EPA’s greenhouse gas science didn’t follow its own peer review procedure, IG says

posted at 12:05 pm on September 28, 2011 by Tina Korbe

The data process used to arrive at the administration’s determination that greenhouse gases endanger “the public health and welfare” violated the Environmental Protection Agency’s own peer review procedure, a new report from the EPA Office of the Inspector General reveals.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, requested this report in April, asking that the OIG determine whether the EPA “followed key federal and Agency regulations and policies in developing and reviewing the technical data used to make and support its greenhouse gases endangerment finding.” Now, Inhofe is calling for a series of hearings to further investigate the IG’s findings.

The Daily Caller’s Caroline May, with more:

“I appreciate the inspector general conducting a thorough investigation into the Obama-EPA’s handling of the endangerment finding for greenhouse gases,” Inhofe said. “This report confirms that the endangerment finding, the very foundation of President Obama’s job-destroying regulatory agenda, was rushed, biased and flawed. It calls the scientific integrity of EPA’s decision-making process into question and undermines the credibility of the endangerment finding.”

Inhofe lambasted the EPA for its failure to adhere to its own rules, outsourcing the science to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — and refusing to conduct its own analysis of the science — in the period leading up to its final endangerment finding.

“The endangerment finding is no small matter: Global warming regulations imposed by the Obama-EPA under the Clean Air Act will cost American consumers $300 to $400 billion a year, significantly raise energy prices, and destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs. This is not to mention the ‘absurd result’ that EPA will need to hire 230,000 additional employees and spend an additional $21 billion to implement its [green house gas] regime. And all of this economic pain is for nothing: As EPA Administrator [Lisa] Jackson also admitted before the Environmental and Public Works] committee, these regulations will have no effect on the climate.”

You  know what doesn’t cost consumers billions of dollars each year, raise energy prices or destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs? Yep, you guessed it — drilling for natural gas. Just ask the Pennsylvanians who’ve benefited from all the activity surrounding the Marcellus Shale.

Yet the GOP has the rep as the anti-science party? I’ll never understand it.

P.S. You know that big building pictured in the thumbnail to this post? HQ of the EPA? I can’t help but wonder how it’s heated …


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

The Science is settled….

Oil Can on September 28, 2011 at 12:08 PM

You don’t say. Next you are going to tell me that models based on guesses are no replacement for real science. I don’t think my brain can handle much more of these blows to the religion of peace, AGW.

NotCoach on September 28, 2011 at 12:09 PM

Procedures and science don’t matter if you have the correct intent.

This is fraud.

rbj on September 28, 2011 at 12:11 PM

The Science is settled….
Oil Can on September 28, 2011 at 12:08 PM

Yes it is, so just ignore CERN and their possible faster than light discovery which made the news recently.

Bishop on September 28, 2011 at 12:11 PM

Peer review? Phooey! East Anglica fixed all that nonsense.

a capella on September 28, 2011 at 12:11 PM

Sooooo… we need to report the EPA to Attack Watch?

Washington Nearsider on September 28, 2011 at 12:11 PM

You don’t say. Next you are going to tell me that models based on guesses are no replacement for real science. I don’t think my brain can handle much more of these blows to the religion of peace, AGW.

NotCoach on September 28, 2011 at 12:09 PM

The models are based on the initial conditions and “Assumptions” about how the atmosphere will perform. But being a non-linear entity makes it extremely difficult to model accurately.

You can Assume that certain forcing functions will have more of an influence than they really do and get the results you want – garbage in, garbage out.

As they say, Computational Fluid Dynamics is hard.

Chip on September 28, 2011 at 12:19 PM

I’m shocked—shocked I tell you to find out someone is cooking the books on Global Warming.

dirtseller on September 28, 2011 at 12:19 PM

Yep, the $cience is settled. Nothing is examined, the libs merely regurgitate and accept on faith. It’s obviously now a “religion”, so where is the outcry for separation of church and state?

Perhaps The Goracle needs to hold a national revival meeting.

GarandFan on September 28, 2011 at 12:20 PM

Chip on September 28, 2011 at 12:19 PM

The models are junk no matter how honest anyone is who builds them. There are far too many unknowns to get any useful data out of them.

NotCoach on September 28, 2011 at 12:25 PM

outsourcing the science to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — and refusing to conduct its own analysis of the science — i

WTF- you let the IPCC conduct the science? Wow. There must have been some corks of new wine in new bottles popping at IPCC headquarters when they got that job. How much do we punish the US today had to be the rallying cry.

Lisa Jackson needs to be let go. Now.

journeyintothewhirlwind on September 28, 2011 at 12:30 PM

Anti Science? We need a private business, who’s sole service/purpose, is devoted to EPA Busting.

Dr Evil on September 28, 2011 at 12:31 PM

“This is not to mention the ‘absurd result’ that EPA will need to hire 230,000 additional employees and spend an additional $21 billion to implement its [green house gas] regime.”

I was wondering how he was going to do it…

Seven Percent Solution on September 28, 2011 at 12:32 PM

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely U.S. Voters finds that Obama earns 39% support while Cain attracts 34%. In that match-up, 14% prefer some other candidate, and 14% are undecided.

A little more “MO” and Sarah will have the person she wants to back, she made it plain with Greta the respect she has for Cain, the only candidate she has really talked positive about consistently.
It could be Cain as President, and Sarah, Dept. of Interior/EPA/Energy, take your pick…and that would be awesome for the country.

right2bright on September 28, 2011 at 12:33 PM

science! It don’t need no stinking science.

joeindc44 on September 28, 2011 at 12:35 PM

Chip on September 28, 2011 at 12:19 PM

The models are junk no matter how honest anyone is who builds them. There are far too many unknowns to get any useful data out of them.

NotCoach on September 28, 2011 at 12:25 PM

Well, we are talking about mathematically modeling the entire world – and all of it’s interactions therein.

Even if they were honest about it and grant money wasn’t in play it’s extremely difficult.

Factor in that they – even subconsciously - would want certain results and it would seem to be very difficult to trust their conclusions.

Chip on September 28, 2011 at 12:36 PM

P.S. You know that big building pictured in the thumbnail to this post? HQ of the EPA? I can’t help but wonder how it’s heated …

Smugness.

theCork on September 28, 2011 at 12:36 PM

Indict Lisa Jackson !!

J_Crater on September 28, 2011 at 12:37 PM

Seven Percent Solution on September 28, 2011 at 12:32 PM

He can try he would need the House to fund them, that’s not going to happen. In fact I see the Super Committee moving EPA hiring into the expendable column. No way this administration takes the heat for creating a Greenie fascist arm for the democrats, from tax payer money, while the U.S. Military-Defense Department, takes a 600 billion hair cut.

Dr Evil on September 28, 2011 at 12:40 PM

P.S. You know that big building pictured in the thumbnail to this post? HQ of the EPA? I can’t help but wonder how it’s heated …

You do know that the people who occupy that building have the best smelling flatulence in the universe, don’t you? At least they will tell you they do. And when they spend all day sniffing each other’s farts it gets pretty warm in there from the heat released with the gasses.

NotCoach on September 28, 2011 at 12:42 PM

HQ of the EPA? I can’t help but wonder how it’s heated …

Unicorn Flatulence!

Another Drew on September 28, 2011 at 12:44 PM

There is nothing new here. Anthony Robbins, Carter’s Head of NIOSH ignored his own researchers when he put out several criteria documents. Carol Browner ignored her own Science Advisory board when she put out her Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative and manipulated the data to present a deceiving picture. No one that really knew the subject bought Browner’s assertion that fine particulate was what caused Sudden Infant Death Syndrome and it was her EPA that pushed using the fuel additive that created massive water pollution problems that she then blamed on industry even though warning signs were going up for years before she turned her position around in Orwellian style. Yet, we are the anti-science party somehow. We are the ones whose agenda is just politically driven not driven by objective data–Ah what a difference having the MSM in your pocket makes.

KW64 on September 28, 2011 at 12:46 PM

No one associated with this regime can tell the truth. It(bo) is all a fraud.

tim c on September 28, 2011 at 12:46 PM

P.S. You know that big building pictured in the thumbnail to this post? HQ of the EPA? I can’t help but wonder how it’s heated …

It’s heated by an overabundance of natural gasses, but not the kind that’s drilled for.

Greg Toombs on September 28, 2011 at 12:49 PM

But that’s just the beginning: If Congress’ supercommittee doesn’t reach agreement in the next two months on a plan to reduce the nation’s deficit by at least $1.2 trillion, automatically-triggered cuts would slash as much as $600 billion from defense and security programs over the next decade.

If this administration tried to fund this Greenie’s wet dream for the EPA, on the back of our national defense, all hell breaks lose.

Dr Evil on September 28, 2011 at 12:50 PM

The Most Incompetent Administration Evah

J_Crater on September 28, 2011 at 12:51 PM

None of this matters.

The Goracle has already deemed AGW to be true, settled science.

All hail, Gore!!! All hail His disciple Obama!!!

coldwarrior on September 28, 2011 at 1:00 PM

test

Steve Z on September 28, 2011 at 1:02 PM

Procedures and science don’t matter if you have the correct intent.

rbj on September 28, 2011 at 12:11 PM

Unlike breaking one of thousands of regulations. there, intent doesn’t matter, just breaking a law you didn’t know existed. or you thought you had fulfilled it, but you get a huge fine and threat of jail anyway.

YehuditTX on September 28, 2011 at 1:08 PM

More people out of work, more burdens on the citizens. Yup. A direct path for Dems to take, and keep control of this country. Eventually, they’ll get to do any damn thing they want to us. Including, pulling people off roads, and streets for any reason, and bringing them in for re-education, or worse.

capejasmine on September 28, 2011 at 1:12 PM

The only part of this that’s news is that the IG has now confirmed what we already knew.

EPA based their finding on a bunch of outside materials that, although blessed by the IPCC and a bunch of other entities, was polluted throughout with pressure-group piffle.

I had hoped to see a much bigger issue made of this much sooner, but if Lisa Jackson can be made to fall on her sword by mid-2012 I’ll take it.

Let’s make it a twofer and show Solyndra Chu the door at the same time.

JEM on September 28, 2011 at 1:14 PM

This certainly may explain Obama suspending new regulations a few weeks ago.

J_Crater on September 28, 2011 at 1:15 PM

Tina, have you reached out to Al Gore on this? He’s the expert.

Akzed on September 28, 2011 at 1:21 PM

Inhofe lambasted the EPA for its failure to adhere to its own rules, outsourcing the science to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — and refusing to conduct its own analysis of the science — in the period leading up to its final endangerment finding.

The IPCC uses a faulty equation proposed by Svante Arrhenius in 1906 to estimate the temperature increase due to increased CO2 concentrations. If extrapolated to zero CO2 in the atmosphere, the “Erroneous Arrhenius” equation would predict INFINITE cooling, turning the Earth into a giant snowball by removing less than 0.04% CO2 from the atmosphere. But we’re supposed to believe that the equation works when extrapolated in the other direction?

The correct equation (Beer’s Law), based on absorption of infrared light, would predict a temperature rise of about 0.3 C (0.54 F) if the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere were doubled. Do we really need to spend trillions of dollars trying to prevent a half-degree temperature rise?

Sea levels are currently rising at a rate of less than 2 millimeters per year, (about 8 inches per century), and the rise rate is SLOWING DOWN. Instead of spending trillions of dollars to capture, compress, and bury harmless soda pop gas, wouldn’t it be cheaper to build sea walls 8 inches high over the next century?

The models are based on the initial conditions and “Assumptions” about how the atmosphere will perform. But being a non-linear entity makes it extremely difficult to model accurately.

You can Assume that certain forcing functions will have more of an influence than they really do and get the results you want – garbage in, garbage out.

As they say, Computational Fluid Dynamics is hard.

Chip on September 28, 2011 at 12:19 PM

Nobody really knows the effect of increased sea water evaporation on climate. Does it form low-level clouds that reflect sunlight, or high-level cirrus clouds that trap heat? What about the effects of sunspots and cosmic rays on cloud nucleation, which has been demonstrated by experiment? What about fluctuations in cold and warm ocean currents (El Nino, La Nina, etc.)?

Weather-forecasting models are based on solving mass, momentum, and energy balances between “volume elements” a few km on a side and a few hundred meters high. Their predictions usually diverge from the eventual weather within about 5 or 10 days, due to accumulation of small errors within volume elements over simulated time.

A long-term climate model needs longer time steps and larger volume elements in order to keep computation time manageable. But if the best weather-forecasting models can’t predict next week’s weather, how can anyone trust a climate model to predict next century’s weather, with so much more simulated time to accumulate errors within larger volume elements?

Steve Z on September 28, 2011 at 1:28 PM

Yet the GOP has the rep as the anti-science party?

With who? Journalism School & Political Science majors, two groups most known for never stepping into any sort of a real science classroom?

MNHawk on September 28, 2011 at 2:09 PM

P.S. You know that big building pictured in the thumbnail to this post? HQ of the EPA? I can’t help but wonder how it’s heated …

Probably by non-bovine flatulence!!!

landlines on September 28, 2011 at 2:10 PM

I’m shocked—shocked I tell you to find out someone is cooking the books on Global Warming.

dirtseller on September 28, 2011 at 12:19 PM

Are you hoping that somebody will deliver you your winnings?

Slowburn on September 28, 2011 at 2:14 PM

You know that big building pictured in the thumbnail to this post? HQ of the EPA? I can’t help but wonder how it’s heated …

With meaningless heated rhetoric, maybe?

bgoldman on September 28, 2011 at 2:45 PM

I can’t for the life of me understand why I am not seeing this in any of the major news sites.The Houston Chronicle hasn’t written a word about it.I am thourghly befuddled.

docflash on September 28, 2011 at 2:50 PM

You think this was bad…
The Second Hand Smoke Finding
Was complete fiction.

That finding that Second Hand Smoke is a Class A Carcinogen is the basis for every smoking restriction to follow, from restaurants to bars to office buildings and now public parks. It was completely unsupported by the science, but that doesn’t matter. All the EPA had to do was wave their hands in the air, and the entire regulatory apparatus was bootstrapped up from nothing.

Haiku Guy on September 28, 2011 at 7:39 PM