[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 23]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 31554-31555]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  CLIMATEGATE: THE DESTROYED DOCUMENTS

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. JOE BARTON

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                       Friday, December 11, 2009

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I submit the executive summary 
document concerning the suppressed comments on the EPA endangerment 
finding for inclusion in the Record. The entire document, `Comments on 
Draft Technical Support Document for Endangerment Analysis for 
Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act,' will be available on 
the Energy and Commerce Committee website.

Comments on Draft Technical Support Document for Endangerment Analysis 
          for Greenhouse Gas Emissions Under the Clean Air Act

                      (By Alan Carlin, NCEE/OPEI)

                  Based on TSD Draft of March 9, 2009

                             March 16, 2009

       We have become increasingly concerned that EPA has itself 
     paid too little attention to the science of global warming. 
     EPA and others have tended to accept the findings reached by 
     outside groups, particularly the IPCC and the CCSP, as being 
     correct without a careful and critical examination of their 
     conclusions and documentation. If they should be found to be 
     incorrect at a later date, however, and EPA is found not to 
     have made a really careful independent review of them before 
     reaching its decisions on endangerment, it appears likely 
     that it is EPA rather than these other groups that may be 
     blamed for any errors. Restricting the source of inputs into 
     the process to these two sources may make EPA's current task 
     easier but it may come with enormous costs later if they 
     should result in policies that may not be scientifically 
     supportable.
       We do not maintain that we or anyone else have all the 
     answers needed to take action now. Some of the conclusions 
     reached in these comments may well be shown to be incorrect 
     by future research. Our conclusions do represent the best 
     science in the sense of most closely corresponding to 
     available observations that we currently know of, however, 
     and are sufficiently at variance with those of the IPCC, 
     CCSP, and the Draft TSD that we believe they support our 
     increasing concern that EPA has not critically reviewed the 
     findings by these other groups.
       As discussed in these comments, we believe our concerns and 
     reservations are sufficiently important to warrant a serious 
     review of the science by EPA before any attempt is made to 
     reach conclusions on the subject of endangerment from GHGs. 
     We believe that this review should start immediately and be a 
     continuing effort as long as there is a serious possibility 
     that EPA may be called upon to implement regulations designed 
     to reduce global warming. The science has and undoubtedly 
     will continue to change and EPA must have the capability to 
     keep abreast of these changes if it is to successfully 
     discharge its responsibilities. The Draft TSD suggests to us 
     that we do not yet have that capability or that we have not 
     used what we have.
       We would be happy to work with and assist anyone who might 
     want to undertake such a serious review of the science and 
     hope that these comments will at least illustrate the scope 
     of what we believe is needed.
       We hope that the reader will excuse the many unintentional 
     errors that are undoubtedly in these comments. Our only 
     excuse is that we had less than four days to draft these very 
     lengthy and complex comments. It has not been possible to 
     fully adhere to our usual very high standards of accuracy as 
     a result. If there should be questions, we will be happy to 
     try to correct any errors that anyone may find, however.
       It is of great importance that the Agency recognize the 
     difference between an effort that has consumed tens of 
     billions of dollars by the IPCC, the CCSP, and some 
     additional European, particularly British, funding over a 
     period of at least 15 years with what two EPA staff members 
     have been able to pull together in less than a week. 
     Obviously the number of peer reviewed papers that exist and 
     the polish of the summary reports cannot be compared. What is 
     actually noteworthy about this effort is not the relative 
     apparent scientific shine of the two sides but rather the 
     relative ease with which major holes have been found in the 
     GHG/CO2/AGW argument. In many cases the most important 
     arguments are based not on multi-million dollar research 
     efforts but by simple observation of available data which has 
     surprisingly received so little scrutiny. The best example of 
     this is the MSU satellite data on global temperatures. Simple 
     scrutiny of this data yields what to us are stunning 
     observations. Yet this has received surprisingly little study 
     or at least publicity. In the end it must be emphasized that 
     the issue is not which side has spent the most money or 
     published the most peer-reviewed papers, or been supported by 
     more scientific organizations. The issue is rather whether 
     the GHG/CO2/AGW hypothesis meets the ultimate scientific 
     test--conformance with real world data. What these comments 
     show is that it is this ultimate test that the hypothesis 
     fails; this is why EPA needs to carefully reexamine the 
     science behind global warming before proposing an 
     endangerment finding. This will take more than four days but 
     is the most important thing we can do right now and in the 
     coming weeks and months and possibly even years.


                           EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

       These comments are based on the draft Technical Support 
     Document for Endangerment Analysis for Greenhouse Gas 
     Emissions under the Clean Air Act (hereafter draft TSD) 
     issued by the Climate Change Division of the Office of 
     Atmospheric Programs on March 9, 2009. Unfortunately, because 
     we were only given a few days to review this lengthy document 
     these comments are of necessity much less comprehensive and 
     polished than they would have been if more time had been 
     allowed. We are prepared, however, to provide added 
     information, more detailed comments on specific points 
     raised, and any assistance in making changes if requested by 
     OAR.
       The principal comments are as follows:
       As of the best information we currently have, the GHG/CO2 
     hypothesis as to the cause of global warming, which this 
     Draft TSD supports, is currently an invalid hypothesis from a 
     scientific viewpoint because it fails a number of critical 
     comparisons with available observable data. Any one of these 
     failings should be enough to invalidate the hypothesis; the 
     breadth of these failings leaves no other possible conclusion 
     based on current data. As Feynman (1975) has said failure to 
     conform to real world data makes it necessary from a 
     scientific viewpoint to revise the hypothesis or abandon it 
     (see Section 2.1 for the exact quote). Unfortunately this has 
     not happened in the global warming debate, but needs to if an 
     accurate finding concerning endangerment is to be made. The 
     failings are listed below in decreasing order of importance 
     in our view:
       1. Lack of observed upper tropospheric heating in the 
     tropics (see Section 2.9 for a detailed discussion).
       2. Lack of observed constant humidity levels, a very 
     important assumption of all the IPCC models, as CO2 levels 
     have risen (see Section 1.7).
       3. The most reliable sets of global temperature data we 
     have, using satellite microwave sounding units, show no 
     appreciable temperature increases during the critical period 
     1978-1997, just when the surface station data show a 
     pronounced rise (see Section 2.4). Satellite data after 1998 
     is also inconsistent with the GHG/CO2/AGW hypothesis.

[[Page 31555]]


       4. The models used by the IPCC do not take into account or 
     show the most important ocean oscillations which clearly do 
     affect global temperatures, namely, the Pacific Decadal 
     Oscillation, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, and the 
     ENSO (Section 2.4). Leaving out any major potential causes 
     for global warming from the analysis results in the likely 
     misattribution of the effects of these oscillations to the 
     GHGs/CO2 and hence is likely to overstate their importance as 
     a cause for climate change.
       5. The models and the IPCC ignored the possibility of 
     indirect solar variability (Section 2.5), which if important 
     would again be likely to have the effect of overstating the 
     importance of GHGs/CO2.
       6. The models and the IPCC ignored the possibility that 
     there may be other significant natural effects on global 
     temperatures that we do not yet understand (Section 2.4). 
     This possibility invalidates their statements that one must 
     assume anthropogenic sources in order to duplicate the 
     temperature record. The 1998 spike in global temperatures is 
     very difficult to explain in any other way (see Section 2.4).
       7. Surface global temperature data may have been hopelessly 
     corrupted by the urban heat island effect and other problems 
     which may explain some portion of the warming that would 
     otherwise be attributed to GHGs/CO2. In fact, the Draft TSD 
     refers almost exclusively in Section 5 to surface rather than 
     satellite data.
       The current Draft TSD is based largely on the IPCC AR4 
     report, which is at best three years out of date in a rapidly 
     changing field. There have been important developments in 
     areas that deserve careful attention in this draft. The list 
     includes the following six which are discussed in Section 1:
       Global temperatures have declined--extending the current 
     downtrend to 11 years with a particularly rapid decline in 
     1907-8; in addition, the PDO went negative in September, 2007 
     and the AMO in January, 2009, respectively. At the same time 
     atmospheric CO2 levels have continued to increase 
     and CO2 emissions have accelerated.
       The consensus on past, present and future Atlantic 
     hurricane behavior has changed. Initially, it tilted towards 
     the idea that anthropogenic global warming is leading to (and 
     will lead to) to more frequent and intense storms. Now the 
     consensus is much more neutral, arguing that future Atlantic 
     tropical cyclones will be little different that those of the 
     past.
       The idea that warming temperatures will cause Greenland to 
     rapidly shed its ice has been greatly diminished by new 
     results indicating little evidence for the operation of such 
     processes.
       One of the worst economic recessions since World War II has 
     greatly decreased GHG emissions compared to the assumptions 
     made by the IPCC. To the extent that ambient GHG levels are 
     relevant for future global temperatures, these emissions 
     reductions should greatly influence the adverse effects of 
     these emissions on public health and welfare. The current 
     draft TSP does not reflect the changes that have already 
     occurred nor those that are likely to occur in the future as 
     a result of the recession. In fact, the topic is not even 
     discussed to our knowledge.
       A new 2009 paper finds that the crucial assumption in the 
     GCM models used by the IPCC concerning strongly positive 
     feedback from water vapor is not supported by empirical 
     evidence and that the feedback is actually negative.
       A new 2009 paper by Scafetta and Wilson suggests that the 
     IPCC used faulty solar data in dismissing the direct effect 
     of solar variability on global temperatures. Other research 
     by Scafetta and others suggests that solar variability could 
     account for up to 68% of the increase in Earth's global 
     temperatures.
       These six developments alone should greatly influence any 
     assessment of ``vulnerability, risk, and impacts'' of climate 
     change within the U.S., but are not discussed in the Draft 
     TSD to our knowledge. But these are just a few of the new 
     developments since 2006. Therefore, the extensive portions of 
     the EPA's Endangerment TSD which are based upon science from 
     the IPPC AR4 report are no longer appropriate and need to be 
     revised before a TSD is issued for comments.
       Not only is some of the science of the TSD out-of-date but 
     there needs to be an explicit, in-depth analysis of the 
     likely causes of global warming in our view. Despite the 
     complexity of the climate system the following conclusions in 
     this regard appear to be well supported by the available data 
     (see Section 2 below):
       A. By far the best single explanation for global 
     temperature fluctuations appears to be variations in the PDO/
     AMO/ENSO. ENSO appears to operate in a 3-5 year cycle. PDO/
     AMO appear to operate in about a 60-year cycle. This is not 
     really explained in the draft TSD but needs to be, or, at the 
     very least, there needs to be an explanation as to why OAR 
     believes that these evident cycles do not exist or why they 
     are so unimportant as not to receive in-depth analysis.
       B. There appears to be a strong association between solar 
     sunspots/irradiance and global temperature fluctuations. It 
     is unclear exactly how this operates, but it may be through 
     indirect solar variability on cloud formation. This topic is 
     not really explored in the Draft TSD but needs to be since 
     otherwise the effects of solar variations may be 
     misattributed to the effects of changes in GHG levels.
       C. Changes in GHG concentrations appear to have so little 
     effect that it is difficult to find any effect in the 
     satellite temperature record, which started in 1978.
       D. The surface measurements (such as HADCRUT) are more 
     ambiguous than the satellite measurements in that the 
     increasing temperatures shown since the mid-1970s could 
     either be due to the rapid growth of urbanization and the 
     heat island effect or by the increase in GHG levels. However, 
     since no such increase is shown in the satellite record it 
     appears more likely that urbanization and the UHI effect and/
     or other measurement problems are the most likely cause. If 
     so, the increases may have little to do with GHGs and 
     everything to do with the rapid urbanization during the 
     period. Given the discrepancy between surface temperature 
     records in the 1940-75 and 1998-2008 and the increases in GHG 
     levels during these periods it appears even more unlikely 
     that GHGs have as much of an effect on measured surface 
     temperatures as claimed. These points need to be very 
     carefully and fully discussed in the draft TSD if it is to be 
     scientifically credible.
       E. Hence it is not reasonable to conclude that there is any 
     endangerment from changes in GHG levels based on the 
     satellite record, since almost all the fluctuations appear to 
     be due to natural causes and not human-caused pollution as 
     defined by the Clean Air Act. The surface record is more 
     equivocal but needs to be carefully discussed, which would 
     require substantial revision of the Draft TSD.
       F. There is a significant possibility that there are some 
     other natural causes of global temperature fluctuations that 
     we do not yet really understand and which may account for the 
     very noticeable 1998 temperature peak which appears on both 
     the satellite and surface temperature records. This 
     possibility needs to be fully explained and 2009 DRAFT 
     discussed in the Draft TSD. Until and unless these and many 
     other inconsistencies referenced in these comments are 
     adequately explained it would appear premature to attribute 
     all or even most of what warming has occurred to changes in 
     GHG/CO2 atmospheric levels.
       These inconsistencies between the TSD analysis and 
     scientific observations are so important and sufficiently 
     abstruse that in our view EPA needs to make an independent 
     analysis of the science of global warming rather than 
     adopting the conclusions of the IPCC and CCSP without much 
     more careful and independent EPA staff review than is 
     evidenced by the Draft TSP. Adopting the scientific 
     conclusions of an outside group such as the IPCC or CCSP 
     without thorough review by EPA is not in the EPA tradition 
     anyway, and there seems to be little reason to change the 
     tradition in this case. If their conclusions should be 
     incorrect and EPA acts on them, it is EPA that will be blamed 
     for inadequate research and understanding and reaching a 
     possibly inaccurate determination of endangerment. Given the 
     downward trend in temperatures since 1998 (which some think 
     will continue until about 2030 given the 60 year cycle 
     described in Section 2) there is no particular reason to rush 
     into decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not 
     appear to explain much of the available data.
       Finally, there is an obvious logical problem posed by 
     steadily increasing U.S. health and welfare measures and the 
     alleged endangerment of health and welfare discussed in this 
     draft TSD during a period of rapid rise in at least 
     CO2 ambient levels. This discontinuity either 
     needs to be carefully explained in the draft TSD or the 
     conclusions changed.

                          ____________________