EPA categorically rejects claims that climate science and MMCC are bunk

[shira]

That bastion of climate conspiracy, the EPA, has categorically rejected petitions that claim that MMCC is fake.

Interestingly, in the "Myth versus Facts section, the EPA is yet another investigative body to examine the alleged "East Anglia" conspiracy, and found not a shred of evidence to suggest that data was corrupted.

Note also that the EPA independently investigated alleged errors committed by the IPCC in assembling the IPCC's 4th assessment, and found that there were exactly TWO, compared with "thousands of individual studies and collective insights from the comprehensive climate science literature. . . . In a report of such magnitude, a few errors do not undermine the credibility of the entire work of the IPCC."

But of course, if you're into conspiracies, this just confirms that the conspiracy is even bigger than you first thought. That's the beauty of a conspiracy: The more overwhelming the evidence (and "overwhelming" is becoming a huge understatement when it comes to the preponderance of evidence proving the FACT of MMCC), the vaster the conspiracy.

Come on, deniers, tell us again how you just KNOW that MMCC is false. Because you read a blog somewhere telling you it was fake.

Denial of Petitions for Reconsideration of the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act

Action

EPA determined in December 2009 that climate change caused by emissions of greenhouse gases threatens the public's health and the environment. Since then, EPA received ten petitions challenging this determination. On July 29, 2010, EPA denied these petitions.

The petitions to reconsider EPA's "Endangerment Finding" claimed that climate science can't be trusted, and asserted a conspiracy that calls into question the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and the U.S. Global Change Research Program. After months of serious consideration of the petitions and of the state of climate change science, EPA found no evidence to support these claims.

The scientific evidence supporting EPA's finding is robust, voluminous, and compelling. Climate change is happening now, and humans are contributing to it. Multiple lines of evidence show a global warming trend over the past 100 years. Beyond this, melting ice in the Arctic, melting glaciers around the world, increasing ocean temperatures, rising sea levels, altered precipitation patterns, and shifting patterns of ecosystems and wildlife habitats all confirm that our climate is changing.

Myths vs. Facts: Denial of Petitions for Reconsideration of the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act

Myth: The University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) emails prove that temperature data and trends were manipulated.

Fact: Not true. Petitioners say that emails disclosed from CRU provide evidence of a conspiracy to manipulate data. The media coverage after the emails were released was based on email statements quoted out of context and on unsubstantiated theories of conspiracy. The CRU emails do not show either that the science is flawed or that the scientific process has been compromised. EPA carefully reviewed the CRU emails and found no indication of improper data manipulation or misrepresentation of results.

Myth: The jury is still out on climate change and CRU emails undermine the credibility of climate change science overall.

Fact: Climate change is real and it is happening now. The U.S. Global Change Research Program, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have each independently concluded that warming of the climate system in recent decades is "unequivocal." This conclusion is not drawn from any one source of data but is based on multiple lines of evidence, including three worldwide temperature datasets showing nearly identical warming trends as well as numerous other independent indicators of global warming (e.g., rising sea levels, shrinking Arctic sea ice). Some people have "cherry-picked" a limited selection of CRU email statements to draw broad, unsubstantiated conclusions about the validity of all climate science.

Myth: The CRU emails and several errors found in the most recent IPCC report undermine the credibility of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.

Fact: The IPCC's primary conclusions are based on an assessment of thousands of individual studies and collective insights from the comprehensive climate science literature. Although many errors were alleged, EPA confirmed only two errors. The small number of documented errors are not central to IPCC's main conclusions or to EPA’s Endangerment Finding. In a report of such magnitude, a few errors do not undermine the credibility of the entire work of the IPCC. The process used by the IPCC stands as one of the most comprehensive, rigorous, and transparent ever conducted on a complex set of scientific issues.

Myth: EPA misstepped when it did not do its own scientific analysis of climate change to inform the Endangerment Finding and instead relied on existing scientific assessments.

Fact: EPA relied on major scientific assessments, including reports from the U.S. Global Change Research Program, National Academy of Sciences, and IPCC, because they represent the best available information to determine the state of climate change science. These assessments are designed to address the breadth and scope of all published literature and undergo multiple levels of rigorous review. This approach ensures that EPA benefits from the depth and strength of thousands of climate scientists.

 

[Kappo]

Ah, the religion of Global <insert cooling, warming, changing here>.

 

[Craig234]

Ah, the religion of Global <insert cooling, warming, changing here>.

The cult of anti-science disciples who swallow anything the big energy propagandists sell.

 

[NoWhereM]

Global warming is a big fraud. These guys got charts and shit that prove it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dul_hYde0nk

 

[Patranus]

I like how they start out talking about man made climate change and then start talking about climate change.

See the slight of hand?

 

[glenn1]

That bastion of climate conspiracy, the EPA, has categorically rejected petitions that claim that MMCC is fake.

Interestingly, in the "Myth versus Facts section, the EPA is yet another investigative body to examine the alleged "East Anglia" conspiracy, and found not a shred of evidence to suggest that data was corrupted.

Note also that the EPA independently investigated alleged errors committed by the IPCC in assembling the IPCC's 4th assessment, and found that there were exactly TWO, compared with "thousands of individual studies and collective insights from the comprehensive climate science literature. . . . In a report of such magnitude, a few errors do not undermine the credibility of the entire work of the IPCC."

But of course, if you're into conspiracies, this just confirms that the conspiracy is even bigger than you first thought. That's the beauty of a conspiracy: The more overwhelming the evidence (and "overwhelming" is becoming a huge understatement when it comes to the preponderance of evidence proving the FACT of MMCC), the vaster the conspiracy.

Come on, deniers, tell us again how you just KNOW that MMCC is false. Because you read a blog somewhere telling you it was fake.

Will you stop posting this shit? Regardless of the "science," no one is going to submit to the authoritarian economic controls you'd put in place to "fix" the problem; it's the very definition of the cure being worse than the disease.

 

[dahunan]

after all this time to still believe that everything nearly 7 billion people are doing to this planet does not affect the climate...

 

[Brainonska511]

Will you stop posting this shit? Regardless of the "science," no one is going to submit to the authoritarian economic controls you'd put in place to "fix" the problem; it's the very definition of the cure being worse than the disease.

You know there is a middle ground between living in caves and not using any resources and doing whatever the hell we feel like, right?

 

[IGBT]

go ahead and get your voodoo cap/trade/punitive energy racket going. watch what happens when people can't keep the lights on or get to work. And all the solar junk on the roof isn't going to cut it either. Do it.

and in other news:

The Business Insider ^ | 8-2-2010
Small Business Optimism PLUNGES: Firms See Lower Spending And More Layoffs Ahead Joe Weisenthal Aug. 2, 2010, 5:28 PM Image: Gallup The latest Wells Fargo/Gallup small business survey is out and it's UGLY. In keeping with other indications that the state of small business is very bad, the survey indicates a level of pessimism about future results that's worse even that during the worst of the crisis. What's more, small firms seem lower spending, lower cash flows, and lower headcount in the future.


do the math. cap/trade/voodoo will cause yet another tier of lay offs and down sizing.

 

[Double Trouble]

That bastion of climate conspiracy, the EPA, has categorically rejected petitions that claim that MMCC is fake.

Like I posted in your other thread. The EPA saying something like that is the equivalent of the Navy saying that naval warfare is the most important part of the future world security. Duh. What do you think they're going to say? They stand to gain the most from any actions that end in more government actions. More EPA power. Citing the EPA as the authoritative source is laughable.

 

[Bitek]

A real showcase of logical fallacies we have going so far: ad hominem, slippery slope, false dichotomy and some good old fashioned conspiracy theory. You didn't expect to have a logical scientific debate did you?

So far what hasn't been done by the climate deniers, (aka Static Climatists) is actually weave an alternate narrative that actually better explains the observed data, provide a model where vast CO2 addition does not impact climate, and is able to make accurate climate predictions.

They can't. They just say "we aren't sure yet", and demand more data. More data just moves the goal posts further, never a robust competing theory.

Debating this is like debating Creationists. They don't accept Darwin, they just demand more "transitional fossils," and 150 yrs later they are no closer to believing the science. Occasionally they will offer some pre-conceived, weakly supported, hobbled together nonsensical bullshit like "Intelligent Design," Solar Flare Theory, or "Temporary El-Nino Event, which-has-just-kept-on-for-three-decades-now-but-we're-sure-will-end-anytime-now-just-wait-and-be-patient-..seriously" Theory.

 

[monovillage]

You can read a rebuttal to the EPAs finding here.

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.c...ases-under-section-202a-of-the-clean-air-act/

"The EPA, however, in contrast to what they write, chose to ignore the conclusion of such reports, peer reviewed papers, and testimony as

National Research Council, 2005: Radiative forcing of climate change: Expanding the concept and addressing uncertainties. Committee on Radiative Forcing Effects on Climate Change, Climate Research Committee, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, Division on Earth and Life Studies, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 208 pp.

Pielke Sr., R., K. Beven, G. Brasseur, J. Calvert, M. Chahine, R. Dickerson, D. Entekhabi, E. Foufoula-Georgiou, H. Gupta, V. Gupta, W. Krajewski, E. Philip Krider, W. K.M. Lau, J. McDonnell, W. Rossow, J. Schaake, J. Smith, S. Sorooshian, and E. Wood, 2009: Climate change: The need to consider human forcings besides greenhouse gases. Eos, Vol. 90, No. 45, 10 November 2009, 413. Copyright (2009) American Geophysical Union

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, 2007: Unresolved issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land surface temperature trends. J. Geophys. Res., 112, D24S08, doi:10.1029/2006JD008229.

Pielke, R.A. Sr., 2008: A Broader View of the Role of Humans in the Climate System is Required In the Assessment of Costs and Benefits of Effective Climate Policy. Written Testimony for the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality of the Committee on Energy and Commerce Hearing &#8220;Climate Change: Costs of Inaction&#8221; &#8211; Honorable Rick Boucher, Chairman. June 26, 2008, Washington, DC., 52 pp.

as well as documentation of the deliberate successful attempt to exclude viewpoints in the CCSP and IPCC reports which differ from the EPA findings; e.g.

Pielke, R.A. Sr., 2005: Public Comment on CCSP Report &#8220;Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences&#8221;. 88 pp including appendices."

"This EPA Denial is yet another perpetuation of the group think that was so evident in the released CRU e-mails."

 

[cubby1223]

The cult of anti-science disciples who swallow anything the big energy propagandists sell.

I loves me a big glass of crude oil in the morning!!!

 

[Double Trouble]

A real showcase of logical fallacies we have going so far: ad hominem, slippery slope, false dichotomy and some good old fashioned conspiracy theory. You didn't expect to have a logical scientific debate did you?

So far what hasn't been done by the climate deniers, (aka Static Climatists) is actually weave an alternate narrative that actually better explains the observed data, provide a model where vast CO2 addition does not impact climate, and is able to make accurate climate predictions.

They can't. They just say "we aren't sure yet", and demand more data. More data just moves the goal posts further, never a robust competing theory.

Debating this is like debating Creationists. They don't accept Darwin, they just demand more "transitional fossils," and 150 yrs later they are no closer to believing the science. Occasionally they will offer some pre-conceived, weakly supported, hobbled together nonsensical bullshit like "Intelligent Design," Solar Flare Theory, or "Temporary El-Nino Event, which-has-just-kept-on-for-three-decades-now-but-we're-sure-will-end-anytime-now-just-wait-and-be-patient-..seriously" Theory.

Keep on preaching brother! Amen 🙂

 

[NoWhereM]

A real showcase of logical fallacies we have going so far: ad hominem, slippery slope, false dichotomy and some good old fashioned conspiracy theory. You didn't expect to have a logical scientific debate did you?

So far what hasn't been done by the climate deniers, (aka Static Climatists) is actually weave an alternate narrative that actually better explains the observed data, provide a model where vast CO2 addition does not impact climate, and is able to make accurate climate predictions.

They can't. They just say "we aren't sure yet", and demand more data. More data just moves the goal posts further, never a robust competing theory.

Debating this is like debating Creationists. They don't accept Darwin, they just demand more "transitional fossils," and 150 yrs later they are no closer to believing the science. Occasionally they will offer some pre-conceived, weakly supported, hobbled together nonsensical bullshit like "Intelligent Design," Solar Flare Theory, or "Temporary El-Nino Event, which-has-just-kept-on-for-three-decades-now-but-we're-sure-will-end-anytime-now-just-wait-and-be-patient-..seriously" Theory.

You seem confused. Informed people know that climate has changed throughout the history of the Earth, that it has never been static. The man made global warming cultists are those who believe not only that humans are making the planet warmer but that we can actually control climate change.

I know how much the cultists like editing Wiki, so I'll clue you in on something that needs your prompt attention.

Delusion of guilt or sin (or delusion of self-accusation): This is a false feeling of remorse or guilt of delusional intensity. A person may, for example, believe he has committed some horrible crime and should be punished severely. Another example is a person who is convinced he is responsible for some disaster (such as fire, flood, or earthquake) with which there can be no possible connection.

Obviously that was written by a denier. You guys need to really comb Wiki to weed out those false passages.

 

[shira]

You can read a rebuttal to the EPAs finding here.

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.c...ases-under-section-202a-of-the-clean-air-act/

"The EPA, however, in contrast to what they write, chose to ignore the conclusion of such reports, peer reviewed papers, and testimony as

National Research Council, 2005: Radiative forcing of climate change: Expanding the concept and addressing uncertainties. Committee on Radiative Forcing Effects on Climate Change, Climate Research Committee, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, Division on Earth and Life Studies, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 208 pp.

Pielke Sr., R., K. Beven, G. Brasseur, J. Calvert, M. Chahine, R. Dickerson, D. Entekhabi, E. Foufoula-Georgiou, H. Gupta, V. Gupta, W. Krajewski, E. Philip Krider, W. K.M. Lau, J. McDonnell, W. Rossow, J. Schaake, J. Smith, S. Sorooshian, and E. Wood, 2009: Climate change: The need to consider human forcings besides greenhouse gases. Eos, Vol. 90, No. 45, 10 November 2009, 413. Copyright (2009) American Geophysical Union

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, 2007: Unresolved issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land surface temperature trends. J. Geophys. Res., 112, D24S08, doi:10.1029/2006JD008229.

Pielke, R.A. Sr., 2008: A Broader View of the Role of Humans in the Climate System is Required In the Assessment of Costs and Benefits of Effective Climate Policy. Written Testimony for the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality of the Committee on Energy and Commerce Hearing &#8220;Climate Change: Costs of Inaction&#8221; &#8211; Honorable Rick Boucher, Chairman. June 26, 2008, Washington, DC., 52 pp.

as well as documentation of the deliberate successful attempt to exclude viewpoints in the CCSP and IPCC reports which differ from the EPA findings; e.g.

Pielke, R.A. Sr., 2005: Public Comment on CCSP Report &#8220;Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences&#8221;. 88 pp including appendices."

"This EPA Denial is yet another perpetuation of the group think that was so evident in the released CRU e-mails."

Let's see: You've cited FIVE papers, versus THOUSANDS that support MMCC.

If the score of a basketball game were 4000 to 5, would you think the side with 5 was winning or even competing?

 

[Genx87]

Oh so all one needs to do to win this argument is publish more papers? I bet you are the type of idiot who reads only the positive reviews of a product as well.

 

[HumblePie]

Shira, it's continual posts like these that annoy the hell out of people.

Look, I know that if you put 40 humans in a small room together the room starts heating up. People affect their immediate environment around them if there is no self sustaining cycle to prevent that. If there was no plants on this planet, the atmosphere would be a unbreathable due to too much carbon dioxide in the air at the very least. If there were only plants, then the air would be unbreathable again eventually and corrosive due to too much oxygen eventually. That's all fine and dandy.

What people are trying to state is that the numbers so far do not show even remotely that humans are responsible for global warming. Don't get me wrong, pollution is a problem. But it affects acute areas. Besides, 100 years worth of data, even if it was all correct, is not enough to suggest any sort of global climate change in a planet with a history of 6 to 9 billion years! It is an insignificant blip of time. Maybe a thousand years worth of actual good data collection might start pointing to better trends, but for now, it does not.

I have no problem with data collection, and scientists doing pure research into the field. I wholeheartedly support that endeavor. I also support that people stop pollution as much as possible. However, I do not support the fear mongering that I currently see of using relatively limited data, some of which has proven to be bad, as a baseline to determining politics.

 

[bamacre]

The cult of anti-science disciples who swallow anything the big energy propagandists sell.

Oh?

 

[bamacre]

Oh so all one needs to do to win this argument is publish more papers? I bet you are the type of idiot who reads only the positive reviews of a product as well.

Or quote the EPA, an agency that has a completely unbiased opinion on the subject and stands to gain nothing from further regulatory powers.

 

[xj0hnx]

The cult of anti-science disciples who swallow anything the big energy propagandists sell.

You do realize big energy is supporting a lot of your eco-friendly initiatives don't you? You loony leftist are being played like a fiddle on energy, just like you were by big pharma, and the insurance industry in the Health Care debacle.

 

[shira]

Shira, it's continual posts like these that annoy the hell out of people.

Look, I know that if you put 40 humans in a small room together the room starts heating up. People affect their immediate environment around them if there is no self sustaining cycle to prevent that. If there was no plants on this planet, the atmosphere would be a unbreathable due to too much carbon dioxide in the air at the very least. If there were only plants, then the air would be unbreathable again eventually and corrosive due to too much oxygen eventually. That's all fine and dandy.

What people are trying to state is that the numbers so far do not show even remotely that humans are responsible for global warming. Don't get me wrong, pollution is a problem. But it affects acute areas. Besides, 100 years worth of data, even if it was all correct, is not enough to suggest any sort of global climate change in a planet with a history of 6 to 9 billion years! It is an insignificant blip of time. Maybe a thousand years worth of actual good data collection might start pointing to better trends, but for now, it does not.

I have no problem with data collection, and scientists doing pure research into the field. I wholeheartedly support that endeavor. I also support that people stop pollution as much as possible. However, I do not support the fear mongering that I currently see of using relatively limited data, some of which has proven to be bad, as a baseline to determining politics.

First of all, proxy data (for example, ice cores) provides insight into climate going back hundreds of thousands of years. Second of all, by your reasoning, we must by definition wait another 900 years - at the very least - before we can justify action to mitigate climate change.

Think about this another way: A chemical is released into a community. Hundreds of people die of a rare form of cancer. But I argue that people have been dying of that cancer since medical records have been kept, so a one-time incident involving this chemical proves nothing. That reasoning - and yours - is absurd.

 

[Genx87]

You do realize big energy is supporting a lot of your eco-friendly initiatives don't you? You loony leftist are being played like a fiddle on energy, just like you were by big pharma, and the insurance industry in the Health Care debacle.

Oh course they dont get it. The eco-kooks and big business are two sides of a coin. Both are collectivist in nature. So it is natural for big business to be interested in the eco-kooks idea's and mold them into policy that reduces competition in their respective markets and enhances their position. Now the classic excuse for this result from the eco-kooks will be democracy is broken and we need more govt. And the cycle continues!

 

[xj0hnx]

Think about this another way: A chemical is released into a community. Hundreds of people die of a rare form of cancer. But I argue that people have been dying of that cancer since medical records have been kept, so a one-time incident involving this chemical proves nothing. That reasoning - and yours - is absurd.

This is not even close to an analogy for the situation. And no, if you can't draw a connection between your new chemical, and the people dying of a rare cancer than doesn't prove anything. Sounds a lot like the "logic" truthers use, no building has ever fallen due to fire, therefore it must be explosives, never mind there's absolutely no evidence of explosives.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

First of all, proxy data (for example, ice cores) provides insight into climate going back hundreds of thousands of years. Second of all, by your reasoning, we must by definition wait another 900 years - at the very least - before we can justify action to mitigate climate change.

Think about this another way: A chemical is released into a community. Hundreds of people die of a rare form of cancer. But I argue that people have been dying of that cancer since medical records have been kept, so a one-time incident involving this chemical proves nothing. That reasoning - and yours - is absurd.

Uh... you seem to be forgetting that all important causation part - and that's why your analogy fails miserably. You can't prove causation - whereas you can with a chemical.