Actually, Ken, there is data before the agency that challenges the projections of the IPCC, which is more important than challenging the "basic scientific facts" laid out in the AR4 reports.
As for the government, under common law dating to the 16th century and under US law, EPA has a duty to seek comment and respond to all the comments, even the stupid ones. Some say it's called democracy, but it isn't. It is the way we, as a law-based society, ensure that the government is not arbitrary and capricious. When the government fails (or refuses) to examine the "spurious" comments made, how does the public know (1) the comments were "spurious" and (2) that the government didn't ignore non-spurious comments at the same time. I'm thinking it's about time we reintroduced a course in civics to the scientific community. David. On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 12:53 PM, Ken Caldeira <[email protected]>wrote: > 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 Schnare Center 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> > -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
