|
Post by Pooh on Jul 26, 2010 22:25:14 GMT
Topics of Section VIII: The CRU Scientists And Their American Counterparts Inappropriately Interfered With The Normal Process By Which Peer Review Literature Is Developed, Further Undermining Their Own Credibility And That Of The Information On Which EPA Relied. (VIII-1) A. Manipulation of Peer-Reviewed Literature to Prevent Publication of Undesired Papers and to Favor Publication of Desired Papers. (VIII-1) 1. Efforts Against Disfavored Papers, Authors and Editors. (VIII-1) 2. Efforts for Favored Papers. (VIII-10) B. Intimidation/bad-mouthing to influence scientific development. (VIII-13) C. Excluding scientists with undesired opinions from conferences. (VIII-15) D. Conclusions as to Manipulation of Peer-Reviewed Science. (VIII-16)
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Jul 26, 2010 22:26:04 GMT
Topics of Section IX: The Abuses Revealed In The CRU Material Require That EPA Reconsider Its Endangerment Finding And Conduct Full Evidentiary Hearings On The Science. (IX-1) A. Unless EPA Reconsiders the Endangerment Finding in Light of the CRU Material, the Finding Will Be Arbitrary, Capricious, and Otherwise Not in Accordance with Law. (IX-1) 1. Even Without Considering the CRU Material, EPA Appears to Have Abrogated Its Statutory Obligation to Exercise Its Own Judgment. (IX-1) 2. The Revelations in the CRU Material Require EPA to Reconsider the Endangerment Finding. (IX-3) 3. The Broad Discretion Afforded to EPA by the Statute Does Not Justify EPA’s Endangerment Finding. (IX-6) B. Because of the Taint Created by the CRU Material, EPA Should Utilize Formal Rulemaking in Reconsidering Its Endangerment Finding. (IX-9) 1. EPA Has the Authority to Convene an Evidentiary Hearing. (IX-9) 2. An Evidentiary Hearing is Warranted under Applicable Legal Standards. (IX-10)a. The Scientific and Technical Issues are Highly Complex. (IX-12) b. Diverse Viewpoints.(IX-13) c. The Costs Of Contemplated Regulation Are Significant. (IX-14) 3. An Evidentiary Hearing Will Ensure Appropriate Scrutiny of the Scientific Evidence Underlying The Endangerment Finding. (IX-14) 4. EPA May Not Make a Public Health Endangerment Finding on the State of the Record as It Now Exists. (IX-16)
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Jul 26, 2010 22:28:04 GMT
Conclusion: (X-1)
"For all of the foregoing reasons, EPA must reconsider its Endangerment Finding. EPA should issue public notice of reconsideration and take comment on the effect on the Endangerment Finding of the CRU material and other information set forth in this document. EPA should also convene full evidentiary hearings as a part of reconsideration." Dated: February 11, 2010
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Jul 30, 2010 15:35:25 GMT
The petition was denied, together with every other petition to reconsider.
The EPA cited the "clearance" of CRU and M. Mann's activities as disclosed by ClimateGate as one of the justifications for dismissal. Reported on Climate Audit here: McIntyre, Steve. “EPA Denies Reconsideration Petitions.” Scientific Blog. Climate Audit, July 29, 2010. climateaudit.org/2010/07/29/epa-denies-reconsideration-petitions/The EPA's denial (summary and supporting papers) can be found here: U. S. EPA Office of Atmospheric Programs. “ Denial of Petitions for Reconsideration of the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act | Regulatory Initiatives | Climate Change | U.S. EPA.” Governmental. Environmental Protection Agency, July 29, 2010. epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/petitions.html
|
|