Openness and transparency not needed for deniers
In another case of “it’s OK, if you are a denier” It turns out that the much trumpeted NIPCC report written by Fred “Tobacco” Singer and a few other deniers fails in regards to basic openness and transparency (to say nothing of the ‘science’). This is especially true when compared with IPCC and other scientific reports, as the EPA makes clear (h/t to Eli):
A review of the NIPCC Web site indicates that the NIPCC report was developed by “two co-authors” and “35 contributors and reviewers” from “14 countries (http://www.nipccreport.org/index.html). The organization does not appear to have established any procedures for author selection and provides no evidence that a transparent and open public or expert review was conducted. Thus, the NIPCC’s approach stands in sharp contrast to the clear, transparent, and open procedures of the IPCC, CCSP, USGCRP, and NRC. Relying on the work of the major assessment reports is a sound and reasonable approach.
The fact is that climate science is remarkably open and transparent, yet deniers are not satisfied. And despite these calls for even more openness and transparency, deniers see no problem with abandoning these principles as long as the right conclusions are reached.
This is denialism at its best, and in no way does it resemble skeptisism.
Did the EPA really silence a dissenting report on global warming?
Did the Obama EPA really silence a dissenting report on global warming? Yes they did. But before anyone gets bent out of shape over this, it is worth noting that that is exactly what the EPA should have done.
The report in question has been called a scientific report by many, but it is nothing of the sort. It was written by an economist (Alan Carlin), not a climatologist, that plagiarized fully debunked denier talking points. In short it was anything but a scientific report, and the EPA, being a scientific agency, had no business publishing it.
EPA to regulate GHGs, or urge congress to act
It’s official, after years of inaction during the Bush era the EPA has finally responded to the the Supreme Court decision ordering the EPA to determine if GHG pose a threat to human health, and if so to regulate them under the clean air act.
