“The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently issued a directive announcing new membership priorities for its federal advisory committees (the “Directive”). The Directive requires, in part, “that no member of an EPA federal advisory committee be currently in receipt of EPA grants.” The Plaintiffs complain that this requirement is arbitrary and capricious, conflicts with several statutes and regulations governing advisory committees, and is a shift in policy that EPA failed to explain.
EPA’s Acting Administrator,1 however, has moved to dismiss the suit under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). At the outset, EPA alleges that the Plaintiffs lack standing and their claims are unripe. It also argues that because the Directive is an appointment policy, it is a matter reserved to agency discretion and the Plaintiffs largely rely on statutes that are either inapposite or offer no meaningful standard for review. And even if the Plaintiffs have identified applicable statutes, EPA argues that the Plaintiffs have failed to allege a violation of any specific statutory provision. For the reasons stated below, EPA’s motion to dismiss will be granted.” click here
“There are a number of statements in Cheng et al. (2019) ‘How fast are the oceans warming’, (‘the paper’) that appear to be mistaken and/or potentially misleading. My analysis of these issues is followed by a reply from the paper’s authors: Lijing Cheng, John Abraham, Zeke Hausfather and Kevin Trenberth.” click here
Disputes between climate scientists (such as here) are usually drive by politics and presumptions, not science. To make any progress at all we must not confuse the two. separating the science from the politics. Here is where groups like the IPCC have throughly failed.
“Scientific studies should be reproducible—especially if they are used to justify government regulations. But NAS’s report, The Irreproducibility Crisis of Modern Science, released earlier this year, found that many supposedly scientific results cannot be reproduced in subsequent investigations.
We believe that individual scientists, the federal government, and state legislatures must take steps to promote reliable, reproducible science. And we believe that all Americans should be equipped with basic statistics and other tools to recognize faulty science when they see it.” click here
Within a matter of days after the press release for a newly published Nature paper spewed the usual it’s-worse-than-we-thought headlines throughout the alarmosphere (Washington Post, BBC, New York Times), the paper’s results were assessed to have “major problems” by an author of multiple CO2 climate sensitivity papers (Lewis and Curry, 2015). click here
Piers Larcombea,b,⁎ , Peter Riddc The need for a formalised system of Quality Control for environmental policy-science Marine Pollution Bulletin 126 (2018) 449–461
Research science used to inform public policy decisions, herein defined as “Policy-Science”, is rarely subjected to rigorous checking, testing and replication. Studies of biomedical and other sciences indicate that a considerable fraction of published peer-reviewed scientific literature, perhaps half, has significant flaws. To demonstrate the potential failings of the present approaches to scientific Quality Control (QC), we describe examples of science associated with perceived threats to the Great Barrier Reef (GBR), Australia. There appears a serious risk of efforts to improve the health of the GBR being directed inefficiently and/or away from the more serious threats. We suggest the need for a new organisation to undertake quality reviews and audits of important scientific results that underpin government spending decisions on the environment. Logically, such a body could also examine policy science in other key areas where governments rely heavily upon scientific results, such as education, health and criminology.
“However Lewis, who has authored several peer-reviewed papers on the question of climate sensitivity and has worked with some of the world’s leading climate scientists, has found that the warming trend in the Resplandy paper differs from that calculated from the underlying data included with the paper.” click here and here