, nor the RSS have been involved in the three recent inquiries and investigations into the CRU e-mails that carefully examined the full bo dy of evidence with rega rd to the allegations against CRU: 1) the UK House of Commons Sc ience and Technology Committee investigation; 2) the Scientific Appraisal Panel review; a nd 3) the Independent Climate Change E-mails

Review.

Beyond reading the text of the e-mails, none of the organizations indicated that they had conducted any detailed review of the broader co ntext for the events described in the CRU emails. These organizations’ statements were wri tten in February 2010, before the conclusions of any of the three recent investigations were publis hed. The petitioner claims that the statements from the Institute of Physics, RSC, and RSS challenge the scientific research advanced by CRU scientists and by exte nsion the science on wh ich EPA relied, but does not cite any of the conclusions of the independent in vestigations that carefully exam ined the full body of evidence.

In contrast to the general statements from the Institute of Physics, RSC, and RSS, the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee investigation examined written and oral

79evidence from nume rous witnesses on both sides of the issue and examined the facts of the issues. Their report made th e following broad conclusions:

 The focus on Professor Jones and CRU has been la rgely misplaced. On the accusations relating

to Professor Jones’s refusal to share raw data and computer codes, we consider that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community. We have suggested that the community consider becoming more transp arent by publishing raw data and detailed methodologies. On accusations relating to Freedom of Information, we consider that much of the responsibility should lie with UEA, not CRU.

 In addition, insofar as we have been able to consider accusations of dishonesty—for example, Professor Jones’s alleged attempt to “hide the decline”—we consider that there is no case to answer. Within our limited inquiry and the ev idence we took, the scientific reputation of

Professor Jones and CRU remains intact. We ha ve found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus as e xpressed by Professor Beddington, that “global warming is happening [and] that it is induced by human activity”. It was not our purpose to examine, nor did we seek evidence on, the sci ence produced by CRU. It will be for the Scientific Appraisal Panel to look in detail into all the evidence to determine whether or not the consensus view remains valid (UK House of Commons Science Technology Committee, 2010b).

The Scientific Appraisal Panel c onducted a review of the scien ce, examining criticism of CRU that “climatic data had been dishonestly selected , manipulated and/or pres ented to arrive at predetermined conclusions that were not compatible w ith a fair interpretation of the original data.” The inquiry involved an internat ional panel of experts headed by Lord Oxburgh, and drew the following key conclusions:

 We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the

Climatic Research Unit and had it been ther e we believe that it is likely that we

would have detected it. Rather we found a small group of dedicated if slightly disorganised researchers who were ill-pr epared for being the focus of public attention. As with many small research groups their internal procedures were rather

informal.

 After reading publications and interviewing the senior staff of CRU in depth, we are satisfied that the CRU tree-ring work has b een carried out with integrity, and that allegations of deliberate misrepresentation and unjustified selection of data are not

valid. In the event CRU scientists were able to give convincing answers to our detailed questions about data choice, data handling and statistical methodology. The Unit freely admits that many data analyses th ey made in the past are superseded and they would not do things that way today.

 Like the work on tree rings, this work [t emperatures from historical instrumental records] is strongly dependent on statistical analysis and our comments are essentially the same. Although there are cer tainly different ways of handling the data, some of which might be superior, as far as we can judge the methods which CRU has employed are fair and satisfactor y. Particular attention was given to

records that seemed anomalous and to establishing whether the anomaly was an artefact or the result of some natural process. There was also the challenge of dealing with gaps in otherwise high quality data series. In detailed discussion with the researchers we found them to be objective a nd dispassionate in their view of the data and their results, and there was no hint of tailoring results to a particular agenda.

Their sole aim was to establish as robust a r ecord of temperatures in recent centuries

80In addition, the Independent Climate Change E-mails Review found:

Climate science is a matter of such global importance, that the highest standards of honesty, rigour and openness ar e needed in its conduct. On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt. In addition, we do not find that their behaviour has prejudiced the balance of advice given to policy makers. In particular, we did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclu sions of the IPCC assessments (Russell, 2010).

The three general statements selected by the petitioner do not support what they claim, and

do not undermine the conclusions of the inde pendent investigations quoted above that weighed substantially more information and ev idence. We find that evidence provided by the petitioner does not contradict the conclusions of these in vestigations, which found that the CRU research was conducted with integrit y and scientific rigor , without dishonesty,

and their release of data wa s consistent with the common practices of the scientific community at that time.

Comment (3-36) : The State of Texas and Peabody En ergy reference an article in The Times newspaper discussing

the reaction of Professor John Be ddington (Chief Scientific Advi sor to the British Government) to the CRU e-mails. The State of Texas provide s the following quote from Beddington: “I don’t think it’s healthy to dismiss proper skepticism . Science grows and improves in the light of criticism. There is a fundamental uncertainty about climate change prediction that can’t be changed” (Webster, 2010). Peabody Energy provides the following quot e from Beddington: “I think, wherever possible, we should try to ensure there is openness and that source material is available for the whole scientific community” (W ebster, 2010). The petitioners use these quotes

to substantiate their claim that the CRU e- mail authors obstructed th e normal process of scientific inquiry by withholding information nece ssary for replicating key studies, so that by extension, the science on which EPA relied for the Endangerment Findings has been called into question.

Response (3-36) : Professor John Beddington’s opinions as quoted from a newspaper article do not provide evidence that supports the petiti oner’s allegation that the CRU e-mail authors withheld data necessary for replicating key studi es. Beddington is simply sta ting his view that the climate scientists, in addition to the whole scientific co mmunity, should make more concerted efforts to ensure data availability. The petitioners’ evidence does not show that the CRU e-mail authors engaged in any actions that were unethical or out side of the norms of sc ientific practice. As discussed in our response (3-35) above, the CRU e-mail authors acted in line with common practice in the climate science community.

81In addition, we note that Professor Beddington ela borated mo re fully on his views in his written

evidence to the UK House of Commons Science and Technolo gy Committee investigating the CRU e-mails. The relevant portion of his submission stated:

Not withstanding the need for scientists to maintain a competitive position amongst their peers, protect intellectual property and in some cases protect confidentiality, scientists should, as a general principle, aim to ensu re openness and transparency of their data, methods and results at the point of peer-revi ewed publication. This allows independent expert scrutiny, challenge and repetition to c onfirm the validity of findings, all of which are fundamental to furthering scientific unders tanding. Equally, scientists should feel free to openly debate their work, as this pr ocess is also essential for the furthering of robust research (UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, 2010b).

In another relevant port ion of Professor Beddington’ s written evidence, he states that the CRU emails have not altered our unders tanding of the basic science and the human contribution to climate change:

It is important to emphasise that the evidence that the world is warming and that human activities are driving this change does not r est on the robustness or otherwise of a single temperature record. Basic physics shows that greenhouse gases absorb and re-emit long wave radiation emitted by the Earth, which warms the surface and lower atmosphere. The science underpinning this knowledge was performed over a century ago. We also know that human activities are releasing billions of tonnes of greenhouse gases - including carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and halocarbons - each year, which is increasing their concentration in the atmosphere.

The petitioners’ evidence does not support thei r claim that the CRU scientists and their colleagues obstructed the normal process of scientific inquiry, nor does th e article relied upon by the petitioners provide any other evidence that w ould cause EPA to question the scientific merits

of these scientists’ work. The evidence indicates that scientists commonl y weigh several policies in deciding issues of release of data, such as the need for transp arency, protection of intellectual property, and protection of confidentiality. As discussed below, in many cases data were already publicly available or were released by the scien tists, and the scientific issues involved were the subject of robust and serious scie ntific debate, as explained in Volume 1 of the RTP document.

Petitioners’ evidence does not show that the scientific research produced by these scientists is in any way flawed or unreliable, and they make no science-based arguments to that effect.

Comment (3-37) : The Ohio Coal Association, Peabody Energy, an d the Southeastern Legal Foundation point to CRU scientists’ attempts to refuse an FOI reque st by scientist Willis Eschenbach to obtain land

station data for the HadCRUT3 dataset (Eschenbach, 2009), which is a global surface temperature dataset based on measurements from both land stations and ships. The petitioners state that the request was first met with evasion, and only later it was eventu ally revealed that the CRU no longer had access to the raw data for th eir dataset. The Southeastern Legal Foundation goes one step further, claiming that the CRU e-mails “prove that the conspi racy to obstruct his requests went to the highest levels of climate science.”

Response (3-37) :

82The petitioners claim that the CRU scientists st onewalled F OI requests in order to prevent public

access to critical climate informa tion like the HadCRUT dataset. An extensive discussion of the availability of HadCRUT data was provided in Volume 2 of EPA’s RTC document for the Endangerment Findings, and this issue is also di scussed in Volume 1, Section 1.3.3.1 of this RTP

document. As stated in thos e discussions, a limited amount of raw data from the HadCRUT dataset is no longer in CRU’s po ssession; however, this does not im pede the ability to check if the publically available data give the same resu lts as the HadCRUT analys is, or that it changes the scientific validity of the analyses performe d by the CRU. The HadCRUT dataset is publicly available as a value-added (i.e ., quality-controlled and homogeni zed) dataset of global surface temperature data. Regarding the availability of the HadCRUT data, the Independent Climate Change E-mails Review (Russell, 2010) found that:

On the allegation of withholding temperat ure data, we find that CRU was not in a position to withhold access to such data or tamp er with it. We demonstrated that any independent researcher can download station data directly from primary sources and undertake their own temperature trend analysis.

The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review al so noted that CRU eventually provided a list of station identifiers pur suant to the FOI request referenced by petitioners. Although the review notes this could have been accomplished in a more timely manner, the evidence does not support the argument of a “conspiracy to obstruct [Esc henbach’s] requests.” Petitioners’ evidence provides no basis to question the re liability or integrity of the scientific research involving the

HadCRUT dataset.

Comment (3-38) : Peabody Energy claims that Benjamin Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory attempted to avoid repeated informal requests for data as well as a formal U.S. FOIA request by Stephen McIntyre for data that were used in one of his papers. The data in question depicted evidence for a human “fingerprint” in the tr opics, essentially show ing that the tropical troposphere was warming as predicted by models. The petitioner claims th at the lack of access to this data hampered efforts by other researcher s to replicate and verify Santer’s work, which was a key attribution study used in the IPCC AR 4. Peabody Energy states that the data were eventually made public, but questio ns why “Santer could not have just released his data when McIntyre first requested it rather th an attempting to stonewall it.”

Response (3-38) : We respond to comments on the scientific validity of Santer’s study regarding a human “fingerprint” in the tropics and the existence of multiple lines of evidence for human attribution of climate change in Section 1.2.1 of this RTP document.

The petitioner acknowledges that Santer subseq uently provided the requested datasets and information, as well as additional information. In an e-mail written in December 2008 and sent to various colleagues, Santer states:

...Over the past several weeks, I’ve had a number of discussions about the “FOIA issue”

with PCMDI’s [Program for Climate Model Diagnos is and Intercomparison] Director (Dave Bader), with other LLNL [Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory] colleagues,

83and with colleagues outside of the Lab. Based on these discussions, I have decided to “publish” all of the climate model surface temperature time series and synthetic MSUtime series (for the tropical lower troposphere [T2LT] and the tropical mid- to uppertroposphere [T2]) that we used in our Interna tional Journal of Climatology (IJoC) paper. This will involve putting these datasets through an internal “Review and Release” procedure, and then placing the datasets on PCMDI’s publicly-accessible website. The website will also provide information on how synthetic Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) temperatures were calculated, anomaly definition, analysis periods, etc. After publication of the model data, we will info rm the “FOIA Point of Contact” that the information requested by McIntyre is publicly available for bona fide scientific research. Unfortunately, we cannot guard against intentional or unintentional misuse of these datasets by McIntyre or others. By publishing the T2, T2LT, and surface temperature data, we will be providing far more than the “Monthly average T2LT values” mentioned in McIntyre’s FOIA request to DOE. This w ill make it difficult for McIntyre to continue making the bogus claim that he is being denied access to the climate model data necessary to evaluate the validity of our findi ngs. All of the raw model output used in our IJoC paper are already available to Mr. McIntyre (as I informed him several months ago), as are the algorithms required to calculate synthetic MSU temperatures from raw model temperature data. I hope that “publi cation” of the synthetic MSU temperatures

resolves this matter to the satisfacti on of NNSA [National Nuclear Security
Administration]

, DOE Headquarters, and LLNL. With best regards, Ben 69

Petitioner makes no argument based on the scie nce that Santer’s analysis was incorrect scientifically. They do not claim that there has b een any inability to use the released information for their research. Their sole argument concerns the timing of the release, and not the merits of the science. The petitioners’ evidence does not provide any reason to question the scientific

merits of these scientists’ work.

Comment (3-39) : Peabody Energy argues that CRU scientists a nd their colleagues “hid from public view” information pertaining to key studies used in the IPCC AR4. The peti tioner describes four examples in which it claims that authors of CRU e-mails refused to release requested information because they feared scientific criticism of their work. Two of the examples—the data underlying the HadCRUT temperature record and the data re garding a human “fingerp rint” in the tropics— are discussed and responded to in the precedi ng comments (3-37 and 3-38). The two other examples are discussed below.

According to the petitioner, the first example of “stonewalling” requests fo r data occurred in the spring of 2003, when Michael Mann, professor at Pennsylvania State University, allegedly provided Stephen McIntyre, editor of the blog “Clim ate Audit,” with an incorrect or incomplete

dataset of the information used in Mann’s “hoc key stick” temperature reconstruction paper. McIntyre used the dataset to publish a paper in October 2003 with Ross McKitrick, professor at University of Guelph, which described errors in Mann’s analysis. According to Peabody Energy, Mann responded in a tone that was “harshly ne gative” and accused McIntyre and McKitrick of making numerous errors and using so me data other than what was us ed in the original analysis.

69 E-mail file 122946846 7.txt (December 16, 2008), page 1598, line 38 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf.

84Peabody Energy quotes an e-ma il from Novemb er 12, 2003, in which Tim Osborn, academic fellow at CRU, writes to Keith Briffa and Phil Jone s of CRU and states that he wished Mann had waited to respond to the McIntyre and McKitr ick paper by submitting a formal comment to a peer-reviewed journal.

Peabody Energy states that McIntyre and McKitrick then requested Mann’s original source code, but their request was not granted. Peabody Energy notes that Mann referred to their requests as

“intimidation tactics” in a February 14, 2005, Wall Street Journal article (Regalado, 2005). The petitioner also highlights a series of e-mails fr om Phil Jones to multiple colleagues, from which Peabody Energy draws the conclusion that J ones and his colleagues discussed providing “information that could not be used or not provid ing any information at all.” In one of the emails quoted by Peabody Energy, Jones writes his opi nions about the request from McIntyre and

McKitrick:

If the code is sent, there needs to be conditions. We don’t want MM [McIntyre and McKitrick] to come out and say he can’t get it to work after a few days. So, it is far some simple. I’m still against th e code being given out. Mike has made the data available. That is all they should need. The method is detailed in the original paper - in the online (methods) and also in several other papers Mike has

written. 70

The petitioner cites a second example of “stonewall ing” requests for data in the winter of 2004, when Stephen McIntyre made a request to Ph il Jones for data underlying the Jones and Mann (2003) paper, whic h created a proxy temperature reconstruction that was cited in Chapter 6 of the IPCC AR4 (Jansen et al., 2007). Peabody Energy de scribes Jones as refusing the request despite obtaining approval from a colleague, Tas van Om men of the Australian Arctic Division, to release his part of the dataset. The petitioner also cites an e- mail exchange between Jones and Mann about McIntyre’s request, in which Mann stat ed that he would not provide information to McIntyre and encouraged Jones to do the same . Peabody Energy also quotes an e-mail from Jones to Mann from about a year later:

I got this e-mail from McIntyre a few days ago. As far as I’m concerned he has the data — sent ages ago. I’ll tell him this, but that’s all — no code. If I can find it, it is likely to be hundreds of lines of uncommented fortran! I recall the program did a lot more that just average the series. I know why he can’t replicate the results early on — it is because

there was a variance correction for fewer series. 71

The petitioner argues that these examples of ignoring data requests, in addition to other statements made by CRU scientists and their coll eagues, are indicative of a pattern or typical practice of refusing to provide access to their data. Peabody Energy cite s the following e-mail

from Phil Jones to Tas van Ommen on February 9, 2004 as further evidence:

70 E-mail file 1076083097.txt, (February 6, 20 04), page 650, line 42 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf.

71 E-mail file 1114607213.txt, (April 27, 2005), page 866, line 31 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf.

85I had some e-mails with him a few years ago when he wanted to get all the station temperature data we use here in CRU. At that time, I hid behind the fact that some of the

data had been received from individuals a nd not directly from Me t Services through the Global Telecommunications Service (GTS) or through GCOS [Global Climate Observing System ]... I’ll just sit tight here and do noth ing. Mike will likely do the same, but we’ll expect another publication in the nearish future. 72

Peabody Energy also cites the following e-mail from Phil Jones to Tas van Ommen and Caspar Ammann on May 7, 2004:

Many of us in the paleo field get requests from skeptics (mainly a guy called Steve McIntyre in Canada) asking us for series. Mike and I are not sending anything, partly

because we don’t have some of the series he wants, also partly as we’ve got the data through contacts like you, but mostly because he’ll distort and misuse them. 73

Peabody Energy asserts that “the reason why these scientists refused to divulge underlying information was to avoid criticism of their work” and “Jones and Mann and their colleagues were obviously hostile to McIntyre and other ‘skeptics’ b ecause of their disagreement with the conclusions those ‘skeptics’ might draw, saying the ‘skeptics’ w ould ‘misuse’ and ‘distort’ the data.” As evidence, the peti tioner quotes a comment Phil Jones made to Janice Lough of the

Australian Institute of Marine Science: “Mike Mann refuses to talk to these people and I can understand why. They are just trying to find if we’ve done anything wrong.” As further evidence, Peabody Energy also quotes two e-mails from Mann to Osborn as examples of CRU scientists’ “acute hostility” to a nyone associated with ClimateAudit:

I’m saddened to hear that this bozo is bothering you too, in addition to NCAR [National Center for Atmospheric Research], NSF [National Science Foundation], NAS [National Academies of Science], IPCC and everyone else. Rest assured that I won’t ever respond to McIntyre should he ever contact me, but I will forward you any e-ma il he sends related to this. I assume Scott feels the same way... 74

hi tim. personally, I don’t see why you should make any concessions for this

moron. 75

Peabody Energy states that “[T]hi s attitude is not consistent with good science...Research, particularly research of this immense importan ce, should be amenable to replication by anyone, regardless of whether they will draw different conclusions from the research than those producing the research would like.” In support of this argument, Peabody Energy references the conclusions of a report commi ssioned by the U. S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce,

72 E-mail file 1076336623.txt, (Feb ruary 9, 2004), page 652, line 6 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf.

73 E-mail file 1083962601.txt, (May 7, 2004), page 665 , line 12 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf.

74 E-mail file 1146062963.txt, (April 26, 2006), page 1126, line 8 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf

75 E-mail file 1147435800.txt, (May 12, 2006), page 1129, line 27 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf.

86kn own as the “Wegman Report” (Wegman et al., 2006). Peabody quotes the following conclusion from the report:

Sharing of research materials, data, and r esults is haphazard and often grudgingly done. We were especially struck by Dr. Mann’s in sistence that the code he developed was his intellectual property and that he could lega lly hold it personally without disclosing it to

peers. When code and data are not shared and methodology is not disclosed, peers do not have the ability to replicate the work and thus independent verification is impossible.

Response (3-39) : First, the petitioner describes at length four interactions between the CRU e-mail authors and people requesting information. On the basis of th ese four examples, the pe titioner concludes that CRU scientists and their colleagues repeatedly an d consistently ignored data requests because they feared scientific review and critiques of their work. For two of these examples—the raw CRU temperature data and the tropical “fingerpri nt” data—we address the petitioner’s concerns on this issue in responses 3-37 and 3-38 above, which shows that these information requests were not ignored and data was made or was availa ble to the requestors. Regarding the other two examples—claims that Mike Mann and Phil Jone s withheld paleoclimat e data—we address the petitioner’s concerns here.

The e-mails cited by the petitioner indicate that the scientists believed th ey had already provided enough data and information for others to be able to replicate their wo rk by making the basic data publicly available and publishing the met hodology for replicating a particular study in the literature. For example, Phil Jones states that “Mik e [Mann] has made the data available. That is all they should need. The method is detailed in the origin al paper - in the online (methods) and also in several other papers Mike has written” 76 . The UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee inquiry (2010b) found that this type of approach was considered common practice at the time. They stated:

The focus on Professor Jones and CRU has been largely misplaced. On the accusations relating to Professor Jones’s refusal to share raw data and computer codes, we consider

that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community. We have suggested that the community consider becoming more transparent by publishing raw data and detailed methodologies.

From our review of the e-mails, it is clear that the scientists expressed significant frustration at repeated requests for specific explanations and computer codes, and that their attitudes toward some requestors were not always complimentary. This is consistent w ith the findings of the Independent Climate Change E-mails Review, wh ich stated that the CRU scientists had an “overly defensive approach” and a tendency to provide unhelpful responses to requests for information (Russell, 2010). This is regrettabl e, and EPA agrees with the recommendations of

the UK House of Commons Science and T echnology Committee investigation and the Independent Climate Change E-mails Review that both CRU and the greater scientific

76 E-mail file 1076083097.txt, (February 6, 2004), page 650, line 42 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf.

87community should ma ke more of an effort to provide public access to raw data and detailed methodologies.

However, we also find that the petitioner greatly exaggerates the impli cations of the alleged conduct of two scientists. The evidence they po int to does not support their claims that the ability of other researchers to independently review or replicat e paleoclimate studies has been limited, that their scientific conclusions are unsup ported, or that these sp ecific incidents are a

sound basis on which to characteri ze the practices of hundreds, if not thousands, of scientists across the much broader body of climate science. These leap s of logic are not supported by sound reasoning or evidence. The evidence indicates the exercise of scientific rigor and honesty,

and the release of information in accord with then common scientific practice. The petitioner has not explained why the data and methodology that was released or was otherwise available was inadequate for further research, and have not provided scientific arguments to support their claims. In addition, the “hocke y stick” papers are more than a decade old. Since their publication, numerous studies have been published that improved on the original methodology

and that include newer and differe nt sources of data. Given this body of newer work, petitioner’s concern over the construction of a decade old figure are of little if any scientific relevance. As

discussed in Volume 1 of the RT P and elsewhere, there has been significant research and debate in the scientific community over a variety of proxy temperature recons tructions, and petitioner has not argued or shown here that this research was in error or that research opposing it was not performed or could not be performed because of data or coding allegedly withheld.

EPA agrees with the Independent Climate Chan ge E-mails Review’s recommendation of greater transparency in the future in this area of scientific research, but the evidence presented by the petitioner does not support the view that the scientific research in this area and the conclusions drawn from it, including conclusions about the uncertainty involved in areas of research such as proxy temperature reconstructions, was flawed or improperly characterized by EPA in the Endangerment Finding.

In addition, the body of paleoclimate research—that is, the specific research at issue in the emails related to these two examples cited by the petitioner—underwent extensive scientific review and scrutiny by the NRC in 2006 in res ponse to a request from the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science. The N RC committee was tasked with assessing “the

state of scientific efforts to reconstruct surface temperature reco rds for the Earth over approximately the last 2,000 years and the implic ations of these efforts for our understanding of global climate change” (NRC, 2006). A key conclusion from the NRC report supported the methods and general conclusions of th e paleoclimate community, stating:

It can be said with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries. This statem ent is justified by the consistency of the evidence from a wide variety of geographically diverse proxies.

Thus, we find that the petitioner’s evid ence does not support their conclusion that paleoclimate studies could not be replicated a nd results verified, nor any reason to question

the fundamental conclusions of the climat e change research conducted by the CRU

researchers.

88Comment (3-40) : Peabody Energy claims that in response to a Ha dCRUT data request from Warwick Hughes, an Australian scientist, Phil Jones replied on February 8, 2005, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data availa ble to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?” (Jones, 2005). On th is basis, the petitioner argues that the Endangerment Finding should be reconsidered becau se lack of data sharing and accessibility prevented key climate science studies fr om being replicated and critiqued.

Response (3-40) : Although Jones denies Hughes’ request, we note th at he points Hughes to another expert (Hans Teunisson) to assist with his reque st, as well as to various sources of data while describing that

some countries restrict access to data. Jones’ fu ll response to Hughes’ ema il is as follows (Jones, 2005):

Warwick, Hans Teunisson will reply. ’ He’ll tell you which other people should reply. Hans is

“Hans Teunissen” <HTeunissen@wmo.int> . I shou ld warn you that some data we have we are not supposed top pass on to others. We can pass on the gridded data - which we

do. Even if WMO [the World Meteorological Or ganization] agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. There is IPR

to consider.

You can get similar data from GHCN at NCDC. Australia ’ isn’t restricted there. Several European countries are. Basica lly because, for example, France ’ doesn’t want the French picking up data on France from Asheville. Meteo France wants to supply data to the French on France. Same story in most of the others.

Cheers

Phil

The petitioners exaggerate the implications of this one unfulfilled data request for the validity of

the science. We note that the methods used to generate the HadCRUT temperature record are

well described in the literature and the data necessary to replicate the HadCRUT record are publically available, as described in Volu me 1, Section 1.3.3.1. Working with publically accessible data, the Independent Climate Change E-mails Review (Russell, 2010) was able to write computer code from scratch in a space of two days that produced results similar to the HadCRUT and other independent analyses. Fu rthermore, Volume 1 demonstrates that temperature reconstructions from publically available data such as NOAA’s temperature record, the Global Historical Climatology Network ( GHCN), look very similar to temperature

reconstructions from HadCRUT. Therefore, the petitioner’s allegation that key climate science studies could not be replicated and critiqued is not accurate. It remains the case that the HadCRUT temperature record is legitimized by p eer reviewed methodology, its replicability, and its similarity with other global temperature records.

As noted in our response (3-39) above, the In dependent Climate Change E-mails Review found a tendency to provide unhelpful resp onses to requests for information and the need for a culture

89shift to emphasize the importance o f transparenc y. EPA agrees with the recommendations of the

UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee investigation and the Independent Climate Change E-mails Review that both CRU and the greater scientific community should make more of an effort to provide public access to raw data and detailed methodologies. However, the petitioners’ broad and sweeping claims are not warra nted given the data that was clearly available and the ready ability to do re search using th e publicly available data and methodology provided by the CRU.

Comment (3-41) : The petitioners draw various conclusions about the effect of the scie ntists’ alleged actions discussed in the e-mails. Peabody Energy argues that leading climate scientists have worked under a “veil of secrecy” and that their actions “[do] not comport with U.S. scientific norms.” Peabody Energy asserts that this is suggestive that they may have been “hiding” something. Peabody Energy also claims that without the und erlying data and relate d information, CRU and

associated scientists’ studies “co uld not be replicated or critiq ued,” which calls into question their validity. The Coalition for Responsible Regulat ion goes one step further, alleging that “It is

doubtful EPA can disclose the techni cal studies and data upon which it so heavily relies, not only because Phil Jones and his colleagues at CRU de liberately withheld data from both EPA’s and the public’s review, but also because some of that raw data has now been destroyed.”

Response (3-41) : Our responses to the specific e-mails petitione rs rely upon in reaching these conclusions are addressed above. Responses 3-37 through 3-40 address claims rega rding availability of data, including data concerning a human “fingerpri nt” in the tropics, data underlying the HadCRUT temperature record, and data conc erning historic temperature recons tructions. Volume 1 of this RTP document addresses claims rega rding the scientific validity and other scientific aspects of these data. As we have explai ned, based on our review of the e-mails, the evidence does not support the broad claims of misfeasance or poor science, or of atte mpts to hide any such science.

Instead the scientists at issue performed their research honestly and with scientific rigour, and they released information in accord with the common scientific practice at that time.

Further, the e-mails show that the scientists believed that en ough data and information were available for independent review, replication, an d verification, while al so expressing frustration with the ongoing inquiries from cer tain individuals. It is clea r that the e-mail authors were particularly frustrated by repe ated requests for specific explan ations and computer programming codes when the base data had already been ma de available and the methodology for replicating a particular study had already been published in the li terature. As we note in our previous responses (e.g., 3-35), this view of the e-mail authors represente d the common approach toward

data release at the time. Petitioners do not explain why the data that was available was inadequate for the purposes of such research.

The petitioners claim that the CRU scientists and their colleagues ignored requests for data in order to avoid revealing th eir biased or flawed science, implying that they did not operate according to good scientific practice. However petitioner’s evidence does not support their suggestion that th e scientists manipulated thei r analyses to reach desired results, withheld data with an aim of hiding the alleged manipulation, and ultimately

90reached flawed their sc ientific conclusions are flawed.

EPA is not alone in reaching these conclusions. As stated in our re sponse (3-35) above,

the UK House of Commons Science and Tec hnology Committee investigation concluded

that “On the accusations relati ng to Professor Jones’s refusal to share raw data and computer codes, we consider that his actio ns were in line with common practice in the climate science community.” The Scientific Appraisal Panel review examined criticism toward CRU and found “no evidence of any deliber ate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it” (Oxburgh, 2010). In addition, the Independent Climate Change Emails Review concluded, “On the specific alle gations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt” (Russell, 2010). We find that the petitioner’s evidence do es not suggest otherwis e or show that the

CRU scientists and their collea gues utilized methods other th an those which are “fair and satisfactory” according to the Scientific Apprai sal Panel, and conducted their research with integrity and rigor.

Comment (3-42) : Peabody Energy states that the CRU e-mails prov ide evidence that top climate scientists refused to provide access to ke y data underlying their studies, and that this practice is “especially alarming both because many of these scientists were either government employees or government-funded and because they were so highly influential in the IPCC.” Peab ody Energy quotes the following conclusion from th e “Wegman Report” (Wegman et al., 2006).

Federally funded work including code shoul d be made available to other researchers upon reasonable request, especially if the inte llectual property has no commercial value. Some consideration should be granted to data collect ors to have exclusive use of their data for one or two years, prior to publication. Bu t data collected under federal support should be made publicly available.

Response (3-42) : The petitioner’s quote from the Wegman Report doe s not support the petiti oner’s allegation that the CRU e-mail authors refused to share key data underlying their studies. It is simply a statement of the opinion of Dr. Wegman, author of the referenced repo rt. We have already addressed public comments regarding the Wegm an Report in Volume 2 of the RTC document supporting the Endangerment Findings. We address the petitioners’ claims regarding the alleged withholding of data—including da ta concerning a human “fingerp rint” in the tropics, data underlying the HadCRUT temperature record, an d data concerning historic temperature reconstructions—in Responses 3-37 through 3-40 above.

Comment (3-43) : Peabody Energy states that the CRU e-mail au thors finally acknowledged the importance of public disclosure of their data for maintaining good scientific practices only after they were forced to admit they had made mistakes in their research. Accord ing to Peabody Energy, the authors of a paper published in Science were forced to admit that they had flipped a dataset upside down as a result of Stephen McIntyre’s requests for data. Peabody Energy quotes the

91fo llowing e-mail from Jonathan Overpeck, professor at University of Arizona, sent to multiple colleagues on September 5, 2009:

D [Darrell Kaufman, professor at Northern Arizona University] et al.—

Please write all e-mails as t hough they will be made public. I would not rush and I would not respond to any of them until the best strategy is developed—don’t want to waste anyone’s time, including yours or Mc’s [Stephen McIntyre’s]. Since the recon in Science has an error, I think you do need to publish a correction in Science...I don’t think you have a choice

here...

# 5 is tricky. Giving him the data would be good, but only if it is yours to give. You can’t give him data that you got from others and are not allowed to share. But

it would be nice if he could have access to all the data that we used—that’s the way science is supposed to work. 77

Peabody Energy also states that Tom Wigley of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research was forced to admit there were prob lems with datasets used in proxy temperature reconstructions by Keith Briffa of CRU, when Stephen McIntyre raised questions about them. According to the petitioner, Briffa, at least init ially, “declined to respond to McIntyre’s requests for information.” The petitioner quotes the following e-mail excerpt from Tom Wigley to Phil Jones on October 5, 2009:

...Keith does seem to have got himself into a mess...And the issue of with-holding data is still a hot potato, one that affects both you and Keith (and Mann). Yes, there are reasons— but many *good* scie ntists appear to be unsympathetic to these. The trouble here is that with-holding data looks like hiding something, and hiding means (in some eyes) that it is bogus science that is being hidden. 78

Response (3-43) : Peabody Energy implies that because of Stephe n McIntyre’s requests for data, mistakes were found in a paper published in Science , which the petitioner di d not identify but that

we believe to be Kaufman et al. (2009) based on context given in the e-mails. However, the evidence does not show what the catalyst was for the authors’ decision to publish a

correction. In the “corrections and clarif ications” update written by Kaufman et al. responding to critiques of their original paper, they thanked “H. McCulloch and others who have pointed out errors and have offered suggestions” (Kaufman et al. 2010). To the extent that Peabody Energy is ar guing that the results of Kaufman et al. (2009) are invalid given the errors that necessitated publishing a correction, we respond in Volume 1, Section 1.1.3 of the RTP document to the allegation ab out “flipping datasets” (1-10) and related paleoclimate temperature reconstruction issues.

Peabody Energy also implies that Wigley admitted there were problems with Keith

77 E-mail file 1252164302.txt, (September 5, 2009), page 1734, line 12 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf.

78 E-mail file 1254756944.txt, (October 5, 2009), page 1782, line 6 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf.

92Briffa’s proxy temperature reconstructions after Stephen McIntyre questioned their validity. The e-m ail does not s upport this allegation. The text of the e-mails says nothing that would indicate that Wigley “admitted” or believed there were errors in Briffa’s work, or that any errors were being “hidden.” To the contrary, Wigley states that there can be valid reasons for not publishing data, but voice s concern that others would misinterpret such actions as trying to hide poor science.

As before, the petitioner claims that these in cidents are proof that the science was flawed and unreliable. Through our review of the sc ientific issues, in re sponse to petitioners’ arguments and throughout the notice and co mment period on the Endangerment Findings, EPA has determined that the paleoclimate sc ience is appropriately characterized and weighed in the Administrator’s decision. Our revi ew of the issues rela ted to the release of data indicates that the scientists did make data and information available, even if sometime

later and sometimes not to the satisfaction of requestors, that raw data was also publicly available, that the scientists at issue conducted their work with scientific integrity and rigour, and their actions in releasing data was consistent with common and accepted scientific practice. While EP A supports increased transparency in this area of research, petitioners arguments are not based on scienc e and do not support thei r claims that the

research at issue was flawed. Their claim is based on concerns over data availability, and they do not show why the data that was av ailable was not adequate for the research purposes claimed. The evidence they present does not support the broad scientific and other conclusions they draw.

3.4.3 Allegations of Improper Conduct With Regard to UK FOI and U.S. FOIA Laws

3.4.3.1 General Allegations

Comment (3-44) : The Coalition for Responsible Regulation, th e Pacific Legal Foundation, Peabody Energy, and the State of Texas claim that a quote from the Deputy Information Commissioner of the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO)—”Re quests under the Freedom of Information Act were not dealt with as they s hould have been under the legisl ation”—provides evidence that CRU scientists violated the law by refusing to comply with requests fo r data. Peabody Energy states that “these efforts by CRU to evade FO IA have now been determined to have been illegal.” Peabody Energy further opines that “Des truction of public record s to avoid disclosure under FOIA unquestionably violates U.S. and U.K. law.” The State of Texas quotes a newspaper article (Kinver, 2010) that states that the UK ICO is reviewing whether the UK FOI law needs to be revised in light of the CRU ’s refusal to disclose public information.

Response (3-44) : The petitioners base their allegations that CRU violated the UK FOI law solely on a statement to the press made by Deputy Information Commi ssioner Graham Smith, which suggested that at least some of the requested information s hould have been disclo sed. Contrary to the petitioners’ claims, this statem ent was not an official finding of the UK ICO. The recent inquiry by the UK House of Commons Science and Technol ogy Committee (2010b) puts Smith’s statement into proper context:

9388. On 29 January there was an exchange be tween UEA [University of East Anglia] and Mr. Smith, the Deputy Commissioner. Brian Summers, the Registrar and Secretary of UEA responded forcibly to Mr Smith’s 22 January press statement, which asserted that UEA had not dealt with FOIA requests “as they should have been under the legislation”. He did not consider it was “acceptable that such a statement which has led to an extremely damaging commentary on the Univer sity [was] first communicated to the University by a journalist”. His letter goes on to defend UEA’s actions in detail and to ask that, if the Information Commissioner’ s Office (ICO) cannot retract the 22 January statement, it issue a clarification regarding the alleged breaches of the FOIA. A response from the ICO was issued the same day. It did not retract the original statement but

offered clarification: 1. [No] decision notice has yet been issued and no alleged breaches have yet been put

to the University for comment. That matte r has yet to be addressed, but it will be over coming months. 2. The fact that the elements of a section 77 offence may have been found here, but

cannot be acted on because of the elapsed tim e, is a very serious matter. The ICO is not resiling from its position on this. 3. The ICO’s position is as stated in point 2 above. The statement may be read to

indicate that. Under section 77, an offen ce may be committed by an individual, not necessarily the public authority itself. 4. Errors like this are frequently made in press reports and the ICO cannot be

expected to correct them, particularly when the ICO has not itself referred to penalties or sanctions in its own statement.

89. UEA responded on 1 February thanking the ICO for the clarification but setting out its concerns relating to the press coverage of the ICO’s original statement: Your clarification that the press cannot infer from your statement to the Sunday Times that it has been established that the University (or indeed any individual associated with the Un iversity) has breached the terms of

the Freedom of Information Act is welcome. [UEA’s] reputation which has been subjected to these damaging and incorrect assertions claiming to be based on your statement and we must take some steps to put this right. We will be writing to the media which carried reports based on your statement, pointing out the inaccuracies and aski ng them to rectify the position.

90. In his oral evidence Professor Acton [Vice-Chancellor at UEA] questioned the ICO statement of 22 January: Our principle is that prima facie evid ence is evidence which on the face of it and without investigation suggests that there is a case to answer. To my mind if there is prima facie evidence; why did I set up the Muir Russell independent review? Prima facie evidence is not the same as, you have

been found to breach. [...] If it is sub judice, if, as we had in the letter ten days ago from the ICO, the investiga tion has not even begun, I am puzzled

how we could have been found to breach if there has been no investigation.

91. The ICO’s most recent letter, dated 3 March, in UEA’s view, “makes plain that there is no assumption by the ICO, prior to investigation, that UEA has breached the Act; and that no investigation has yet been completed. ” The ICO’s letter confirmed that the “ICO is not pursuing any investigation under section 77 of the Act. That matter is closed as far as the ICO is concerned, given the statutory time limits for action”. It added that:

94The ICO acknowledges your concern about the statement made and the subsequent media and blog reports. Given that the Deputy Commissioner has already been publicly associated with the matter, any Decision Notice will be reviewed and signed off by another authorised signatory.

The UK House of Commons Science and T echnology Committee (2010b) concluded the following:

We regret that the ICO made a statement to the press that went beyond that which it could substantiate and that it took over a month for the ICO properly to put the record straight. We recommend that the ICO develop procedures to ensure that its public

comments are checked and that mechanisms exis t to swiftly correct any mis-statements or misinterpretations of such statements.

Based on the evidence submitted to the UK H ouse of Commons Scie nce and Technology by UEA and the UK ICO, it is clear that Deput y Information Commissioner Smith’s January 22 nd
press statement was not based on the results of a formal investigation and his opinions about CRU do not represent the conclu sions of a comprehensive gove rnment investigation. The

statement from Smith does not s upport the petitioner’s allegations that CRU scientists acted illegally. In addition, regardi ng the comment from the State of Texas that the UK ICO is reviewing whether the UK FOI law needs to be re vised, we note that the existence of a possible review of the law does not provide evidence that CRU scientists acted illegally or inappropriately.

For all of the above reasons, the petitioners evidence does not show whether there was a violation of UK law, and does not contradict the conclusions of the three independent investigations into the CRU e-mails. These investigations found that the CRU e-mail

authors conducted their research in accord ance with common practice in the climate science community at the tim e, utilized methods which are “fair and satisfactory” according to the Scientific Appraisal Pane l (Oxburgh, 2010), and maintained scientific integrity and rigor in their work. EPA supports the recommendations for greater transparency in this area of climate res earch; however petitione rs’ evidence does not support their claim that the science underl ying the Endangerment Finding was suspect or flawed, or that it was mischaracterized in any way in the Endangerment Finding. Petitioners’ arguments are not based on an analysis of the science, but on unsupported assertions of inadequate science.

Comment (3-45) : The Coalition for Responsible Regulation, P eabody Energy, and the Southeastern Legal

Foundation claim that the CRU e-mail authors, particularly Phil Jones and Michael Mann, avoided compliance with FOI laws. Peabody Energy argues that the CRU e-mail authors

concealed information as a means to frustrate th e work of researchers like Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick who might criticize thei r work. Peabody Energy states that the paleoclimate community “decide d that McIntyre and anyone associated with him was essentially their enemy and that they would refu se to cooperate entirely with any effort to provide him with information, including under the U.S. and British FOIAs.” Peabody Energy further claims that CRU scientists and their associates “accelerated their highly-contentious

95struggle against so-called ‘skep tics’” by cr eating the RealClimate website in order to “counter” Stephen McIntyre’s ClimateAudit website.

The petitioners highlight numerous statements taken from the CRU e-mails in support of their arguments that CRU scientists and their colleague s withheld data and ignor ed FOI requests. In one example, Coalition for Responsible Regulation and Peabody Energy quote an e-mail from Phil Jones to Tom Wigley and Be n Santer on January 21, 2005:

As for FOIA Sarah isn’t technically employed by UEA and she will likely be paid by Manchester Metropolitan University. I wouldn’t worry about the code. If FOIA does ever get used by anyone, there is also IPR [intellectual property rights] to consider as well. Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them. I’ll be passing any requests onto the person at UEA who has been given a post to deal with them. 79

In another example, Peabody Energy, the Southeas tern Legal Foundation, and the Coalition for Responsible Regulation quote the following e-ma il excerpt from Jones to Mann on February 3,

2005:

Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this

time! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ft p sites — you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs [Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick] have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear th ere is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? — our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will

hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried e-mail when he heard about it — thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR [intellectual property rights] should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who’ll say we must adhere to it!... 80

Peabody Energy and Southeastern Legal Foundati on quote Mann’s response (the Southeastern Legal Foundation erroneously attributes this quote to Phil Jones):

Yes, we’ve learned out [sic] lesson about FTP. We’re going to be very careful in the future what gets put there. Scott really screwed up big time when he established that directory so that Tim could access the data. Yeah, there is a freedom of information act in the U.S., and the contrarians are going to try to use it for all its worth. But there are also intellectual property rights issues, so it isn’t clear how these sorts of things will play out ultimately in the U.S. 81

79 E-mail file 1106338806.txt, (January 21, 2005), page 810, line 38 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf.

80 E-mail file 1107454306.txt, (Febru ary 3, 2005), page 821, line 22 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf.

81 E-mail file 1107454306.txt, (February 3, 2005) page 821, line 12 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf.

96Peabody Energy quotes another e-mail excerpt from Phil Jones to Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes on February 21, 2005:

PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !” 82

Peabody Energy quotes another e- mail excerpt from Phil Jones to Ben Santer that was forwarded on December 4, 2008:

In response to FOI and EIR [Environmen tal Information Regulations] requests, we’ve put up some data - mainly paleo data. Each request generally leads to more — to explain what we’ve put up. Every tim e, so far, that hasn’t led to anything being added — instead just statements saying read what is in the papers and what

is on the web site! Tim Osborn sent one such response (via the FOI person) earlier this week. We’ve never sent programs, any codes and manuals. 83

Response (3-45) : The quoted e-mails show the authors’ opinions a nd questions about the a pplicability of the FOI

law to their various datasets. As discussed in ou r previous responses in this Volume, scientists can and do state their opinions and express frus tration in personal communications with colleagues. Although Jones makes sometimes flippant statements regarding FOI laws, this does not show that he deleted files, destroyed data, or otherwise attemp ted to obstruct FOI requests.

In addition, the petitioner’s claim that the paleoc limate community refused to cooperate entirely with McIntyre and anyone associ ated with him is without merit. Two of the e-mails quoted by Peabody Energy 84 clearly indicate that Jone s and other CRU scientists provided data in response to FOI requests. As discussed throughout this section, our review of the issues related to the release of data indicates that in many cases the data were already public ly available or were released by the scientists, and th at the scientists conduc ted their work with scientific rigor and honesty and consistent with common and accepted scientific practice.

Regarding Peabody Energy’s claims that the CRU scientists perpetuated a “highly-contentious struggle” against “climate skeptics,” we find that the petitioner’s assertions concerning the RealClimate blog of no relevance. The reasons for cr eating the site are irrele vant to the issues of whether the scientists were complying with FOI laws , and to the issue of the scientific validity of

their research.

Comment (3-46) : Peabody Energy quotes the following e-mail excerpt written by Phil Jones to Kevin Trenberth of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research on June 20, 2007, claiming that it provides evidence that CRU scientists and their colleague s withheld data and i gnored FOI requests:

82 E-mail file 1109021312.txt, (Feb ruary 21, 2005), page 834, line 25 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf.

83 E-mail file 122841242 9.txt, (December 4, 2008), page 1593, line 22 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf.

84 E-mail file 118234629 9.txt, (June 20, 2007), page 1335, line 9 and e- mail file 1228412429. txt, (December 4, 2008), page 1593, line 22 of the PDF ve rsion entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf.

97I won’t be replying to either of the e-mails below, nor to any of the accusations on the

Climate Audit website. I’ve sent them on to someone here at UEA to see if we should be discussing anything with our legal staff. The second letter seems an attempt to be nice to me, and somehow split up the original author te am. I do now wish I’d never sent them the data after their FOIA request 85

Peabody Energy cites this example as further ev idence of the CRU e-mail authors ignored FOI requests as part of their “highly-contentious struggle” against anyone affiliated with Stephen McIntyre or the Climate Audit blog.

Response (3-46) : The petitioner selectively quotes part of an e- mail chain to support its argument and does not provide larger context for Jones’ statement. The e-mail chain at issue here was sent in response to the following e-mail from Douglas Keenan (pri vate UK citizen) to Stephen McIntyre (editor of the blog Climate Audit). The su bject of the e-mail relates to a paper on urban heat islands that Jones co-authored with Wei-Chyung Wang of the Un iversity at Albany in New York (i.e., Jones et al., 1990).

From: “D.J. Keenan” doug.keenan@informath.org To: “Steve McIntyre” stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca Cc: “Phil Jones” p.jones@uea.ac.uk Subject: Wang fabrications Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 20:45:15 +0100

Steve, I thought that I should summarize what has happened with the Wang case First, I

concluded that the claims made about Chinese stations by Jones et al. [Nature, 1990] and Wang et al. [GRL, 1990] were very probably fabricated. (You very likely came to the same conclusion.) Second, some investig ation showed that Phil Jones was wholly blameless and that responsibility almost certainly lay with Wang. Third, I contacted Wang, told him that I had caught him, and asked him to retract his fabricated claims. My e-mails were addressed to him only, and I told no one about them. In ’ Wang’s reply, though, Jones, Karl, Zeng, etc. were Cc’d. Fourth, I explained to Wang that I would publicly accuse him of fraud if he did not retract . Wang seemed to not take me seriously. So I drafted what would be the text of a formal accusation and sent it to him. Wang replied that if I wanted to make the accusati on, that was up to me. Fifth, I put a draft on my web site-- http://www.informath.org/appr ise/a5620.htm-- and e-mailed a few people, asking if they had any recommendations for improvement.

I intend to send the final version to Wang’s university, and to demand a formal investigation into fraud. I will also notif y the media. Separately, I have had a preliminary discussion with the FBI--because Wang likely used government funds to commit his fraud; it seems that it might be possible to prosecute Wang under the same

statute as was used in the Eric Poehlman case. The simplicity of the case makes this

85 E-mail file 1182346299.txt, (June 20, 2007). page 1335, line 9 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf.

98easier--no scientific knowledge is required to un derstand things. I saw that you have now
e-mailed Phil ( Cc’d above), asking Phil to publish a retraction of Wang’s claims: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1741#comme nt-115879 There could be a couple problems with that. One problem is that it would be difficult for Phil to publish anything without the agreement of Wang and the other co -authors (Nature would simply say “no”). Another problem is that your e-mail says that you presume Phil was “unaware of the

incorrectness” of Wang’s work. I do not see how that could be true. Although the evidence that Phil was innocent in 1990 seems entirely conclusive, there is also the paper of Yan et al. [Advances in Atmospheric Sc iences, 18: 309 (2001)], which is cited on my web page. Phil is a co-author of that paper. Phil, this proves that you knew there were serious problems with Wang’s claims back in 2001; yet some of your work since then has continued to rely on those claims, most notably in the latest report from the IPCC. It would be nice to hear the explanation for this. Phil? Kind wishes, Doug 86

Th is e-mail shows Douglas Keenan making serious accusations of fraud and data fabrication against Wei-Chyung Wang, and accusing Jones of know ingly using Wang’s alleged faulty data in his research. Keenan goes even further, st ating that he contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation about prosecuting Wang for fraud, a nd threatening that if Wang does not publish a retraction, Keenan will make formal accusations of fraud to Wang’s university and the media.

We respond to the petitioners’ claims that Jones and Wang committed fraud and knowingly used faulty Chinese weather station data in Volume 1, Section 1.3.4 of the RTP document. There, we show that the claims of Keenan and McIntyre are groundless and that Wang was cleared of any misconduct. Given this larger co ntext, Jones’ statement, “I do now wish I’d never sent them the data after their FOIA request ,” is more understandable. Rather than being an indication of Jones’ reluctance to comply with FOIA requests, it appears that he is reacting

to the fact that CRU data were misused to ma ke aggressive and persona l attacks on one of his colleagues. In addition, his e-ma il basically says he is referring the request to the UEA, instead of making decisions himself on this issue. As the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee investigation found, “The fo cus on Professor Jones and CRU has been largely misplaced. On the accusations relating to Professor Jones’s refusal to share raw data and computer codes, we consider that his actions were in line with co mmon practice in the climate science community. We have suggested that the community c onsider becoming more transparent by publishing raw data and detail ed methodologies. On accusations relating to Freedom of Information, we consider that much of the responsibility should lie with UEA, not CRU” (UK House of Commons Scien ce and Technology Committee, 2010b).

Our review of the larger context for the CRU e-mails in question, as well as issues related to the release of data in general, indi cates that the scientists did make data and information available,

and conducted their work consistent with common and accepted scientific practice.

Comment (3-47) :

86 E-mail file 1182346299.txt, (June 29, 2007), page 1336, line 22 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf.

99The Southeastern Legal Foundation argues that “E-m ails were apparently altered or deleted to cover up wrongdoing.” The petitioner quotes part of an e-ma il from Phil Jones of CRU to Eugene Wahl of NOAA and Caspar Amman of th e National Center for Atmospheric Research: “[T]ry and change the Received date. Don’t give those skeptics something to amuse themselves with.” The Southeastern Legal Foundation argues th at even if there is no evidence that e-mails were tampered with in response to the request from Jones, the apparent willingness of these parties to engage in such actions should cau se EPA to question its reliance on their work.

Response (3-47) : Petitioner makes a number of unsubstantiated assumpti ons in their argument. First, the petitioner assumes that Jones was asking Wahl and Ammann to alter their e-mail records. Although the petitioner only quotes part of the e-mail, we prov ide the full text to provide important context:

Gene/Caspar,

Good to see these two out. Wahl/Ammann doesn’t appear to be in ’ CC’s [the journal Climatic Change ] online first, but comes up if you search. You likely know that McIntyre

will check this one to make sure it hasn’t changed since the IPCC close-off date July 2006! Hard copies of the WG1 [IPCC Work ing Group 1] report from CUP have arrived here today. Ammann/Wahl - try and change the Received date! Don’t give those skeptics something to amuse themselves with.

Cheers

Phil 87

Based on our review of the issue, we note that in his e-mail, Jones is re ferring to two distinct journal articles written by the same authors, Wahl and Ammann (2007) and Ammann and Wahl (2007), both published in the journal Climatic Change . The rationale for Jones’ statement, “Ammann/Wahl - try and change the Received da te! Don’t give those skeptics something to amuse themselves with,” is that the journal Climatic Change had made an error in listing a received date of August 2000, which was severa l years earlier than the paper was written (Ammann and Wahl, 2007). Therefore, Phil Jones wa s apparently suggesting that they should try to get the journal to correct its website to lis t the actual date the Ammann and Wahl paper was received, rather than an obvious ly incorrect date of August 2000. There is no evidence that Ammann and Wahl followed up on Jones’ suggestion, but even if they had, th is would not be an inappropriate action.

Second, the petitioner assumes Jones’ statement wa s part of some kind of “cover up” of “wrongdoing,” without specifying what th at means or providing any furthe r context for their allegation.

It is unclear on what basis the petitioner concludes that there wa s “apparent willingness of these parties” to tamper with e-mails. Jones suggestion is benign when the context is considered and receiving this e-mail in no way implies “willingn ess” on the part of Wahl and Amman to engage in inappropriate action. Subse quent replies from Wahl and Amman in the same e-mail chain 88
discuss only their papers and provide no indication that they engaged in any inappropriate

87 E-mail file 1189722851.txt, (Septe mber 12, 2007), page 1357, line 18 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf.

88 E-mail file 1189722851.txt, (Septe mber 12, 2007). page 1356, line 33 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf.

100actions. The petitioners ’ evidence does not support their claim that the CRU scientists and their colleagues altered e-mail information or withheld key data needed for replicating key climate change studies, nor do the peti tioners provide any other evidence that would cause EPA to question the scientific merits of these scientists’ work.

Comment (3-48) : The Pacific Legal Foundation and the State of Texas claim that the CRU e-mails demonstrate that EPA was incorrect in asserting that the science on which the Administrator has based her endangerment determinations has been fully ope n and transparent. The Pacific Legal Foundation and the State of Texas state that a separate inquiry funded by the University of East Anglia will investigate CRU’s policies and pract ices for “disseminating data and research findings” to see if any of their actions were “at odds with acceptable scientific practice” or “call into question any of the research outcomes.” The Pacific Legal Foundation argues that this lack of transparency

evident in the CRU e-mails casts doubt on the reliability of CRU’s work, and that EPA’s Scientific Advisory Board should be granted an opportunity to review and comment on whether the CRU data can be relied on by EPA.

Peabody Energy argues that in a January 23, 200 9, memorandum to EPA employees (U.S. EPA, 2009b) and in a March 9, 2009, Presidential Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments (U.S. EPA, 2009c), Administrator Jack son stated her commitment that the EPA will rely on open and transparent science. Peabody En ergy states that the CRU scientists and their colleagues, which includes “government-funded scientists involved in hugely important scientific research,” were not “fully willing to make available for public scrutiny all of the information they use and produce, no matter the political, policy or scientific consequence.” Peabody Energy concludes that:

[S]cience advances only when research is exposed to critical analysis; that is the entire purpose of the scientific process. The practice of science in the shadows as reflected in the CRU material is directly contrary to the Administrator’s undertak ing that science relied on by EPA will be subject to the highest standards of transparency and openness. The Administrator cannot, consistent with these undertakings, rely on the AR4 material prepared by these authors.

In other words, the petitioner concludes that th e work of the CRU e-mail authors, including their contributions to the IPCC AR4, violates EPA’s co mmitment to transparency and thus cannot be relied upon for the Endangerment Findings.

Response (3-48) : The Pacific Legal Foundation and the State of Texas reference th e existence of the Independent Climate Change E-mails Review as evidence to ca ll into question the reliability and validity of CRU’s work. In so doing, the petitioners in appropriately assume wrongdoing based solely on

the existence—not the conclusions —of an investigation. With re gard to the CRU scientists’ actions involving research and science, the Inde pendent Climate Change E-mails Review issued its report on July 7, 2010. This report concluded:

Climate science is a matter of such global importance, that the highest standards of honesty, rigour and openness ar e needed in its conduct. On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists

101are not in doubt. In addition, we do not find that their behaviour has prejudiced the balance of advice given to policy makers. In particular, we did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the c onclusions of the IPCC assessments.

Regarding CRU’s data management policies and practices, the Independe nt Climate Change Emails Review identified issues with the way the CRU has handled requests for information in the past and the need for more transparency. As st ated in our responses (e.g., 3-39) above, we agree

with the recommendations of the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee and the Independent Climate Change E-mails Re view that both CRU and the greater climate science community can improve its efforts in terms of transparency. However, we also find that the petitioners greatly exa ggerate the implications of the e-mails concerning the release of certain data on the validity of the specifi c science issues they addressed, not to mention the petitioners’ much more expansive claim that the e-mails rais e questions about the credibility of unrelated scientific issues not addressed in the materials they cite. Our review of the issues related to the

release of data indicates that th e scientists did make data and in formation available, that they conducted their work with scientific rigor and integrity, and that they acted in a manner consistent with common and accepted scientific pract ice. Data were also publicly available for use by researchers. We reiterate that we have found no evidence that other researchers were not able to access adequate data in order to repl icate key findings or c onduct their research. Petitioners have not explained why the data that was available was inadequate for these purposes. The petitioners’ evidence does not sup port their claim that the CRU scientists and their colleagues withheld key data needed for replicating key climate change studies, nor do the petitioners provide any other evidence that would cause EPA to question the scientific merits of

these scientists’ work.

The petitioners’ claim that the assessment reports can not be re lied upon are not based on arguments or analysis of the scie ntific merits of the research atissue. Their arguments do not support a conclusion that the body of scientific research on climate ch ange or the scientific basis for the Endangerment Finding is scientific ally inappropriate or flawed.

3.4.3.2 Specific FOI Request Regarding the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report

The following comments and responses in this sec tion address the petitione rs’ specific allegation that the CRU e-mail authors obstructed one partic ular FOI request for e-mails and information pertaining to the creatio n of the IPCC’s AR4.

Comment (3-49) : The State of Texas alleges that the CRU e-mail authors ignored legal requirements when discussing how to respond to a FOI request for th eir e-mails relating to the drafting of the IPCC AR4. The petitioner argues that “At no time in th e exchange did any of them suggest what state or federal laws might have governed how the reques t needed to be treated.” The State of Texas first quotes an e-mail from Bryan Lynch (private UK citizen) to Caspar Ammann of the National Center for Atmospheric Research on June 23, 2008, which references an FOI request submitted by David Holland of the UK-based think tank Global Warming Policy Foundation:

I have read correspondence on web about yo ur letter to the in relation [sic] to expert comments on IPCC chapter 6 sent directly by you to Keith Briffa, sent

102outside the formal review process. The refusal to give these documents tends to discredit you and the IPCC in the eyes of the public. 89

Ammann apparently forwarded Lynch’s e-mail to Keith Briffa, Phil Jones, and Tim Osborn, and the State of Texas quotes their replies. Ph il Jones states, “It doe sn’t discredit IPCC!”

. 90 Tim

Osborn states:

I’d ignore this guy’s request anyway. If we aren’t consistent in keeping our discussions out of the public domain, then it might be ar gued that none of them can be kept private. Apparently, consistency of our actions is important 91

Keith Briffa states:

I have been of the opinion right from the start of these FOI requests, that our private, inter-collegial discussion is just that

 PRIVATE. Your communication with individual colleagues was on the same basis as that for any other person and it discredits the IPCC process not one iota not to reveal the details. On the contrary, submitting to these

“demands” undermines the wider scientific expectation of personal confidentiality. It is for this reason, and not because we have or have not got anything to hide, that I believe none of us should submit to these “requests.” 92

As a second example, the State of Texas alleges that Jones “...destroyed information in order to avoid the possibility of having to produce it.” As evidence, th e petitioner quotes an e-mail in which Phil Jones states, “About 2 months ago I dele ted loads of e-mails, so have very little - if anything at all”. 93

In a third example, the State of Texas cites one e-mail in which Gavin Schmidt of NASA compares the actions of global warming “skep tics” requesting information under FOI or FOIA laws to “Somali pirates”. 94 The petitioner claims that this remark “took the climate scientists’ disdain for citizens who file ope n records requests to a whole ne w level.” The State of Texas concludes from these examples that the CRU e- mail authors “have been the antithesis of transparent,” displaying not only “a total disregard for open government-but worse, affirmative disdain for transparency and utte r contempt for citizens who exerci se their right to obtain public

information.”

89 E-mail file 1214228874.txt, (June 23, 2008) pa ge 1533, line 5 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf.

90 E-mail file 1214228874.txt, (June 23, 2008) pa ge 1533, line 5 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf.

91 E-mail file 1214228874.txt, (June 23, 2008) page 1533 , line 25 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf.

92 E-mail file 1214228874.txt, (June 23, 2008) page 1533 , line 13 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf.

93 E-mail file 122841242 9.txt, (December 4, 2008), page 1593, line 22 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf.

94 E-mail file 122825871 4.txt, (December 2, 2008), page 1590, line 44 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf.

103Response (3-49) : We have reviewed the e-mails at issue in the petitioner’s objection and disagree that they are evidence that the scientists ignor ed legal requests or that they “have been the antithesis of transparent.” We address each issue below.

From our review of the e-mails related to the qu ote from Bryan Lynch, it appears that the subject of the FOI request was for personal communi cations between authors of IPCC Chapter 6 (“Palaeoclimate”) regarding expert review comments on chapter 6. 95 The request appears to be for e-mails that were not part of the formal review process—in other words, for personal conversations written privately between colleagues. This type of information is tangential at best

to the scientific assessment of the AR4 or the wo rkings of the IPCC as a whole, or for this one chapter. The IPCC maintains an open and transparent formal process by which expert comments are responded to and incorporated into the IPCC reports. The public can access drafts, expert and government review comments, and author responses used to prepare the Working Group I report (IPCC, 2007b), which includes chapter 6 on paleoclimate, on the Internet (IPCC, 2006). We provide further discussion of the transparency of IPCC review processes in Volume 2, Section 2.2. The petitioners’ evidence does not show that this formal, public process was hindered or disrupted in any wa y, or that the opinions expressed on how to respond to this FOI request produced any less robust or scientif ically valid comment review process for the

assessment report.

Regarding the second example, we note that Phil Jones’ statement is taken out of context from the e-mails. We provide the following s upporting context excerpted from the e-mail:

The inadvertent email I sent last month has led to a Data Protection Act request sent by a certain Canadian, saying that the email mali gned his scientific credibility with his peers! If he pays 10 pounds (which he hasn’t yet) I am supposed to go through my emails and he can get anything I’ve written about him. A bout 2 months ago I deleted loads of emails, so have very little - if anything at all. Th is legislation is different from the FOI - it is supposed to be used to find put [sic] why you might have a poor credit rating! 96

Phil Jones does not discuss, as the petitioners have asserted, deleting e-mails to “avoid the possibility of having to produce it.” He also do es not discuss deleting e-mails to avoid complying with requests (whether Data Protec tion Act or FOI); he simply states that he happened to delete a portion of his e-mails two months prior to receivi ng this request. The evidence does not support their conclusion that any information was delib erately deleted to avoid making it public.

Regarding the third example, it is clear that the authors of the e-ma ils voiced significant frustration about the increasing numbers of FOI requests, which they viewed as frivolous and which were taking significant time away from th eir research. EPA does not agree that these examples or any statements in the quoted e-mails are indicative of “affirm ative disdain” or “utter contempt” for transparency. As stated in our responses above, in many cases large amounts of

data were in fact released or we re publicly available. Although we agree th at there is room for

95 E-mail file 1214228874.txt, (June 23, 2008), page 1533 , line 13 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf.

96 E-mail file 122841242 9.txt, (December 4, 2008), pa ge 1594, line 6 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf.

104improve ment in terms of transparency, we also find that the petitioners greatly exaggerate the implications of these process issues for the validit y of the science in this area. Petitioners have not explained why the data available was not adequa te data in order for re searchers to replicate or otherwise evaluate key findings, or to conduc t other research. We find that the CRU e-mail

authors conducted their research in accordance with common practice in the climate science community at the time, utilized methods which are “fair and satisfactory” according to the Scientific Appraisal Panel, and maintained scie ntific integrity and ri gor in their work.

Comment (3-50) : Peabody Energy, the Southeastern Legal Foundati on, the Coalition for Responsible Regulation, the Pacific Legal Foundation, and the State of Texa s allege that the CRU scientists and their colleagues deleted or otherwise attempted to avoid disclosing informa tion pertaining to the drafting of the IPCC AR4, which was the subject of an active FOI request. Peabody Energy, the Southeastern Legal Foundation, and the State of Texas quote the following e-mail from Jones to Tom Wigley of the University Corporation fo r Atmospheric Research on December 4, 2008:

You can delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet also, but this is the person who is putting in FOI request s for all emails Keith and Ti m have written and received re

Ch 6 of AR4. We think ’ we’ve found a way around this...This message will self destruct

in 10 seconds! 97

Peabody Energy, the Southeastern Legal Founda tion, and the Coalition for Responsible Regulation quote the following e-mail from Jones to Michael Mann on May 29, 2008:

Can you delete any emails you may have had w ith Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family cr isis. Can you also email Gene and get him to

do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise. I see that CA [Climate Audit blog] claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!! 98

Peabody Energy describes an e-mail exchange from May 27, 2008 betwee n Tim Osborn of CRU and Caspar Amman of the National Center fo r Atmospheric Research about whether Amman

viewed e-mails related to th e IPCC AR4 as “confidential”. 99 From these e-mails, Peabody Energy concludes that Osborn “was not looking for a good faith statement from Amman”; rather, he was “clearly seeking an excuse for refusing to disclose information that was being sought.”

As further evidence that CRU scientists de leted information pertaining to the IPCC AR4, Peabody Energy cites the following e-mail excerpt from Phil Jones to Tom Wigley on March 12,

2008:

97 E-mail file 1210341221.txt, (May 9, 2008), page 1494, line 1 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf).

98 E-mail file 1212063122.txt, (May 29, 2008), page 1514, line 45 of PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf).

99 E-mail file 1211924186.txt, (May 27, 2008), page 1509 , line 22, e-mail file 1212156886.txt, page 1519, line 12, and e-mail file 1212166714.txt, (May 30, 2008), page 1520, line 3 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf.

105The inadvertent e-mail I sent last month has led to a Data Pr otection Act request sent by a certain Canadian, saying that the e-mail maligned his scientific credibility with his peers! If he pays 10 pounds (which he hasn’t yet) I am supposed to go through my e-mails and he can get anything I’ve written about him. About 2 months ago I deleted load s of e-mails, so have very little — if anything at all. This legislation is di fferent from the FOI — it is supposed to be used to find put why you might have a poor credit rating! 100

Peabody Energy also cites the following e- mail excerpt from Phil Jones to Ben

Santer of Lawrence Livermore Nati onal Laboratory on December 10, 2008:

Haven’t got a reply from the FOI person here at UEA. So I’m not entirely confident the numbers are correct. One way of checking would be to look on CA [Climate Audit], but I’m not doing that. I did get an e-mail from the FOI person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn’t be deleting e-mails – unless this was ‘normal’ deleting to keep e-mails manageable! 101

Peabody Energy claims that “the ma terial that they [t he CRU e-mail authors] destroyed pertained directly to their work for the IPCC...” and th at the “scientists’ concern about what they communicated with each other about preparation of AR4 was so serious that they undertook to delete the e-mails rather than have them subj ect to public scrutiny.” Peabody Energy contends that the refusal to provide information about the process of writing the IPCC reports contradicts EPA’s view of the transparency of that proce ss. The Southeastern Le gal Foundation argues that even if there is no evidence that e-mails were deleted in response to the request from Jones, the apparent willingness of the CRU scientists and their colleagues to dest roy evidence should cause EPA to question its reliance on their work.

Response (3-50) : We note that the petitioner ascribes negativ e motives to CRU e-mail author Tim Osborn—e.g., “not looking for a good faith statement,” “cl early seeking an excuse”—which are based on conjecture and innuendo. We find that the petitioner bases its ar gument on a speculative interpretation of the following e-ma il from Osborn to Caspar Amman:

I don’t think it is necessary for you to dig through any e-mails you may have sent us to determine your answer. Our question is a more general one, which is whether you generally consider e-mails that you sent us to have been sent in

confidence. If you do, then we will use this as a reason to decline the request. 102

The petitioner does not provide evidence or reasons why EPA should not interpret this

statement at face value—that Osborn was sincer e in asking for only a general answer as to whether or not Amman considered their private communications to be confidential. It is reasonable for Osborn to tell Amman not to waste time digging through his e-mails, as he

100 E-mail file 1228412429.txt, (March 12, 2008), page 1594, line 6 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf.

101 E-mail file 122892205 0.txt, (December 10, 2 008), page 1596, line 20 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf

102 E-mail file 1212166714.txt, (May 30, 2008), page 15 20, line 3 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf.

106meant for his question to be a general one. W e find that the petitioner has no basis for its negative characterization of Osborn’s intentions.

We also note that the second e-mail quoti ng Phil Jones [1228412429.txt], in which Jones discusses deleting some e-mails, does not pertai n to the FOI request for IPCC AR4 information. Contrary to the petitioner’s assertions that J ones deliberately deleted information to avoid complying with the FOI request, the first se ntence of the quoted e-mail [1228412429.txt] clearly refers to a Data Protection Act request, not an FOI request, for Jones’ personal communications about a specific person (i.e., “a certain Canadian,” presumably St ephen McIntyre). We also note that Phil Jones does not discuss, as the petiti oners have asserted, de leting e-mails to avoid revealing something “serious” about preparation of AR4. In fact, he does not state any intentions whatsoever to avoid complying with any reques ts (whether Data Protection Act or FOI) by deleting e-mails; he simply states that he happene d to delete a portion of his e-mails two months ago prior to receiving the Data Protection Act re quest. These e-mails may or may not have had anything to do with the drafting of the AR4; it is not clear fr om the e-mails themselves.

The petitioners exaggerate the importance of th e requested information pertaining to the IPCC AR4, implying that the information requested was central to the workings of the IPCC report writing process. We respond to this issue in our response (3-49) above . We provide further discussion of the transparency of IPCC review pr ocesses in Volume 2, Section 2.2. As described above, the petitioners’ evidence does not show th at the formal, public process for submissions and review of comments was not fully robust or was hindered or disrupted, or that the opinions expressed in the e-mails produced any less robust or scientifically valid public comment review process on the science for th e assessment report.

As described above, the investig ations of the CRU scientists found that they conducted their research with scientific integrity and rigor, and with no indications of scientific malpractice. Although we agree that there is room for improvement in terms of transparency, we also find that the petitioners greatly ex aggerate the implications of these process issues for the validity of the

science in this area. We find that the CRU e-ma il authors conducted their research in accordance with common practice in the cl imate science community at the time and utilized methods which are “fair and satisfactory” according to the Scie ntific Appraisal Panel. Petitioners’ evidence concerning a request for information on e-mails c onsidered to be informal communications does not change this conclusion.

Comment (3-51) : The Coalition for Responsible Regulation, Peabo dy Energy, and the State of Texas cite e-mails allegedly showing scientists attempting to avoid complying with a FOI request by saying that the IPCC, as an international institution, was not s ubject to the UK FOI law. As evidence, the Coalition for Responsible Regulation, the State of Texas, and Peabody Energy quote the following e-mail from Phil Jones:

The skeptics will try to hang on to something, but I don’t want to give them something clearly tangible. Keith/Tim still getting FOI requests as well as MOHC [Met Office Hadley Center] and Read ing. All our FOI officers have been in discussions and are now using the same exceptions not to respond — advice they got from the Informat ion Commissioner. As an aside and just between us,

107it seems that Brian Hoskins has withdrawn himself from the WG1 Lead

nominations. It seems he doesn’t want to have to deal with this hassle. The FOI line we’re all using is this. IPCC is exempt from any countries FOI – the skeptics have been told this. Even though we (MOHC, CRU/UEA) possibly hold relevant info the IPCC is not part our re mit (mission statement, aims etc) therefore we don’t have an obligation to pass it on. 103

Response (3-51) : Regarding this argument, we find that the same e-mail quoted by the petitione r indicates that Phil

Jones believed that CRU/UEA received advice from the Information Commissioner that the IPCC, as an international organization, was exce pted from the UK FOI. Jones makes a similar statement in another e-mail: “According to the FOI Commissioner’s Office, IPCC is an international organization, so is above any nati onal FOI. Even if UEA holds anything about IPCC, we are not obliged to pass it on, unless it has anything to do with our core business - and it

doesn’t!” 104 We disagree, therefore, that the CRU e-mails show any attempt by the CRU scientists to avoid compliance wi th FOI; if anything, it shows that the scientists consulting with and following the advice of the UK ICO.

Comment (3-52) : The Coalition for Responsible Regulation argue s that the CRU e-mail authors deliberately concealed information pertaining to the IPCC AR4. The petitioner claims that Gavin Schmidt, a manager of the National Aeronautics and Sp ace Administration’s (NASA’s) temperature database and who participated in the review of EPA’s Technical Suppor t Document (TSD) for the Endangerment Finding, was aware that data supporting EPA’s conclusions were being hidden from the Agency. The petitioner conclude s that “EPA’s Findings therefore rely on the input of at least one scientist who knew data were being withhe ld from review by EPA and the public.” As evidence of his involvement, the Co alition for Responsible Regulation quotes an email from Phil Jones to Schmidt:

The FOI line we’re all using is this. IPCC is exempt from any countries FOI - the skeptics

have been told this. Even though we (MOHC [Met Office Hadley Center], CRU/UEA) possibly hold relevant info the IPCC is not pa rt our remit (mission statement, aims etc) therefore we don’t have an obligation to pass it on. 105

Response (3-52) : The petitioner’s claim that Gavin Schmidt was aware of a “cover up” an d deliberate withholding of “data supporting EPA’s conclusions” is uns upported.” As stated in our response above, it appears that the subject of the FOI request was for personal e-mail communications between authors of IPCC chapter 6 (paleoclimate) rega rding expert review comments. There is no mention within the e-mail exchange on this issue, nor does the petitioner present evidence, that

103 E-mail file 1219239172.txt, (August 20, 2008), page 1547, line 31 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf.

104 E-mail file 122892205 0.txt, (December 10, 2 008), page 1596, line 34 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf.

105 E-mail file 1219239172.txt, (August 20, 2008), page 1547, line 18 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf. See also 1210341221.txt, (May 9, 2008), page 1493, line 14; and 1228330629.txt, (December 3, 2008), page 1591, line 41.

108the request involved any type of “data” that was withheld form EPA or would affect EPA’s

review of the science in its Endangerment Finding. As noted above, the e-m ail refers to advice received from their respective FOI office as the exemption from FOI, not to any cover-up.

In sum, petitioners’ evidence concerning a FOI on communications related to the AR4 does not support their claims concerning th e validity of the science under lying the AR4. The evidence indicates that personal co mmunications were at issue, and that it appears that the respective FOI office determined that these were exempt from release. There was a robust and public process

for review of comments on the science for the IPCC AR4, and petitioners’ claims are not based on scientific arguments or studies showing that this public process failed to achieve its goal, or that the resulting AR4 was scientifically inapprop riate or flawed in any way. EPA agrees with the Independent Climate Change E-mails Review ’s recommendation of greater transparency in

the future in this area of resear ch, but petitioners’ evid ence does not support a conclusion that the science underlying the AR4 and the Endangerment Finding was flawed or mischaracterized.

3.4.3.3 Allegations of Improperly Influe ncing University FOIA Officials

Comment (3-53) : The State of Texas and Peabody Energy cite an e- mail from Phil Jones of the CRU indicating his hope that university officials and potential requestors might be unaware of UK FOI laws. The State of Texas, the Southeastern Legal F oundation, and Peabody Energy claim that Phil Jones encouraged university officials to ignore FOI requests from people affiliated with the blog ClimateAudit. They quote the following e-mail:

When the FOI requests began here, the FOI pe rson said we had to abide by the requests. It took a couple of half hour sessions — one at a screen, to convince them otherwise showing them what CA was all about. Once they became aware of the types of people we were dealing with, everyone at UEA (in the registry and in the Environmental Sciences school — the head of school and a few others) became very supportive. I’ve got to know the FOI person quite well and the Chief Librar ian — who deals with appeals. The VC [Vice-Chancellor] is also aware of what is going on — at least for one of the requests, but probably doesn’t know the number we’re d ealing with. We are in double figures. 106

In a second example, the State of Texa s and Peabody Energy quote the following e-mail from Jones as proof that Jones and his coll eagues convinced University of East Anglia officials to agree to ignore requests for information from anyone associated with the ClimateAudit blog. The State of Texas claims th at the second sentence in the e-mail shows that Jones urged a colleague in Australia to disregard requests for information.

Nothing much else to say except:

1. Think I’ve managed to persuade UEA to ignore all further FOIA requests if the people have anything to do with Climate Audit [CA].

2. Had an e-mail from David Jones of BMRC [Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre], Melbourne. He said they are ignoring anybody who has dealings with CA, as

106 E-mail file 122841242 9.txt, (December 4, 2008), page 1593, line 39 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf.

109there are threads on it about Australian sites.

3. CA is in dispute with IPCC (Susan Solomon and Martin Manning) about the availability of the responses to reviewer’s [sic] at the various stages of the AR4 drafts. They are most interested here re Ch 6 on paleo. 107

Response (3-53) : First, we note that in the first example the petitioners quote only pa rt of the e-mail and that later in the same e-mail, Phil Jones states:

In response to FOI and EIR [Environmental In formation Regulations] requests, we’ve put up some data - mainly paleo data. Each request generally leads to more - to explain what we’ve put up. Every time, so far, that hasn’t led to anything being added - instead just statements saying read what is in the pape rs and what is on the web site! Tim Osborn sent one such response (via the FOI pers on) earlier this week. We’ve never sent programs, any codes and manuals. 108

The e-mails demonstrate that Phil Jones was not obstructing FOI requests; rather, he clearly indicates that he and his CRU colleagues made data available in response to FOI and other requests. He and others were working with th e FOI officer and other university officials to determine the appropriate way to respond to these requests. As noted in our previous responses (e.g., 3-39) above, at the time it was not typical in climate science for authors to publish computer codes or detailed explanations beyond th at which was described in the literature. Given this context, Jones’ statement—”W e’ve never sent programs, any codes and

manuals” 109 —demonstrates his belief that having the raw data is sufficien t to be able to replicate CRU’s work because the methodologies are freel y available in the published literature.

Regarding the second example, the e-mail is wri tten in factual terms, it does not indicate the basis for the BMRC’s interactions with persons a ffiliated with the CA. We also note that the Independent Climate Change E-mails Review spoke to these issues, as described in our previous responses (e.g., 3-39) in this volume. As discussed above, EPA agrees with their recommendation of greater transpar ency, but disagrees that the ev idence presented by petitioners warrants any less reliance on the scientif ic assessment provided by the AR4.

3.4.4 Summary

Volumes 1 and 2 of this RTP document respond to sc ientific issues raised by petitioners in these

e-mails and affirm that the science and assessmen t literature on which the Findings are based is sound. As noted in many places in this RTP docum ent, the petitioners’ arguments are not based on the body of the scientific eviden ce and include only a limited discussion of the science itself.

107 E-mail file 1182255717.txt, (June 19, 2007), page 1330 , line 34 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996- 2009.pdf.

108 E-mail file 122841242 9.txt, (December 4, 2008), page 1594, line 11 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf

109 E-mail file 122841242 9.txt, (December 4, 2008), page 1594, line 15 of the PDF version entitled: CRU Emails 1996-2009.pdf

110Instead, the petitioners’ arguments rely on broa d claim s based on the e-mails and jump to conclusions about implications for the scie nce that are not sup ported by evidence.

Petitioners do not rely on science or science based arguments to support their claim that the assessment report resulting from this robust pr ocess should not be relied upon by EPA. Instead, petitioners claim that key climate data were withheld from the public when, in fact, our review of the CRU emails indicates that in many cases, the data were already public ly available or were released by the scientists. Petit ioners have not explained or sh own why the amount of data and

other information that was availa ble was not adequate for research ers to replicate or otherwise evaluate key findings, or to c onduct other research. They also rely on unsupported conclusions drawn from e-mails concerning a FOI request for personal communicatio ns between various scientists, where it appears that the appropriate Un iversity FOI officers had determined that these emails were exempt from release. This evid ence does not support petiti oners’ claims that the IPCC AR4 should not be considered as part of the scientific basis fo r the Endangerment Finding.

EPA agrees with the results of the various i ndependent investigations into the CRU e-mails,

which found that the scientists at issue conducted their research with scientific integrity and rigor, the research utilized met hods which are fair and satisfactor y, and that their actions were consistent with the common practice in climate rese arch at that time. EPA also agrees with the recommendations of the Independent Climat e Change E-mails Review supporting greater transparency in the future in this area of c limate research; however, concluding that greater transparency would be helpful for a particular element of climate change science is not the equivalent of providing evidence that the scientific basis for EPA’s Endangerment Finding is

flawed. Petitioners’ claims and evidence do not provide a basis for EPA to question or change

its view that the science s upporting the Endangerment Findings is robust, compelling, and has been appropriately characterized by EPA.

111References

Amm ann, C. and E. Wahl (2007). The importance of the geophysical cont ext in statistical evaluations of climate reconstruction pr ocedures. Climatic Change. 85:71–88. DOI:

10.1007/s10584-007-9276-x

Briffa, K. and T. Osborn (1999). Climate Warming: Seeing the W ood from the Trees. Science. 7 284, 5416: 926-927. DOI: 10.1126/science.284.5416.926.

Carter, R. (2008). Knock, Knock: Where is th e Evidence for Dangerous Human-Caused Global Warming? Economic Analysis & Policy 38 (2).

CCSP (2008a). Reanalysis of Historical C limate Data for Key Atmospheric Features: Implications for Attribution of Causes of Observed Change. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommitt ee on Global Change Research [Randall Dole, Martin Hoerling, and Siegfried Schubert (e ds.)]. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic Da ta Center, Asheville, NC, 156 pp.

CCSP (2008b). Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate. U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. [Thomas R. Karl, Gerald A. Meehl, Christopher D. Miller, Susan J. Hassol, Anne M. Waple, and William L. Murray (eds.)]. Department of Commerce, NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, Washington, D.C., USA, 164 pp.

Douglass, D.H., J.R. Christy, B.D. Pearson, and S.F. Singer (2007). A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions. International Journal of Climatology. 28:1693-1701.

Douglass, D. H., and J. R. Christy (2009). A Climatology Conspiracy? American Thinker. Available at: http://www.americanthinke r.com/2009/12/a_climatology_conspiracy.html. Accessed July 23, 2010.

Eschenbach, W. (2009). Willis vs. The CRU: A History of (FOI) Evasion. Available at: http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/will is-vs-the-cru-a-hist ory-of-foi-evasion/. November 24, 2009, Accessed July 23.2010.

Foster G, Annan JD, Jones PD, et al. (2010). Co mment on “Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature” by J. D. McLean, C. R. de Freitas, and R. M. Carter. Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres. 115:D09110. May 14, 2010.

Hake, Tony (2009). Climategate e-mail scientists feeling the heat. The Columbia Examiner. Available at: http://www.examiner.co m/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2009m12d13- Climategate-e-mail-scandal- scientists-feeling-the-heat. Accessed July 23, 2010.

112Institute of Physics (2010). In stitute of Physics response to a House of Commons Science and Technology Comm ittee call for evidence. Available at: http://www.iop.org/policy/consultations/ener gy_environment/file_41855.pdf. Accessed July 23,

2010.

InterAcademy Council (2010). Review of the IPCC. Available at: http://reviewipcc.interacademyc ouncil.net/. Accessed July 23, 2010.

IPCC (2010). IAC Independent Review of the IPCC. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 10 March 2010.

IPCC (2007a). Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007. Intergovernmental Palen on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

IPCC (2007b) Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of th e Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Pre ss, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY,

USA.

IPCC (2006). Working Group I Fourth Assessmen t Report Review Comments and Responses. Harvard College Library. 11 June 2010. Available at: http://hcl .harvard.edu/collections/ipcc/. Accessed July 23, 2010.

IPCC (1990). First Assessment Report. Clim ate Change: The IPCC Impacts Assessment. Contribution of Working Group II to the First Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Tegart, WJ, G. W. Sh eldon, and D. C. Griffiths (eds.)] Canberra: Australian Government Service, 1990.

Jansen, E., J. Overpeck, K.R. Briffa, J.C. Dupl essy, F. Joos, V. Masson-Delmotte, D. Olago, B. Otto-Bliesner, W.R. Peltier, S. Rahmstorf, R. Ramesh, D. Raynaud, D. Rind, O. Solomina, R. Villalba and D. Zhang (2007) Palaeoclimate. In : Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [S olomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. M iller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

Jones, P.D. and Lister, D.H., 2009. The Urban H eat Island in Central London and urban-related warming trends in Central London since 1990. Weather. 64, 323-327.

Jones, P. (2005). “Re: WMO Non Respondo.” Message to Warwick Hughes. 21 Feb. E-mail. Appendix I of Uncorrected Evidence 35. UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. Available at: http://www.public ations.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/ cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3502.htm. Accessed July 23, 2010.

113Jones, P.D., P.Y. Groism an, M. Coughlan, N. Plummer, W.-C. Wang, and T.R. Karl (1990).

Assessment of urbanization effects in time seri es of surface air temper ature over land. Nature.

347:169-172

Karl, T., J. Melillo, and T. Peterson (Eds.) ( 2009) Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States. Cambridge University Pr ess, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Kaufman (2010). Corrections and Clarifica tions. Science. 5: Vol. 327. no. 5966, p. 644. doi: 10.1126/science.327.5966.644-d. February 2010.

Kaufman, D.S., D.P. Schneider, N.P. McKay, C.M. Ammann, R.S. Bradley, K.R. Briffa, G.H. Miller, B.L. Otto-Bliesner, J.T. Overpeck, B.M. Vinther, and Arctic Lakes 2k Project Members (2009). Recent Warming Reverses Long-Term Arctic Cooling. Science. 325 (5945), 1236. doi:

10.1126/science.1173983.

Kinne, O. (2003). Climate Research: an article unleashed worldwide storms. Climate Research.

24: 197-198.

Kinver, Mark (2010). “BBC News - Climateg ate E-mails Inquiry under Way.” BBC News - Home. Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/h i/science/nature/8510498.stm. Accessed July 23,

2010.

Mann et al. (2003). “On Past Te mperatures and Anomalous Late -20th Century Warmth,” Eos, Volume 84, No. 27, 8 July 2003, page 256.

Mann, M. E., and P. D. Jones (2003), Global surf ace temperatures over the past two millennia. Geophysical Research Letters. 30(15), 1820, doi:10.1029/2003GL017814.

Mann, Michael (2009). Science Journals Must Be Unpolluted by Politics. The Wall Street Journal. Available at: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870347870457461240 0823765102.html. Accessed July 23, 2010.

McIntyre, S. and R. McKitrick (2005). Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance. Geophysical Research Letters. 32, L03710, doi:10.1029/2004GL021750.

McLean, J. D., C. R. de Freitas, and R. M. Ca rter (2009). Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature. Journa l of Geophysical Research. 114: D14104,

doi:10.1029/2008JD011637.

Michaels, Patrick J. (2009). How to Manufacture a Climate Consensus. Th e Wall Street Journal

Available at: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704398304574598230426037244.html. Accessed July 23, 2010.

NRC (2010) Advancing the Science of Climate Change. National Research Council. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

114NRC (2008) Potential Impacts of Climate Cha nge on U.S. Transportation. National A cademy Press, Washington, DC.

NRC (2006). Surface Temperature Reconstructions For the Last 2,000 Years. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

Oxburgh, Lord Ron (2010). Scientific Assessment Pa nel. Report of International Panel set up by the University of East Anglia to examine the re search of the Climatic Research Unit. Available at: http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/ CRUstatements/SAP. Accessed July 23, 2010.

Pearce, Fred (2010). Emails reveal strenuous efforts by climate scientis ts to ‘censor’ their critics. The Guardian. Available at: http://www.gua rdian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/09/peer-reviewblock-scientific-papers. Accessed July 23, 2010.

Regalado, Antonio (2005). Global Warring: In Climate Debate, The Hockey Stick Leads to a Face-Off. The Wall Street Journal. Feb. 14, 2005.

RSC (2010). RSC response to the disclosure of clim ate change data from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia. Available at: http://www.rsc.org/images/climated ata_tcm18-179090.pdf. Accessed July 23, 2010.

RSS (2010). Memoranda for UK House of Co mmons Science and Technology Committee - Written Evidence 47. 27 July 2010. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/c m200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387b/387we50.htm. Accessed July 23, 2010.

Russell, Muir (2010). The Independent Climate Change Email Review. University of East Anglia. Available at: http://www.cce-review .org/pdf/FINAL%20REPOR T.pdf. Last accessed July 21, 2010. Accessed July 23, 2010.

Santer, Ben (2010a). Close Encounters of the Absurd Kind. Real Climate. Available at: http://www.realclimate.org/in dex.php/archives/2010/02/close-en counters-of-the-absurd-kind/. Accessed July 23, 2010.

Santer, Ben (2010b). Open Letter to the C limate Science Community: Response to “A Climatology Conspiracy?” Available at: http://www.realclimate.org/docs/Open_Lette r_3_to_Community.pdf. Accessed July 23, 2010.

Santer, B.D., et al. (2008). Consistency of m odeled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere. Intern ational Journal of Clim atology 28 (13): 1703-1722.

Soon, W. and S. Baliunas (2003). Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years. Climate Research. 23:89-110.

115116 U.S. EPA. (2009a). Technical Support Document for endangerment and cause or contribute findings for greenhouse gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA. (2009b). Memorandum from EPA Admi nistrator to EPA employees (Jan. 23, 2009) available at http://www.epa.gov/Ad ministrator/memotoemployees.html

U.S. EPA. (2009c). Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, from President, Barack Obama on Scientific In tegrity (Mar. 9, 2009) (emphasis added) available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ Memorandum-for-the-Heads-of-ExecutiveDepartments-and-Agencies-3-9-09. Accessed July 23, 2010.

U.S. EPA (2002), Guidelines for Ensuring and Ma ximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by the Environmental Protection Agency Washington,

D.C.: Office of Environmental Information.

UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (2010a). Written Evidence - The

disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Re search Unit at the University of East Anglia. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/c m200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387b/387we01.htm. Accessed July 23, 2010.

UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (2010b). Th e disclosure of climate

data from the Climatic Research Unit at the Un iversity of East Anglia . Eighth Report of Session 2009–10. HC 387-I. Available at: http://www .publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/ cmselect/cmsctech /387/38702.htm. Accessed July 23, 2010.

Wahl, E. R. and Ammann, C. M. (2007) . Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes Reconstruction of Surface Temperatures: Examin ation of Criticisms Based on the Nature and Processing of Proxy Climate Evidence. Climatic Change. 85:33–69, DOI 10.1007/s10584-006-

9105-7

Webster, B. (2010). Science chief John Beddi ngton calls for honesty on climate change. The Times. Jan. 27, 2010. Available at: http://www.tim esonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article 7003622.ece?&EMC-BItn=99KCH2F. Accessed July 23, 2010.

Wegman, E.J., D.W. Scott, and Y.H. Said (2006). Ad Hoc Committee Report on th e “Hockey Stick” Global Climate Reconstruction. Report pr esented to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce, July 14, 2006. Available at: http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/ research/WegmanReport.pdf. Accessed July 23, 2010.