The US Government (and most other governments of the world) have already carefully reviewed and approved the IPCC AR4 reports.
No new information that challenges the basic scientific facts laid out in those reports. Incompetent people also disagree. Does the government have a legal duty to examine every spurious claim? ___________________________________________________ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA [email protected]; [email protected] http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab +1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968 On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 1:01 PM, David Schnare <[email protected]> wrote: > Ken and I part ways on whether EPA should take time to clear the air on > these issues. Competent people disagree, so government has a legal duty to > take a look at the arguments. > > David SchnareCenter for Environmental Stewardship > > On Jul 1, 2009, at 12:10 AM, Ken Caldeira < > [email protected]> wrote: > > 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]> > [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]> >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> I've run across this recently. >>> >>> <http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf> >>> 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
