1 Original Petition for Rulemaking 1999 2 Denied by Bush EPA in 2003 3 Denial upheld by DC Circuit in 2005 4 Reversed by Supreme Court in Massachusetts v EPA in 2007 EPA ordered to make a finding one way or the other ID: 656502
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Endangerment Finding A Brief History" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Endangerment FindingA Brief History
1. Original Petition for Rulemaking 1999.
2. Denied by Bush EPA in 2003.
3. Denial upheld by DC Circuit in 2005.
4. Reversed by Supreme Court in
Massachusetts v. EPA
in 2007.
EPA ordered to make a finding, one way or the other.
5. Endangerment Finding signed on December 7, 2009.
6. Regulatory Tsunami.Slide2
Endangerment FindingPetitions for Reconsideration
Two Science-Based
Concerned Household Electricity Consumers Council (CHECC)
Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and Science and Environmental Public Policy (SEPP)
One Law-Based
Texas Public Policy FoundationSlide3
Attribution in the Endangerment FindingThree Lines of Evidence
Physical or Theoretical Understanding of Climate
Temperature Records
Computer Models
74 C.F.R. at 66518Slide4
Attribution in the Endangerment FindingThree Lines of Evidence
Physical or Theoretical Understanding of Climate
No Tropical Hotspot in millions of balloon measurements going back to 1959 or in Satellite measurements going back to 1979
.Slide5
Attribution in the Endangerment FindingThree Lines of Evidence
Temperature Records
Uncorrupted temperature records are explained by natural factors. No basis for thinking temperatures are outside natural variability.Slide6
Attribution in the Endangerment FindingThree Lines of Evidence
3. Computer Models
All Models show the Hot Spot, which does not exist in nature.
Models fail the explicit criteria for their use in detection & attribution. Not fit for making $$ Trillion policy decisions.
Could not satisfy HISA RequirementsSlide7
Attribution in the Endangerment FindingThree Lines of Evidence
All three lines of evidence are invalid and cannot be used to support attribution of observed warming to GHG emissions.Slide8
Our Chances, According to EnvironmentalistsSlide9
Cut off Causal ChainExistential Threats Averted:
Extremes
Sea Level
Rise
Chocolate
Coffee
Wine
Beer
Sex
Kidney Stones
World
Peace
Emotional Stability
Virtue of Women Folk
Species
Extinction
Etc., Etc., ad
nauseum
, ad infinitum.Slide10Slide11
Dear Administrator Pruitt:
You have pending before you two science-based petitions for reconsideration of the 2009 Endangerment Finding for Greenhouse Gases, one filed by the Concerned Household Electricity Consumers Council, and one filed jointly by the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Science and Environmental Policy Project.
We
the undersigned are individuals who have technical skills and knowledge relevant to climate science and the GHG Endangerment Finding. We each are convinced that the 2009 GHG Endangerment Finding is fundamentally flawed and that an honest, unbiased reconsideration is in order.
If
such a reconsideration is granted, each of us will assist in a new Endangerment Finding assessment that is carried out in a fashion that is legally consistent with the relevant statute and case law.
We
see this as a very urgent matter and therefore, request that you send your response to one of the signers who is also associated with a petitioner,
SEPP
.Slide12
To Be Added As Signer to Pruitt Letter
Send email to
THSResearch@aol.com
With name and up to seven lines with your credentials.