EPA response is political, not scientific

EPA announcement on 7/29/2010:

EPA Rejects Claims of Flawed Climate Science

Roger Pielke Sr. responds:

Comment On The Denial of Petitions for Reconsideration of the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings For Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) Of The Clean Air Act”

Roger Pielke Jr. has written often on the disaster claims in the IPCC report:

IPCC Statement on Trends in Disaster Losses

IPCC Disinformation

Castles Built on Sand

“Fabrication” or “Lie” in the IPCC AR4 WGI

See Peilke Jr.’s blog for guest posts by IPCC author Richard Tol as well.

Former EPA employee Alan Carlin has a blog on the general topic, but has not commented so far on this specific announcement:

Carlin Economics and Science

Donna LaFramboise has written extensively on the IPPC Document:

http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/search/label/IPCC

The EPA’s response is political, as expected. How anyone can take the IPCC report at face value and an unbiased view of the science is not credible.  We know the IPCC authors violated their own rules (see climategate emails), ignored comments from other authors, and reworded key sections after other reviewers could not longer submit comments. The IPPC document, while based on science, is a political document that presents an unbalanced alarmist view of the cause and implications of global warming.