EPA’s endangerment finding was apparently not properly cooked.
The EPA’s inspector general had this to say about the agency’s review of the technical support document (TSD) underlying its condemnation of carbon dioxide as a threat to the public welfare:
This review did not meet all OMB requirements for peer review of a highly influential scientific assessment primarily because the review results and EPA’s response were not publicly reported, and because 1 of the 12 reviewers was an EPA employee.
It will be interesting to see whether and how the D.C. Circuit Court regards this finding in the ongoing litigation over EPA’s greenhouse gas rules.
That IG document is a mind numbing document only a bureaucrat could love. Filled with acronyms like TSD (technical supporting document), CAA, blah, blah blah.
The big criticism is that EPA considered that the TSD they used for their finding of “endangerment” was an “important scientific document” not a “very important scientific document.”
You see there are separate requirements for using each type of technical document.
It’s not science it’s consensus.
EPA administration wouldn’t know a student’s t-test from a linear regression. Their data integrity rules are written by lawyers.
I know, using “lawyer” and “integrity” in the same sentence is just wrong.
How about “They accepted the IPCC report even though the IPCC processes don’t come close to the process standards required by the EPA”? I’d say the IG is pulling is punches here.
The tone of the report is overwhelmingly neutral to positive.
Deficiencies: They didn’t do a large enough review
They didn’t publish all the documents they should have
I’ve seen greater condemnations over poor grammar or submitting a report a single day late.
It is about time they took the Data Quality Act seriously.