This morning, Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), ranking member of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, will release a staff report on the scientific issues that tend to discredit the EPA’s endangerment finding for carbon dioxide as a pollutant.
The report’s release coincides with the opening of a committee hearing entitled “The Foundation of Climate Science.” During the hearing the committee will hear testimony from five experts — four defending the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its reports against the criticisms raised since the release of the Climategate files last November, and one, Christopher Monckton, Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, who is a noted skeptic (as well as a PJ Media contributor).
The report summarizes a number of revelations that, according to Rep Sensenbrenner’s staff, combine to call into question the scientific validity of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). Many of these have been reported in PJ Media since our original report on the Climategate files.
The IPCC report might seem to be a secondary issue, however flawed it may be, because the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is supposed to base endangerment findings on well-accepted, peer-reviewed science. However, in the EPA’s regulatory announcement (released on April 24, 2009), the EPA itself noted that it “relies most heavily on the major assessment reports of both the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the US Climate Change Science Program (CCSP). EPA took this approach rather than conducting a new assessment of the scientific literature.” [emphasis added]
Even at the time of the endangerment finding, before the Climategate files were released, skeptical voices within the EPA had warned of the inadequacy of the data. Dr. Alan Carlin, also a PJ Media contributor and at the time a scientist within the EPA, had warned that these sources were not sufficient. He also warned that relying on these reports as the primary sources opened the EPA to legal challenge and also risked making extremely expensive regulatory changes without affecting climate change in any significant fashion.