DOCSLIB.ORG

Volume 3: Process Issues Raised by Petitioners

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

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. 1 TABLE 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 Consideration 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 Assessments 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 Journal Publication Practices........................................35 3.3.4 Allegations Regarding Efforts to Remove Editors and Boycott Journals..........48 3.3.5 Allegations Regarding Objectivity of the Peer-Reviewed Literature................55 3.3.6 Allegations of Intimidating Scientists 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 Influencing University FOIA Officials ......109 3.4.4 Summary..........................................................................................................110 References............................................................................................................................................112 2 ACRONYMS 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 CO2 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 3 USGCRP U.S. Global Change Research Program WMO World Meteorological Organization 4 3.0 Process Issues Raised by Petitioners 3.1 Approaches and Processes Used to Develop the Scientific Support for the Findings 3.1.1 Overview Several petitioners (the Coalition for Responsible Regulation, the Commonwealth of Virginia, the Ohio Coal Association, Peabody Energy, the State of Texas, the Southeastern Legal Foundation, and Arthur Randol) take issue with the process and approach EPA used in developing the scientific support for the Endangerment Finding. Many of these arguments are a repetition of arguments submitted during the public comment period for the Proposed Findings. These include claims that EPA did not independently 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 docket, 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-mails involving scientists at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom. The petitioners claim that statements made in the CRU e-mails cast doubt on the validity of underlying data relied on by EPA’s Endangerment Finding, and argue that EPA’s response to this issue is inadequate 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 the 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 climate change generates risks and impacts to public health and welfare. The information provided by petitioners does not change any of the scientific conclusions that underlie the Administrator’s Findings, nor do the petitions lower the degrees of confidence associated with each of these 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 surface 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 glacier retreat and lengthening of the growing season. With respect to the arguments already raised during the rulemaking leading to the Endangerment Finding, the petitioners do not provide 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 Comments (RTC) document are still robust. 5 In this section, we summarize and respond to the new argument being 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 arguments (originally addressed in Volume 1 of the RTC document) in light of any new evidence provided in the petitions for 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) allege 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 response to the late comments that were raised concerning the e-mails. The Ohio Coal Association states that although allegations about problems with the CRU data had come to light prior to the Administrator signing the Findings, EPA did not
Recommended publications
  • Grantham Institute's Tenth Anniversary Year

    Grantham Institute's Tenth Anniversary Year

    Each year, a distinguished speaker is invited to deliver the Grantham Annual Lecture to business- leaders, policymakers, entrepreneurs, academics, students and the public. Read how some of these past speakers reflect on ten years of environmental and climate action achievements, and catch up with their lectures at imperial.ac.uk/grantham Congratulations to the Grantham Institute on its tenth year in pursuit of a worthy goal of sustainable, resilient, zero carbon society. AL GORE, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 2017 ANNUAL LECTURER I was honoured to give the 8th Grantham Lecture, I loved that so many students attended as they are our hope to motivate future generations to challenge climate change and injustice. MARY ROBINSON, FORMER PRESIDENT OF IRELAND 2015 ANNUAL LECTURER It was an honour and pleasure to address the Grantham Institute due to its significance and all the people that contribute to its greatness. HIS SERENE HIGHNESS PRINCE ALBERT II OF MONACO Grantham Institute’s 2018 ANNUAL LECTURER tenth anniversary year The work that is being done by the Grantham Institute is absolutely key because it will keep Celebrating the past and looking to the future countries moving forward understanding that decarbonisation is actually a huge opportunity. CHRISTIANA FIGUERES, FORMER EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OF THE UN FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE 2016 ANNUAL LECTURER The Grantham Institute promotes inter-disciplinary The Grantham Institute’s vision is for a working to meet some of the greatest challenges faced by society. Over ten years, the Institute has built up sustainable, resilient, zero-carbon society successful programmes that drive forward discovery, convert innovations into applications, train future leaders The Institute seeks to achieve its vision by working and communicate academic knowledge to businesses, in the following ways: industry and policymakers to help shape their decisions.
  • The Tropical Skies: Falsifying Climate Alarm (Pdf)

    The Tropical Skies: Falsifying Climate Alarm (Pdf)

    THE TROPICAL SKIES Falsifying climate alarm John Christy The Global Warming Policy Foundation GWPF Note 17 THE TROPICAL SKIES Falsifying climate alarm John Christy © Copyright 2019 The Global Warming Policy Foundation Contents About the author vi 1 Measuring the greenhouse effect 1 2 The importance of the troposphere 2 3 Another metric 4 4 Hiding the problem 7 About the author Dr John R. Christy is the director of the Earth System Science Center, Distinguished Profes- sor of Atmospheric Science and Alabama State Climatologist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, where he has been employed for over 30 years. His responsibilities include managing a science centre with over 80 employees, working on several research projects ranging from developing and launching space-based instruments to studying impacts of significant weather events in developing countries, to high-resolution studies of air pollu- tion (air-chemistry and meteorology). His own research concerns developing, constructing and refining global and regional climate data records that can be used to test claims ofcli- mate variability and change and to understand the climate’s sensitivity to various forcing factors. This work has resulted in almost 100 peer-reviewed publications. This paper is based a talk given by Dr Christy at the Palace of Westminster on 8 May 2019. vi 1 Measuring the greenhouse effect When I grew up, science was defined as a method of discovering information. You would make a claim or a hypothesis, and then you would test that claim against independent data. If it failed, you rejected your claim and you started over again.
  • Ground-Level Ozone in the 21St Century: Future Trends, Impacts And

    Ground-Level Ozone in the 21St Century: Future Trends, Impacts And

    Edinburgh Research Explorer Ground-level ozone in the 21st century: future trends, impacts and policy implications Citation for published version: Fowler, D, Amann, M, Anderson, R, Ashmore, M, Cox, P, Depledge, M, Derwent, D, Grennfelt, P, Hewitt, N, Hov, O, Jenkin, M, Kelly, F, Liss, P, Pilling, M, Pyle, J, Slingo, J & Stevenson, D 2008, Ground-level ozone in the 21st century: future trends, impacts and policy implications. Royal Society Policy Document 15/08, vol. 15/08, RS1276 edn, The Royal Society, London. <http://royalsociety.org/policy/publications/2008/ground-level-ozone/> Link: Link to publication record in Edinburgh Research Explorer Document Version: Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record General rights Copyright for the publications made accessible via the Edinburgh Research Explorer is retained by the author(s) and / or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Take down policy The University of Edinburgh has made every reasonable effort to ensure that Edinburgh Research Explorer content complies with UK legislation. If you believe that the public display of this file breaches copyright please contact [email protected] providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 03. Oct. 2021 Ground-level ozone in the 21st century: future trends, impacts and policy implications Science Policy REPORT 15/08 October 2008 Price £39 web royalsociety.org Cover image: Sunrise over the River Ganges in Varanasi, India showing a sunny and polluted sky, characteristic of photochemical smog.
  • The History Group's Silver Jubilee

    The History Group's Silver Jubilee

    History of Meteorology and Physical Oceanography Special Interest Group Newsletter 1, 2010 ANNUAL REPORT CONTENTS We asked in the last two newsletters if you Annual Report ........................................... 1 thought the History Group should hold an Committee members ................................ 2 Annual General Meeting. There is nothing in Mrs Jean Ludlam ...................................... 2 the By-Law s or Standing Orders of the Royal Meteorological Society that requires the The 2010 Summer Meeting ..................... 3 Group to hold one, nor does Charity Law Report of meeting on 18 November .......... 4 require one. Which papers have been cited? .............. 10 Don’t try this at home! ............................. 10 Only one person responded, and that was in More Richard Gregory reminiscences ..... 11 passing during a telephone conversation about something else. He was in favour of Storm warnings for seafarers: Part 2 ....... 13 holding an AGM but only slightly so. He Swedish storm warnings ......................... 17 expressed the view that an AGM provides an Rikitea meteorological station ................. 19 opportunity to put forward ideas for the More on the D-Day forecast .................... 20 Group’s committee to consider. Recent publications ................................ 21 As there has been so little response, the Did you know? ........................................ 22 Group’s committee has decided that there will Date for your diary .................................. 23 not be an AGM this year. Historic picture ........................................ 23 2009 members of the Group ................... 24 CHAIRMAN’S REVIEW OF 2009 by Malcolm Walker year. Sadly, however, two people who have supported the Group for many years died during I begin as I did last year. Without an enthusiastic 2009. David Limbert passed away on 3 M a y, and conscientious committee, there would be no and Jean Ludlam died in October (see page 2).
  • Blue Intensity for Dendroclimatology: Should We Have the Blues?

    Blue Intensity for Dendroclimatology: Should We Have the Blues?

    Dendrochronologia 32 (2014) 191–204 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Dendrochronologia jou rnal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/dendro ORIGINAL ARTICLE Blue intensity for dendroclimatology: Should we have the blues? Experiments from Scotland a,∗ b c c Milosˇ Rydval , Lars-Åke Larsson , Laura McGlynn , Björn E. Gunnarson , d d a Neil J. Loader , Giles H.F. Young , Rob Wilson a School of Geography and Geosciences, University of St Andrews, UK b Cybis Elektronik & Data AB, Saltsjöbaden, Sweden c Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden d Department of Geography, Swansea University, Swansea, UK a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t Article history: Blue intensity (BI) has the potential to provide information on past summer temperatures of a similar Received 1 April 2014 quality to maximum latewood density (MXD), but at a substantially reduced cost. This paper provides Accepted 27 April 2014 a methodological guide to the generation of BI data using a new and affordable BI measurement sys- tem; CooRecorder. Focussing on four sites in the Scottish Highlands from a wider network of 42 sites Keywords: developed for the Scottish Pine Project, BI and MXD data from Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) were used Blue intensity to facilitate a direct comparison between these parameters. A series of experiments aimed at identify- Maximum latewood density ing and addressing the limitations of BI suggest that while some potential limitations exist, these can Scots pine Dendroclimatology be minimised by adhering to appropriate BI generation protocols. The comparison of BI data produced using different resin-extraction methods (acetone vs.
  • Supreme Court of the United States

    Supreme Court of the United States

    No. 18-1451 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- NATIONAL REVIEW, INC., Petitioner, v. MICHAEL E. MANN, Respondent. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The District Of Columbia Court Of Appeals --------------------------------- --------------------------------- MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE AND BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE SOUTHEASTERN LEGAL FOUNDATION IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER --------------------------------- --------------------------------- KIMBERLY S. HERMANN HARRY W. MACDOUGALD SOUTHEASTERN LEGAL Counsel of Record FOUNDATION CALDWELL, PROPST & 560 W. Crossville Rd., Ste. 104 DELOACH, LLP Roswell, GA 30075 Two Ravinia Dr., Ste. 1600 Atlanta, GA 30346 (404) 843-1956 hmacdougald@ cpdlawyers.com Counsel for Amicus Curiae June 2019 ================================================================ COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964 WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM 1 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37.2, Southeast- ern Legal Foundation (SLF) respectfully moves for leave to file the accompanying amicus curiae brief in support of the Petition. Petitioner has consented to the filing of this amicus curiae brief. Respondent Michael Mann has withheld consent to the filing of this amicus curiae brief. Accordingly, this motion for leave to file is necessary. SLF is a nonprofit, public interest law firm and policy center founded in 1976 and organized under the laws of the State of Georgia. SLF is dedicated to bring- ing before the courts issues vital to the preservation of private property rights, individual liberties, limited government, and the free enterprise system. SLF regularly appears as amicus curiae before this and other federal courts to defend the U.S. Consti- tution and the individual right to the freedom of speech on political and public interest issues.
  • Political Economy, Media, and Climate Change: Sinews of Modern Life Maxwell T

    Political Economy, Media, and Climate Change: Sinews of Modern Life Maxwell T

    Advanced Review Political economy, media, and climate change: sinews of modern life Maxwell T. Boykoff1∗ and Tom Yulsman2 In this 21st century, examining how climate change is described and considered, largely through mass media, is as important as formal climate governance to the long-term success or failure of efforts to confront the challenge. Mass media stitch together formal science and policy with the public sphere. And many dynamic, contested factors contribute to how media outlets portray climate change. This paper addresses contemporary political economics—from greater workloads and reductions in specialist science journalism to digital innovations and new media organizational forms—as they relate to media coverage of climate change. By way of recent studies and indications of these dynamics, we appraise how power flows through culture, politics, and society, to construct coverage, public discourses, and knowledge on climate change. In so doing, we explore how media representations of climate change have changed over time, and particularly how the rise of digital media has reshaped climate coverage. Considerations of climate change, arguably the most heavily politicized scientific issue at the turn of the new millennium, seek to inform and anticipate corollary science issues, such as ongoing concerns for genetically modified organisms, nanotechnology risks, and increased threats to water quantity and quality. The focus on political economy—the ‘sinews’ of modern life—can also then help to inform perceptions and decision making in associated environmental challenges. © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. How to cite this article: WIREs Clim Change 2013. doi: 10.1002/wcc.233 INTRODUCTION and livelihoods—depend directly on our exploitation of carbon-based fuels.2 New York Times journalist John Broder3 wrote that these issues are ‘the sinews The world is going one way, people are going another of modern life’.
  • Climate Change: Examining the Processes Used to Create Science and Policy, Hearing

    Climate Change: Examining the Processes Used to Create Science and Policy, Hearing

    CLIMATE CHANGE: EXAMINING THE PROCESSES USED TO CREATE SCIENCE AND POLICY HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION THURSDAY, MARCH 31, 2011 Serial No. 112–09 Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 65–306PDF WASHINGTON : 2011 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY HON. RALPH M. HALL, Texas, Chair F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas Wisconsin JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California DANA ROHRABACHER, California ZOE LOFGREN, California ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland DAVID WU, Oregon FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma BRAD MILLER, North Carolina JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois W. TODD AKIN, Missouri GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia BEN R. LUJA´ N, New Mexico SANDY ADAMS, Florida PAUL D. TONKO, New York BENJAMIN QUAYLE, Arizona JERRY MCNERNEY, California CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland Tennessee TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan MO BROOKS, Alabama ANDY HARRIS, Maryland RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana DAN BENISHEK, Michigan VACANCY (II) C O N T E N T S Thursday, March 31, 2011 Page Witness List ............................................................................................................
  • Vital Water Graphics an Overview of the State of the World's Fresh and Marine Waters

    Vital Water Graphics an Overview of the State of the World's Fresh and Marine Waters

    . • 7 ,- 7 . sp9 .,• • 5.. t4 j/! • - 5 •f 2 5 mor . 5- m / • S I I - & 4 r4 - Vital Water Graphics An Overview of the State of the World's Fresh and Marine Waters 'R S 9,' About This Report The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has been As was the case with its earlier pLiblication on Vital Climate Graphics, at the forefront of assessing and monitoring global water UNEP has compiled this report in order to provide an easily resources and presenting information on their use and accessible resource on the state of the world's waters. The goal of management for the past 30 years. UNEPi in collaboration this publication is to produce a clear overview, throLigh a set of with partners and collaborating centres, collates and analyses graphics, maps and other illustrations, of the state of the world's water resource data on a global basis. Despite a concerted fresh and marine waters. It also illustrates the causes, effects, trends effort to create a comprehensive database on global water and threats facing our water sources, with examples of areas of use, however, there remain many gaps in the information major concern and future scenarios for the use and management of available. Several projects and programmes are working to fill fresh, coastal and marine waters. these gaps. Among them are the Global International Waters Assessment (GIWA), the Global Programme of Action for the It is hoped that this information will assist water users and Protection of the Marine Environment from Land Based professionals to make better decisions in order to protect our water Activities (GPA/LBA), and the Global Environment Monitoring resources for future generations.
  • Prof. Sir Brian Hoskins

    Prof. Sir Brian Hoskins

    Welcome! Agenda The Challenge of Climate Change What Reading is doing Reading Climate Action Network Reading Business Climate Action Network One business’ story – Field and Hawken Q&A Trees – why Thames Lido story Planting the first Tree for Reading Thank you to Blake Morgan for breakfast! Help us to make Reading a better place to live and work www.ethicalreading.org.uk The Challenge of Climate Change Brian Hoskins Professor of Meteorology, University of Reading Chair, Grantham Institute for Climate Change Imperial College London Measured Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Global Mean Surface Temperature 1850-2018 Ed Hawkins Arctic Sea ice Sep 2019 Global average sea level change 1992- 2018 1981-2010 average NSIDC Projections of surface temperature change 1986-2005 to 2081-2100 for a continued emissions growth scenario IPCC 2013 Global surface temperature changes Royal Society, November 2018 4 °C If emissions continue to increase at their present rate If current promises by countries are carried out 3 °C International target before Paris 2 °C Paris agreement below 2°C Basis for UK target in 2008 Climate Change Act Paris aspiration 1.5 °C 1 °C Today and increasing at rate 1°C per 50 years 0 °C Pre-Industrial The UK Climate Change Act Climate change mitigation • 80% reduction by 2050 • 5 year carbon budgets – legally binding • Requirement to develop policies and proposals to meet budgets Preparing for climate change • Established independent advisory body – Committee 5 yearly Climate Change on Climate Change (CCC) Risk Assessment (CCRA) & National Adaptation Plan www.theccc.org.uk Climate Change Committee June 2018 Progress Report to Parliament 1.
  • Ngeo170 Commentary.Indd

    Ngeo170 Commentary.Indd

    COMMENTARY To blog or not to blog? GAVIN SCHMIDT is at the NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies Columbia University 2880 Broadway, New York, New York 10025, USA; co-founder of RealClimate.org. e-mail: [email protected] Scientists know much more about their fi eld than is ever published in peer-reviewed journals. Blogs can be a good medium with which to disseminate this tacit knowledge. ike it or not, there are certain important from a quick skim of the lively. However, this kind of informal scientific areas, such as climate methodology, a figure or two and the second-stage peer review is vital to change, stem-cell research, principal results. Their experience the need to quickly process the vast genetic modification of food teaches them to pay little attention to amount of information being produced. L or evolution, that attract a the occasional piece of overreach in Scientists from all fields rely on it heavily disproportionate amount of public the last paragraph and to fill in the to make a first cut between the studies attention. This is usually because they are sometimes understated background. that are worth reading in more detail and perceived to have relevance for strongly By contrast, a lay person might focus those that aren’t. held ethical, economic, moral or political much more on the easy-to-understand Scientists writing in blogs can make beliefs. Scientific results in these fields ‘throwaway’ comments, and spend little this context available to anyone who is are therefore parsed extremely closely to time evaluating the usefulness of the interested.
  • December 12, 2015

    December 12, 2015

    The Week That Was: 2015-12-12 (December 12, 2015) Brought to You by SEPP (www.SEPP.org) The Science and Environmental Policy Project ################################################### Quote of the Week: “The prudent man always studies seriously and earnestly to understand whatever he professes to understand, and not merely to persuade other people that he understands it; and though his talents may not always be very brilliant, they are always perfectly genuine. He neither endeavours to impose upon you by the cunning devices of an artful impostor, nor by the arrogant airs of an assuming pedant, nor by the confident assertions of a superficial and impudent pretender.” Adam Smith The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759) ################################################### Number of the Week: 3 Times and 4 Times ################################################### Dear Subscriber to The Week That Was, As you know, support for the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) comes entirely from private donations; we do not solicit support from industry or government. Therefore, we can honestly claim that we are not beholden to anyone and that our writings are clear from any outside influence. We are also proud of the fact that SEPP is frugal: no fancy offices, no employees, no salaries paid to anyone; in fact, we donate book royalties and lecture fees to SEPP. The past few years have been very productive: In collaboration with like-minded groups, we produced hard-hitting comments for the record and provided scientific testimony on proposed Federal climate and energy policy. We expect this material to surface in future litigation over excessive regulation. In 2016, we plan to be very active in upcoming litigation over Federal regulations that are not supported by empirical science.