Dan, et al.: The NCEE report has been discussed at length at Wattsupwiththat.com. The basic purpose of the report was not to impeach the IPCC report, it was to identify science that had been developed since the IPCC report was prepared, and to note that if that new science proved valid, then the scientific basis of the AR4 report was put at issue. The report author, Alan Carlin, a member of this geoengineering google group, I might add, does believe the new science seriously undercuts the IPCC report.
Nevertheless, the real story is that EPA had made its mind up before it examined all the science. That violates the Administrator's stated policies and is improper for a governmental science body. David Schnare. On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 7:17 PM, Dan Whaley <[email protected]> wrote: > > I've run across this recently. > > http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf > > Internal NCEE review of EPA's endangerment analysis for GHG emissions > under the Clean Air Act. > > Curious if others have developed or are in progress on a response to > these criticisms. > > Dan > > > -- David W. Schnare Center for Environmental Stewardship --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
