That NCEE report is full of misleading pseudo-information that will result in a lot of smart people having to waste a lot of time responding to a wide range of canards.
A report like that is a disservice, and not a useful contribution to informed scientific discussion. On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 3:29 AM, David Schnare <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
