21 February 2010
Petition for Reconsideration of Endangerment Decision of EPA of Greenhouse Gases
The EPA ruled on 7 December 2009 that the public health and welfare was threatened by greenhouse gases, including CO2. Therefore, it would make up rules for regulating the emissions of such gases under the Clean Air Act. The EPA ruling was based heavily upon UN IPCC documents and the testimony of a number of prominent advocates of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming due to CO2 emissions and other greenhouse gases. The recent revelations of systematic scientific shenanigans to manipulate temperature data, the failure to record the data manipulations, the failure to produce data under freedom of information act requests, the claims of lost data, the revelation of efforts to keep contrary scientific viewpoints from being published, while the alarmists papers were given stacked reviews, have caused a petition for the reconsideration of the EPA endangerment ruling of December 2009.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, and the Science and Environmental Policy Project petitioned the EPA on 12 February 2010 to reconsider this foolish ruling that CO2 and five other greenhouse gases should be regulated under the Clean Air Act. They have now added a 16 February 2010 supplement to that petition based on more recent findings in contradiction to those cited by the EPA in its ruling in December. In particular, these include the recent recantations by Prof. Phil Jones which I reviewed here and the false UN IPCC claims about hurricanes and severe storms which I reviewed here.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, and the Science and Environmental Policy Project petitioned the EPA on 12 February 2010 to reconsider this foolish ruling that CO2 and five other greenhouse gases should be regulated under the Clean Air Act. They have now added a 16 February 2010 supplement to that petition based on more recent findings in contradiction to those cited by the EPA in its ruling in December. In particular, these include the recent recantations by Prof. Phil Jones which I reviewed here and the false UN IPCC claims about hurricanes and severe storms which I reviewed here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment