Docket ID No.

EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171; FRL-8895-5

Comments on the “Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for

Greenhouse Gases under Section 202 (a) of the Clean Air Act”, April 17, 2009

Submitted by

Dennis E. Hedke
Consulting Geophysicist

Hedke-Saenger Geoscience, Ltd

8100 E. 22nd St. North, Bldg 2200, Suite 3
Wichita, KS 67226
316-737-2600

June 23, 2009

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE

List of Figures 4

INTRODUCTION 6

The Science Is Not Settled 6

Overtly Politicized 6
The IPCC 8
Lacking Citations of Eminently Qualified Scientists 9
Supreme Court Decision Based on Misinformation 10

COMPARISON OF EPA FINDINGS WITH REAL DATA

Item 1: 2
“The global atmospheric concentration has increased about
38% from pre-industrial levels to 2009, and almost all of the
increase is due to anthropogenic emissions.”

Item 2: 15
“Historic data shows that current atmospheric concentrations
of the two most important directly emitted, long-lived GHGs
(CO2 and CH4) are well above the natural range of
atmospheric concentrations compared to the last 650,000
years.”

Item 3: 16
“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now
evident from observations of increases in global average air
and ocean temperatures...”

Item 4: 22
“… widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global
average sea level.”

Item 5: 24
“There is strong evidence that global sea level gradually rose in
the 20th century and is currently rising at an increased rate.”

Item 6: 26
“Ocean CO2 uptake has lowered the average ocean pH
(increased acidity) level by approximately 0.1 since 1750.”, and

2
 “Ocean acidification is projected to continue, resulting in the
reduced biological production of marine calcifiers, including
corals.”

Item 7 29
“It is likely that hurricanes will become more intense...”

Item 8 32
“Increases in regional ozone pollution relative to ozone
levels without climate change are expected due to higher
temperatures…”

Item 9 38
“…Climate warming may increase the possibility of large,
abrupt regional or global climatic events (e.g.,
disintegration of the Greenland Ice Sheet or collapse of
the West Antarctica Ice Sheet .”

Item 10 43
Actual data indicates a disconnect between CO2
concentration and temperature, refuting the assumption of
global warming due to CO2 (Author Comment)

CONCLUSIONS 45

RECOMMENDATIONS 6

REFERENCES 47

APPENDIX
Petition Against Kyoto Protocol

3
LIST OF FIGURES (abbreviated captions)

Figure 1. Qualitative illustration of greenhouse warming.

Figure 2. The radiative greenhouse effect of doubling the concentration of CO2, as compared
with four of the uncertainties in the atmospheric CO2 computer climate models.

Figure 3. Local CO2 concentration for the northern hemisphere, determined through chemical
analyses between 1812 and 1961.

Figure 4a. Reconstructions of surface temperature variations from six research teams.

Figure 4b. Comparison of temperature data as developed by Mann, et al, and the far more
accurate rendition appearing in the lower part of the figure, as produced by the IPCC in its own
1995 report.

Figure 4c. Surface temperatures in the Sargasso Sea, a 2 million square mile region of the
Atlantic Ocean, with time resolution of 50 to 100 years and ending in 1975, as determined by
isotope ratios of marine organism remains in sediment at the bottom of the sea.

Figure 5. Globally averaged temperatures over the past 30 years, based on satellite data, as
compiled by the University of Alabama Huntsville.

Figure 6. The correlation between the loss of cold climate weather stations and temperature
increases is unequivocal.

Figure 7. Antarctic sea-ice over the past 30 years.

Figure 8. The extent of Arctic sea ice at January 17, 1980, and January 18, 2009.

Figure 9. Arctic temperatures 1938-2006.

Figure 10: Global sea level measured by surface gauges between 1807 and 2002 and by satellite
between 1993 and 2006.

Figure 11. Calcification rate vs sea surface temperature (SST) rise.

Figure 12. Great Barrier Reef Calcification Observations (1903-1922 vs 1979-1998)

Figure 13: Annual precipitation in the contiguous 48 United States between 1895 and 2006.

Figure 14: Annual number of strong-to-violent category F3 to F5 tornados during the March-to-
August tornado season in the U.S. between 1950 and 2006.

Figure 15. Annual number of Atlantic hurricanes that made landfall between 1900 and 2006.

Figure 16. Annual number of violent hurricanes and maximum attained wind speed during those
hurricanes in the Atlantic Ocean between 1944 and 2006.

4
Figure 17. Total ozone at Mauna Loa 1963-2007.

Figure 18. Global Data from NASA Earth probe TOMS, spring 2000.

Figure 19. Global Data from NASA Earth probe TOMS, summer 2000.

Figure 20. Global Data from NASA Earth probe TOMS, fall 2000.

Figure 21. Global Data from NASA Earth probe TOMS, winter 2000.

Figure 22. Average Summer Temperature record at Angmagssalik, Greenland 1892-2009.

Figure 23. Southern Greenland Temperatures 1787-2007.

Figure 24. Antarctic Ice Sheet Elevation Change 1992-2003.

Figure 25. Sea ice surrounding and including Antarctica

Figure 26. Arctic-wide surface temperature anomalies 1878-2001.

Figure 27. Arctic surface air temperature compared with total solar irradiance.

5
I. INTRODUCTION
These comments are a continuation and expansion of comments I read into the record at
the Public Hearing at Potomac Yard on May 18, 2009. As a scientist, I am appalled by
some of the “findings” which are the subject of the ensuing comments; appalled because
of the clear lack of credible evidence to support these findings.

As a United States citizen I consider the intent of the findings to be very problematic. The
primary intent, as I read the findings is to do everything possible to constrain the
emission of carbon dioxide (CO2) into earths atmosphere. The EPA and related agencies
believe this to be urgently necessary to “save the planet”. I strongly disagree.

The Science is Not Settled

As difficult as it may be for many of you (Administrator, reviewers) to accept, the

science on the multitude of issues bundled in the discussion of ‘global warming’ is far
from being settled. If I believed it was, I certainly would not be spending my time poring
over real data, and converting that evidence into this document. As I mentioned in the
hearing, there are upwards of 31,000 American scientists and engineers, including more
than 9,000 PhD’s, who have signed a Petition (Exhibit 1) that registers our strong
objection to the United States enjoining any aspect of the Kyoto Protocol, or anything
resembling it in the future, such as what your are proposing in these “Findings”.

I can assure you that each and every one of us has signed this Petition believing more
strongly than ever that the preponderance of the evidence strongly supports our general
contention that mankind is largely NOT responsible for the atmospheric variations which
are, in your terminology, ‘very high confidence’ of being naturally induced.

Overtly Politicized

Since the EPA has chosen to move in every sense in more political directions than any of
us would have ever imagined, we consider it to be fair game, and we will exert
substantial counter political force upon this issue. While the actual science should have
settled this matter long ago, fraudulent and deceptive political forces have been engaged
from the side the EPA now stands with, and let’s be clear, this political battle is on.

I cite the following:

“The ‘global warming scare’ is being used as a political tool to increase

government control over American lives, incomes and decision making. It
has no place in the Society's activities.” - Award-Winning NASA
Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack Schmitt who flew on the
Apollo 17 mission (1).

Perhaps you are of the opinion that Astronaut Schmitt’s is the only dissenting
opinion in NASA, a contributing organization in the “findings”. Read on.

6
 Award-winning NASA Astronaut and Physicist Walter Cunningham of
NASA’s Apollo 7 was awarded the NASA Exceptional Service Medal and
Navy Astronaut Wings, is a member of the American Geophysical Union
and fellow of the American Astronautical Society. Cunningham rejected
climate fears in 2008. He states:

“It doesn’t help that NASA scientist James Hansen was one of the early
alarmists claiming humans caused global warming. Hansen is a
political activist who spreads fear even when NASA’s own data
contradict him,” Cunningham wrote in an essay in the July/August 2008
issue of Launch Magazine. “NASA should be at the forefront in the
collection of scientific evidence and debunking the current hysteria over
human-caused, or Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). Unfortunately,
it is becoming just another agency caught up in the politics of global
warming, or worse, politicized science. Advocacy is replacing objective
evaluation of data, while scientific data is being ignored in favor of
emotions and politics…” (1)

We in the “other domain” in the scientific community are very highly confident that
when, not if, but when the American people have finally awakened, the politics will in no
way favor the Administrator of the EPA, if she decides to stay on the track she is
currently on. To be fair, she did not start the vehicle that is now carrying this political
monstrosity, but she has not applied any brakes whatsoever, nor has she even attempted
to downshift one solitary gear. Instead, she, with her able-bodied Czar, has now worked
to synchronize the body EPA with the body House Energy & Commerce Committee.

You are no doubt now keenly aware that even White House reviewers of these ‘findings’
have clearly demonstrated just how far removed the document is from dealing with the
reality of what your ‘findings’ and, hence, remediation methodologies would do to
virtually cripple the American economy. All of this to chase and attempt to corral a
colorless, odorless, tasteless and virtually harmless gas that is essential to a human and
plant life on this planet. Senator John Barrasso could have, and, in my opinion, should
have taken the Administrator to even greater lengths in extracting the multiple
weaknesses of the document.

Trust me, your politics will not only NOT win out, but each and every one of your
associates will find their way to the true court of public opinion as the climate continues
to do what the climate has done since the beginning of time, change with each and very
season, and each and every solar cycle, of whatever length it chooses. The evidence that
these cycles and occurrences are natural and anything but human-induced is
overwhelming once you actually study it at base level. Relying on the IPCC as one of
your primary sources is absolutely incredulous, and you proudly tout that fact over and
over again. Please see below.

7
The IPCC

As you are well aware, this is merely the backbone of your politicization of the issue, but
I feel compelled to bring this entity to light on its own, in the unlikely event that some
reviewer is not fully up to speed on what it actually represents.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), as you know, actually has
nothing whatsoever in place that would mimic actual “peer-reviewed” architecture.
Instead, it operates in total vacuum, and when a real scientist actually raises a challenge,
based on factual evidence, he or she is virtually shut out of the ongoing, ultimately
published “findings”.

As you are well aware, a multitude of highly regarded and internationally respected
scientists have chosen to withdraw from the organization because they could no longer
tolerate the ongoing wrongdoing that became ever so obvious. To be sure, many equally
eminent professionals remain in the ranks, in hopes that they may someday actually be
able to bring the truth to light, but I wonder just how much more patience they have.

The Working Group Assessment Reports are in many cases in serious error, and it takes
nearly an act of Congress to bring forth a correction. As was pointed out in a recent book
by Christopher Horner (2),

““The 2001 Third Assessment Report clearly acknowledges the reality

that, “In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are
dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the
long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. (my
emphasis)””

And we have this from an actual IPCC Expert Reviewer, Dr. Vincent Gray:

“Yes, we have to face it. The whole [IPCC] process is a swindle, The
IPCC from the beginning was given the license to use whatever methods
would be necessary to provide ‘evidence’ that carbon dioxide increases
are harming the climate, even if this involves manipulation of dubious
data and using people’s opinions instead of science to ‘prove’ their case.
The disappearance of the IPCC in disgrace is not only desirable but
inevitable…Sooner or later all of us will come to realize that this
organization, and the thinking behind it, is phony. Unfortunately, severe
economic damage is likely to be done by its influence before that
happens.”

Yet another:

“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural

circulation between air, water and soil... I am doing a detailed assessment
of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying

8
 the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” - South
African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC
co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications. (1)

The last quote above was derived from the U.S Senate Minority Report, produced for the
public benefit and released December 11, 2008. It includes multiple comments similar to
both those above, but from 650 renowned international scientists, who have seen the
work of the IPCC, in many cases first hand as these testimonies indicate.

Lacking Citations of Eminently Qualified Scientists

As I read the Technical Support Document (TSD), I was stunned by the lack of citation
of nearly every one of the multitude of esteemed climatologists, atmospheric scientists,
geophysicists, astrophysicists, etc who should be routinely cited and quoted throughout
such a document. Yet, they are spuriously, I would suggest intentionally, avoided at all
costs, so as to allow unabated discourse on the full range of subjects you have placed at
the public’s disposal.

These are the men and women I am referring to who have impeccable credentials,
voluminous peer-reviewed articles in prestigious journals, and integrity beyond measure.
I list them with their institutions so that you may contact them for further information.
The technical discussion to follow will include multiple references to the outstanding
work these people have done to advance understanding of global climate science. I could
fill many more pages, but this listing represents substantial wisdom:

Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology,

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

S. Fred Singer, Professor Emeritus, University of Virginia, The Science

& Environmental Policy Project

Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist for the University of Alabama

in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced
Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA’s Aqua Satellite

Patrick J. Michaels, Professor of Environmental Science, University of

Virginia, former Virginia State Climatologist, Senior Fellow in
Environmental Studies, CATO Institute

Christopher Monckton, Senior Fellow, Science & Public Policy

Institute, former Science Advisor to Margaret Thatcher

Craig D. Idso, Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and
Global Change

Willie Soon, Astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for

Astrophysics, Chief Science Advisor, Science & Public Policy Institute

9
 Sally Baliunas, Astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for
Astrophysics

William Happer, Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, Princeton

University

Roger Pielke Climatologist, University of Colorado, Senior Research

Scientist at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental
Sciences (CIRES) at UC-Boulder

I could name at least one hundred other individuals who you should be looking to for
advice on this very important issue.

Supreme Court Decision Based on Misinformation

The Supreme Court decision handed down on April 2, 2007 was based not on sound
scientific context, as is often alluded to in the decision, but rather largely upon the
substantial misinformation handed down by the IPCC, and other groups providing
supporting ‘evidence’.

Why would I state that the IPCC is linked to misinformation? That discussion is multi-
layered, and follows in sections below. At this juncture, I will simply say that the IPCC is
becoming less and less credible with each passing day, and each passing alarmist
declaration it makes on national and international stages. I suggest the day is not far
distant when its credibility will be so minimized that it will cease to exist as a body of
any measurable influence in this debate.

The split decision (5-4) resulted in the Chief Justice John Roberts issuing the dissenting
opinion. He properly addressed the very high uncertainty of attempting to quantify even
just the emissions sourced by vehicular operation:

“This gets us only to the relevant greenhouse gas

emissions; linking them to global warming and ultimately
to petitioners’ alleged injuries next requires consideration
of further complexities.

As EPA explained in its denial of petitioners’ request for

rulemaking,

“predicting future climate change necessarily involves a

complex web of economic and physical factors including:

our ability to predict future global anthropogenic emissions

of [greenhouse gases] and aerosols; the fate of these
emissions once they enter the atmosphere (e.g., what
percentage are absorbed by vegetation or are taken up by

10
 the oceans); the impact of those emissions that remain in
the atmosphere on the radiative properties of the
atmosphere; changes in critically important climate
feedbacks (e.g., changes in cloud cover and ocean
circulation); changes in temperature characteristics (e.g.,
average temperatures, shifts in daytime and evening
temperatures); changes in other climatic parameters (e.g.,
shifts in precipitation, storms); and ultimately the impact of
such changes on human health and welfare (e.g., increases
or decreases in agricultural productivity, human health
impacts).”

…. Petitioners are never able to trace their alleged injuries

back through this complex web to the fractional amount of
global emissions that might have been limited with EPA
standards. In light of the bit-part domestic new motor
vehicle greenhouse gas emissions have played in what
petitioners describe as a 150-year global phenomenon, and
the myriad additional factors bearing on petitioners’
alleged injury—the loss of Massachusetts coastal land—the
connection is far too speculative to establish causation.”

Chief Justice John Roberts

I side heavily with the minority, dissenting opinion. Those four justices actually
understood both the complexity and the substantial uncertainty inherent in the EPA’s
task, and therefore properly concluded that this matter should not have been returned to
the EPA to then proceed down the path it is on today.

Nonetheless, we are where we are, and now it is up to the “new dissenters” to attempt to
steer you back in a direction that is supported by the scientific facts, voluminous as they
are. The forthcoming comments will be as direct as I know how to make them.

*****************************************************

11
II. COMPARISON OF EPA FINDINGS VS REAL DATA
This comparison will commence with the Executive Summary of the Technical Support
Document associated with the Endangerment … Findings…

Item 1: From page ES-1, Observed Trends in Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Concentrations

“The global atmospheric concentration has increased about 38% from pre-industrial
levels to 2009, and almost all of the increase is due to anthropogenic emissions.”

This statement appears at first reading to be very conclusive and very simple. However, it
is actually neither. Firstly, what is the source of the conclusion that “almost all of the
increase is due to anthropogenic emissions”?

Commonly accepted estimates of the actual contribution of CO2 to the greenhouse via
human causes range from 3-5%, meaning 95-97% of the greenhouse gases reaching that
atmosphere are due entirely to natural causes. As you are also well aware, the dominant
contributor to the greenhouse effect is water vapor, H2O, registering about 95% of the
influence of the greenhouse gases.

In fact, the radiative effect of CO2 is absolutely minor as compared to H2O, and
experimental results have proven that to be the case. But the EPA leans on IPCC
modeling, which is severely flawed. Alternate modeling, as conducted by numerous
researchers outside the IPCC, has demonstrated that instead of warming, CO2 effects on
the atmosphere, could produce counteracting effects, the net result of which is
insignificant, immeasurable temperature increase.

I include two figures that demonstrate the hypothetical effects of the two approaches, as
well as the uncertainties in computer models associated with attempting to estimate the
radiative effect of increasing CO2 concentration. Scientifically, it is currently impossible
to establish that one modeling effort is superior to the other. This much can be said with
very high confidence: the number of researchers supporting the second hypothesis greatly
outweighs that of the first.

12
Figure 1. Qualitative illustration of greenhouse warming. Present GHE is the current greenhouse effect
from all atmospheric phenomena. “Radiative effect of CO2” is the added greenhouse radiative effect from
doubling CO2 without consideration of other atmospheric components. “Hypothesis 1 IPCC” is the
hypothetical amplification effect assumed by IPCC, “Hypothesis 2” is the hypothetical moderation effect.
[After Soon, (3)]

Figure 2. The radiative greenhouse effect of doubling the concentration of CO2, as compared with
four of the uncertainties in the atmospheric CO2 computer climate models [After Soon, (3)].

13
My belief is that these two illustrations speak very strongly against the EPA’s contention
that “almost all of the increase in CO2 concentration is due to anthropogenic causes. It is
simply not the case, and it is not possible to prove otherwise.

If 5% of the greenhouse effect is due to human-induced causes, and 3% of the overall

greenhouse is composed of CO2, the math tells us that the human-induced factor is
approximately equivalent to 0.15% of the overall greenhouse effect. No amount of
credible modeling will yield a result that shows the human-induced effects are as strong
as your report suggests they are.

Speaking of modeling, I cite statements by Australian David Evans, who devoted six
years to carbon accounting and building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. He
states
“…since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon
emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the
evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and
was not the main cause of the recent global warming.”

He also states:

1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for
years, and cannot find it.
2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant
global warming. None. (emphasis mine)

Why would he make such statements?

Because that’s what the data tells us. He goes on to say,

“Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in

the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an
increased greenhouse is a hot spot about 10 km up in the atmosphere over
the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using
radiosondes….they show no hot spot. Whatsoever. (emphasis mine)

If there is no hot spot, then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause
of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a
significant cause of the global warming.

There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory
suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures, but there are no
observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant
cause of the recent global warming.” (4)

On this point, I conclude that the data speaks loudly and clearly that human-induced
factors related to the greenhouse effect are minimal.

14
Item 2: From page ES-1, Observed Trends in Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Concentrations

“Historic data shows that current atmospheric concentrations of the two most
important directly emitted, long-lived GHGs (CO2 and CH4) are well above the natural
range of atmospheric concentrations compared to the last 650,000 years.”

I respectfully disagree with Jansen, et al (5), whose ice-core related hypotheses do not
correlate at all well with other sources of CO2 estimates, such as carbon isotope mass
balance modeling of atmospheric vs oceanic CO2, as conducted by Segalstad (6).

Chemical CO2 measurements conducted by numerous researchers, and compiled by Ernst

Georg-Beck (7), demonstrate that CO2 concentrations were as high as 450 ppm as
recently as 1812, and that levels reached 411 ppm around 1945. A diagram supporting
these data is shown below.

Figure 3. Local CO2 concentration for the northern hemisphere, determined through chemical
analyses between 1812 and 1961. Data plotted as an 11 year moving average. Data coverage and
important scientists indicated in dark grey/black. The data around 1820 are considered
provisional. Data series used: time window 1857-73: 13 yearly averages; from 1873-1927, 83
data points. From 1927-1961, 41 data records, of which 11 were interpolated [After Georg-Beck
(5)].

The EPA Technical Support Document (TSD) cites a series of gradually increasing
smooth curves for CO2, CH4 and N2O, based on ice core proxies dating back 650,000
years. In the bulk of the references I have managed to locate, the general trends are highly
fluctuating, and some have reached as high as 7,000 ppm, during the ‘Cambrian’ period.
As you may be aware, abundant plant and the beginnings of animal creatures were
managing to get along just fine in spite of these elevated concentrations of CO2.

The question must be asked: Just exactly what is the right concentration of CO2? I submit
that no one in the EPA can provide a credible answer to that question. We do know that
today, right now, US submarines routinely allow concentrations of 8,000 ppm CO2.

15
[I realize that does not speak to the atmosphere, where you are purporting that elevated
CO2 is endangering life on this planet, due presumably to the ‘heating’ introduced. Again,
the data simply does not support your contentions.]

A very large number of researchers strongly disagree that mankind has been largely
responsible for the increasing nature of CO2 over the past hundred years or so. The
suggestion that ice core data alone resolves this matter is not supportable. What we know
about ice core data is that, firstly, it is not in any way, shape or form a “closed system”.
Secondly, we know that with increasing time and ice overburden, the pressure forces
much CO2 out of the system, so that “apparent” CO2 concentration measured in cores
today is certain to be below what it was initially. This has led to erroneous reporting of
the ‘stable’ CO2 concentrations that seem to much lower than we measure in today’s
atmosphere. The measurements do not directly relate. Ice cores are among the least
reliable data sources pertaining to CO2 concentration.

************************************************************************

Item 3: From page ES-2, Observed Effects Associated with Global Elevated
Concentrations of GHGs

“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from

observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures,
widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea
level.”

The TSD provides, as evidence for this statement, graphic support and related discussion
on pages 26-27, based on a National Research Council study that produced suggested
temperature patterns over the past 2000 years. The study claims that the studies “yield a
generally consistent picture of temperature trends during the preceding millennium,
including relatively warm conditions centered around 1000 A.D. (identified by some as
the “Medieval Warm Period”) and a relatively cold period (or “Little Ice Age”) centered
around 1700.” The graph below, relates to this discussion:

16
 Figure 4a. Reconstructions of (Northern Hemisphere average or global average)
surface temperature variations from six research teams.

While I appreciate the efforts to compile this summary and the proxies utilized by this
group of researchers, I register strong disagreement with their “findings”. My
disagreement is based on the fact that their temperature anomaly characterization does
not match at all with known historical conditions. For example, during the ‘Medieval
Warm Period’, abundant farming occurred on the Greenland landmass, which is not seen
today. Further, grapes were routinely grown in England in support of wineries, which
again is not possible today. Yet, your graphic summary would indicate that temperatures
today exceed those of the ‘Medieval Warm Period’, which is certainly not the case.

In addition, actual temperatures during the ‘Little ice Age’ were such that the Thames
River would freeze over for many months out of the year, for many years running. This
would take great temperature contrast, and your graphic depiction on virtually each of the
studies indicate maximum temperature deviations of less than 1 degree Celsius. In fact,
the Mann and Jones multiproxy (2003) shows a maximum temperature deviation of less

17
than 0.3 degrees Celsius. That is further evidence as to why their work for the IPCC has
been discredited.

I agree that warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and that global average air and
ocean temperatures are increasing. This should naturally induce the melting of snow and
ice in some, but not all, regions on the earth’s surface. Whether we can actually note sea
level increasing, I suggest is doubtful, as the data will show.

But first, let us understand something about real temperature, not that as suggested by the
famous “An Inconvenient Truth”, wherein the world was fraudulently exposed to the now
infamous and totally debunked “Hockey Stick” graph, so manipulatively laid in view by
Mann, shown below in Figure 4b.

Figure 4b. Comparison of temperature data as developed by Mann, et al, (Upper) and the far
more accurate rendition appearing in the lower part of the figure, as produced by the IPCC in its
own 1995 report.

18
One of the best proxies I have observed with respect to the most likely temperature
record dating back some 3,000 years is reproduced below.

Figure 4c. Surface temperatures in the Sargasso Sea, a 2 million square mile region of
the Atlantic Ocean, with time resolution of 50 to 100 years and ending in 1975, as
determined by isotope ratios of marine organism remains in sediment at the bottom of
the sea (6). The horizontal line is the average temperature for this 3,000-year period.
The Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Optimum were naturally occurring, extended
intervals of climate departures from the mean. A value of 0.25 °C, which is the change
in Sargasso Sea temperature between 1975 and 2006, has been added to the 1975 data
in order to provide a 2006 temperature value [After Keigwin (8)].

As I’m sure you are aware, Mann’s filtering of the real data was caught by astute
researchers Ross McKitrick, and Steven McIntyre, both Canadians who just happened to
be in the right place at the right time to actually critically review the “science” that the
IPCC was only too anxious and willing to share with the world. The eventual removal of
the highly fabricated graph by the IPCC was a major source of embarrassment to that
political body, proving that it was, indeed, junk science.

The point of Figure 4c is to emphasize that we certainly are warming, and have been
since the merciful cessation of the Little Ice Age. Some Russian scientists have reviewed
sunspot characteristics of the recent decades, and suggest that if the current trends
continue, we may be headed for a repeat of that, or a similar event. So, yes the snow
should be melting, etc. There is no data or evidence whatsoever that we are anywhere out
of expected ranges of temperature fluctuation at present.

19
There is other evidence of misinformation as to the actual temperature record that appears
below. The first figure provides current data as to global temperatures over the past 30
years, as compile very accurately by the Earth Science System Center, University of
Alabama Huntsville (9).

Figure 5. Globally averaged temperatures over the past 30 years, based on satellite
data, as compiled by the University of Alabama Huntsville [After Christy (9)].

This data speaks volumes about actual temperatures over the past 30 years.
Pay particular attention to the ‘anomaly’ that begins in 1989 and locally maximizes at
1991, terminated by Mt. Pinatubo’s “Inconvenient Eruption”.

What you do not see in this graphic depiction is the influence of ‘inadvertent data
manipulation’ that occurred due to the shutdown of 6,000 or so weather stations in cold
weather climates in Canada and Siberia.

That data is presented below, and I want you to carefully study the impact the shutdown
had on global temperatures, which are ‘summed’ from all gathering stations to produce
the daily, monthly, whatever type record.

The actual depictions provided below show the very significant impact due to the sudden
disappearance of these very relevant weather recording stations.

20
 Figure 6. The correlation between the loss of cold climate weather stations and
temperature increases is unequivocal.

As can readily be seen, global temperatures did not actually rise, but the input of a
significant number of cold weather climate stations did, in fact, cease due to
‘governmental issues’. I’ll leave it to you to actually compare these recorded results with
those of the broader global picture over the same period. I suggest the evidence is
unequivocal. Study it carefully. (10)

There is abundant additional information that calls into question the very key point of
data gathering, handling, etc. For example, the number of weather stations located in
urban areas, on asphalt parking lots nonetheless, inappropriately spaced from buildings –
the list goes on and on.

So, the fundamental network has some very significant flaws and inconsistencies with
respect to what used to be the “Stephenson standards”, which have somehow just
managed to become unimportant. These flaws are never mentioned in any aspect of the
“Findings” report. That is unacceptable, unscientific, and a matter that needs to be placed
as a very high priority if credible temperature measurements are to be captured from
land-based systems.

21
Item 4: From page ES-2, Observed Effects Associated with Global Elevated
Concentrations of GHGs

“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from

observations of increases of global average air and ocean temperatures,
widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea
level.”

My response to this statement will deal with the ‘widespread melting of snow and ice’.
Referring back to Figure 4, I suggest that melting glaciers and other warming related
tendencies should be expected, if we are indeed in a sustained warming period. The
evidence leading up to the last decade seemed to indicate that that is / was the case. The
most current evidence suggests we may be heading into a temperature reversal, if
conditions related to Figure 5 above continue.

As to the ‘widespread melting of snow and ice’, please study the graphic below which
clearly refutes that notion for the ice conditions on the continent of Antarctica. Much the
same can be said for the other polar region, that of the Arctic. Satellite imaging over
significantly spaced time spans over the Arctic so not support the claim of widespread
melting of snow and ice. Again, I would emphasize that we are in a gradual warming
period, commenced at the end of the “Little Ice Age”. Nonetheless, the polar regions are
having a hard time catching up to the overall warming trends.

Figure 7. Antarctic sea-ice over the past 30 years shows no sign of significant variation above the mean.

22
 Figure 8. Carefully compare the magenta colored areas which represent the
extent of Arctic sea ice at January 17, 1980, and January 18, 2009, respectively.
As can be readily seen, the changes are minor, certainly in keeping with a
gradually warming global climate. The later image included snow cover over the
remainder of the earth, while the earlier image focused just on the Arctic region.
(Univ. of Illinois)

The relatively minor changes of sea ice extent in the Arctic comes as no surprise when
one considers the data presented below. This actual record of temperatures in the Arctic,
including Greenland over the period 1938 – 2006 clearly shows that no long term upward
trends can be identified. In fact, multiple short term spikes of significance demonstrate
the unequivocally that anthropogenic causes are in no way responsible for Arctic
conditions.

23
 Figure 9. Arctic temperatures 1938-2006, showing that temperatures in the late
1930s, and subsequent spikes around 1947and 1986 are significant departures
from the average. [After Monckton (11)]

Based on the data and evidence, it is entirely inappropriate to make the claim, as has been
done in this report, that “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now
evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures,
widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.”

Item 5: From page ES-2, Observed Effects Associated with Global Elevated
Concentrations of GHGs

“There is strong evidence that global sea level gradually rose in the 20th
century and is currently rising at an increased rate.”

The report goes on to state “Nearly all of the Atlantic Ocean shows sea level rise during
the last 50 years with the rate of rise reaching a maximum (over 2 mm per year) in a band
along the U.S. east coast running east-northeast.”

I respectfully disagree with Bindoff, et al (2007), and suggest that a more complete
statement about sea level rise would indicate that the average rise over the past 10,000
years has been about 4 feet/century. During the entire 20th century, seal level rose 8
inches, barely measurable. In the past three years sea level rise has not been statistically
measurable. (13)

Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, recently retired as the Head of the Department of the
Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics at Stockholm University, has been engaged in sea

24
level research projects for many decades, and has been a vocal critic of the IPCC
modeling with respect to sea level conditions.

In 2000, Professor Mörner led a team of International Union of Quaternary Research

(INQUA) sea level specialists to investigate claims of rising levels at the Maldive Islands
in the Indian Ocean. "What we found was that sea levels were relatively stable between
1790 and 1970, but that around 1970 there was a fall in sea levels of 20 to 30 cm, and
since then the levels have remained stable."

The contention that sea level is rising at an increased rate, due primarily to fossil fuel
consumption is simply not supported by the data. The following compilation speaks very
directly to this issue:

Figure 10: Global sea level measured by surface gauges between 1807 and 2002
(14) and by satellite between 1993 and 2006 (15). Satellite measurements are
shown in gray and agree with tide gauge measurements. The overall trend is an
increase of 7 inches per century. Intermediate trends are 9, 0, 12, 0, and 12 inches
per century, respectively. This trend lags the temperature increase, so it predates
the increase in hydrocarbon use even more than is shown. It is unaffected by the
very large increase in hydrocarbon use.
[After Soon (3)]

While the overall trend for more than 150 years has been generally upward at 7 inches
per century, intermediate trends do appear, both higher and lower than this average rate.
Yet, we hear over and over again that sea level is rising at an increased rate, and that is
exclusively due to fossil fuel consumption driving CO2 concentration into unacceptable

25
levels. That, simply put, is another of the substantial misrepresentations of the “science is
settled” crowd.

Again, I must ask. What is the ‘right’ CO2 concentration?

Let the data speak for itself.

************************************************************************

Item 6: From page ES-3, Observed Effects Associated with Global Elevated
Concentrations of GHGs

“Ocean CO2 uptake has lowered the average ocean pH (increased

acidity) level by approximately 0.1 since 1750.”, and

From page ES-5, Projected Risks and Impacts Associated with Future
Climate Change

“Ocean acidification is projected to continue, resulting in the reduced

biological production of marine calcifiers, including corals.”

Given the closely related subject matter associated with each of these statements, I
choose to treat them conjunctively, so as to maintain the association.

Since, to my knowledge, there was no actual global network measuring pH around 1750,
I must state significant skepticism at that start date for your ‘study’. Upon reviewing
Denman, et al, (16) it is seen that this statement is based on another of the multitude of
models that are simply not acceptable in providing a real sense of what this planet
actually does with its many complex, intricately woven systems.

The pH assessment proffered by Denman is no doubt linked to temperature models and

so I cite other research which states the following:

“The persistence of coral reefs through geologic time – when temperatures were as
much as 10-15°C warmer than at present, and atmospheric CO2 concentrations
were 2 to 7 times higher than they are currently – provides substantive evidence
that these marine entities can successfully adapt to a dramatically changing global
environment.” [Idso (17)].

The research conducted by Craig Idso at the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and
Global Change represents some of the most advanced, leading edge work available for
scientific review of ocean systems. Yet, your entire report is devoid of any of the research
results that are available from this, as well as a number of additional credible sources.

As to actual data and a historical linkage to what is actually happening in this system, we
have the following:

26
 Figure 11. Calcification rate vs sea surface temperature (SST) rise. [After Idso (15)]

What is clearly indicated by the data is that calcification rates increase in a linear trend
over the temperature range studies. This result is in direct contradiction to “models” that
apparently do not account for even the simplest input into the system, temperature.

But, let’s get back to the point of pH and acidification.

What does actual research show? Again, I cite a direct quote from Idso:

“In another study, Pelejero et al. (18) developed a reconstruction of seawater pH

spanning the period 1708-1988, based on the boron isotopic composition (δ11B) of
a longlived massive coral (Porites) from Flinders Reef in the western Coral Sea of
the southwestern Pacific. Results indicated that "there [was] no notable trend
toward lower δ11B values" over the 300-year period investigated. Instead, they say
that "the dominant feature of the coral δ 11B record is a clear interdecadal
oscillation of pH, with δ11B values ranging between 23 and 25 per mil (7.9 and 8.2
pH units)," which "is synchronous with the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation."

Furthermore, they calculated changes in aragonite saturation state from the Flinders
pH record that varied between ~3 and 4.5, which values encompass "the lower and
upper limits of aragonite saturation state within which corals can survive." Despite
this fact, they report that "skeletal extension and calcification rates for the Flinders

27
 Reef coral fall within the normal range for Porites and are not correlated with
aragonite saturation state or pH."

Thus, contrary to acidification-alarmist claims that historical anthropogenic CO2

emissions have already resulted in a significant decline in ocean water pH and
aragonite saturation state, Pelejero et al.'s 300-year record of these parameters
(which, in their words, began "well before the start of the Industrial Revolution")
provides no evidence of such a decline. What is more, and also contrary to what
one would expect from climate-alarmist claims of how sensitive coral calcification
rate is to changes in pH and aragonite saturation state, they found that huge cyclical
changes in these parameters had essentially no detectable effect on either coral
calcification or skeletal extension rates.”

As a final note on this subject, I refer to a graphic from Idso that summarizes actual coral
growth characteristics at none other than the Great Barrier Reef, possibly the most
famous and widely recognized reef system in the world.

Figure 12. Great Barrier Reef Calcification Observations (1903-1922 vs 1979-1998)

This actual data compilation should shed some truthful light on what the oceanic system
has been doing while the recent warming period has been influencing global conditions.

I strongly disagree with the statements issued in this report with respect to ‘ocean
acidification’ and the expected negative influence on ‘marine calcifiers’.

28
Item 7: From page ES-4, Projections of Future Climate Change with Continued
Increases in Elevated GHG Concentrations

“It is likely that hurricanes will become more intense...”

Discussion of this topic in the TSD is minimal, and where it is discussed, it is more
focused on Pacific conditions rather than Atlantic, and even in that case, virtually no
evidence is provided to support the contention above.

Since this is certainly a ‘hot button’ issue among many citizens, it is very disconcerting
that the ‘finding’ is totally unsupported by any data, when there is actually abundant data
contrary to the statement above.

I will take the liberty to include a brief discussion with data pertaining to rainfall, since
the ‘finding’ does make mention of this issue, to the effect that due to “Elevated GHGs”
we should expect to see “intensity of precipitation events”. This intensity will,
theoretically, bring more flooding events, and other negative effects, all due to that nasty
CO2 increase. Again, this statement is based on the ‘modelers’, who can’t seem to
become satisfied with the actual historical data, to wit:

Figure 13: Annual precipitation in the contiguous 48 United States between 1895
and 2006. U.S. National Climatic Data Center, U.S. Department of Commerce
2006 Climate Review (20). The trend shows an increase in rainfall of 1.8 inches
per century approximately 6% per century. [After Soon (3)]

As can be clearly seen in this fundamental graphic depiction of rainfall history in the
lower 48 states, the rainfall trend has been gradually increasing at about a 6% rate. It
would seem to me that this would be a rather advantageous effect, rather than a

29
detriment. I seriously doubt that this trend will suddenly shift to introduce greater
intensity of precipitation events.

Hurricanes are very significant weather events, and I do not want to minimize the
importance of being able to adequately anticipate trends that might be associated with
them. Climatologists have certainly been studying them for decades, if not centuries, and
I wish them every success in advancing predictability of these sometimes very large
tropical systems.

However, this is not about hurricane prediction. This is about, once again, blaming the
future hurricane events on emissions of CO2. As the data clearly indicates, this is not the
case, and it IS important to let the data do the talking. But first, take a look at another
related severe storm event, the tornado. Is global warming responsible for more tornadic
activity in the United States?

Figure 14: Annual number of strong-to-violent category F3 to F5 tornados

during the March-to-August tornado season in the U.S. between 1950 and 2006.
U.S. National Climatic Data Center, U.S. Department of Commerce 2006
Climate Review (19). During this period, world hydrocarbon use increased 6-
fold, while violent tornado frequency decreased by 43%. [After Soon(3)]

I do not see much ambiguity in this data. Are tornado’s not severe storms that are
supposed to manifest in greater, more intense activity due to “Global Warming”?

Just exactly how did the ‘findings’ committee arrive at the conclusion that more intense
storms will come about as a result of increased GHG emissions?

30
Enough of rainfall and tornadoes, which of course happen frequently alongside
hurricanes. Let’s see what the hurricane data tells us, given the fact that we have a very
substantial database, not just in this country, but worldwide.

Figure 15. Annual number of Atlantic hurricanes that made landfall between
1900 and 2006 (20). Line is drawn at mean value. [After Soon (3)]

Firstly, as the data clearly shows, while we have been experiencing a material increase in
GHGs over the course of the past century, there is absolutely no discernable change in the
number of Atlantic hurricanes making landfall.

Next, as to that projected increase in intensity being due to GHGs increasing….

Take a look at the graph below, and try to convince yourself that the intensity of
hurricanes is increasing, and then relate that background issue to CO2 emissions.

Here is what one of the primary providers of data for that graphic has to say about the
relationship between anthropogenic global warming and what we observe in our
atmosphere:

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is
only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global
warming.” - U.S. Government Atmospheric Scientist, Stanley B.
Goldenberg (20), of the Hurricane Research division of NOAA.

31
 Figure 16. Annual number of violent hurricanes and maximum attained wind
speed during those hurricanes in the Atlantic Ocean between 1944 and 2006
(21,22). There is no upward trend in either of these records. During this period,
world hydrocarbon use increased 6-fold. Lines are mean values. [After Soon (3)]

Based on the data just presented that provided a brief review of various characteristics
related to rainfall, tornadoes and hurricanes in this country, and surrounds, I strongly
disagree with the contention that

“It is likely that hurricanes will become more intense...”

************************************************************************

Item 8: From page ES-4, Projected Risks and Impacts Associated with Future
Climate change

“Increases in regional ozone pollution relative to ozone levels without

climate change are expected due to higher temperatures and weaker
circulation in U.S. and other world cities relative to air quality levels
without climate change.”

32
Due to these elevated ozone levels, we are expected to see increased risks with respect to
respiratory infection, aggravation of asthma, and premature death.
I am not in any way an expert on health issues, and I have no intention of attempting to
argue this case on those merits. However, I do wish to challenge the notion that ozone
characteristics will be in any way influenced by increased GHG emissions.

Firstly, it should be abundantly clear by now why, in my opinion, based on multiple data
representations, greenhouse gas emissions have almost no effect on global temperature, at
least none that we can accurately measure, and have a high confidence we see GHG
signature in the data.

Ozone levels have been the subject of much study for many decades running. While some
would claim that that is because we managed to legislate a solution to the problem of
ozone depletion, I disagree, due to what the actual data shows.

First, take a look at ozone trends over the period 1963-2007.

33
 Figure 17. Total ozone at Mauna Loa 1963-2007. There is virtually no change in
the annual variance over the entire period. Measured in Dobson Units. [Courtesy
of NOAA, and Milloy (23)].

We can map ozone character just as we can map CO2 character, etc., and it certainly has
been mapped. NASA captured ozone character via the Total Ozone Mapping
Spectrometer (TOMS) satellite. The series of figures below show the seasonal cyclic
nature of ozone concentration around the globe. Although not shown here, The data
demonstrate an annual repeated pattern that has shown very little real variation over the
time it has now been monitored. So, the purported claim that we have solved the problem
is, frankly, nonsense. All those “bad chlorofluorocarbons” we expunged from the
atmosphere by replacing Freon as a refrigerant with another chemical compound resulted
in approximately zero effect on the “ozone hole”, as it so religiously called.

Figure 18. Global Data from NASA Earth probe TOMS, spring 2000. Notice the two white
‘ozone holes’ at each of the poles. [After Milloy (23)]

34
Figure 19. Global Data from NASA Earth probe TOMS, summer 2000. Notice the expanded
‘ozone hole’ at the south pole, and the ‘disappearance’ of the hole at the north pole. [After Milloy
(23)]

35
Figure 20. Global Data from NASA Earth probe TOMS, fall 2000. Notice the ‘reappearance’ of
the two white ‘ozone holes’ at each of the poles. [After Milloy (23)]

36
 Figure 21. Global Data from NASA Earth probe TOMS, winter 2000. Notice the expanded
‘ozone hole’ at the north pole, and the ‘disappearance’ of the hole at the south pole. [After Milloy
(23)]

I can assure the reader who may be interested that the above seasonal patterns are
repeated each and every year, and that there is no discernable difference from the first
year’s data captured by the probe (July 1996), to the last (December 2005), a total of
about 9.4 years running. Compare December 1996 with December 2003:
http://junkscience.com/Ozone/ozone_seasonal.html

Yet, we have this from ‘scientific reporters’ from the BBC:

August 24, 2006

"Leading scientists in the United States say the hole in the ozone layer of the Earth's
atmosphere above the Antarctic appears to have stopped widening." (BBC)

I will conclude this section with a quote from Steve Milloy:

“So there we have it. The conceptual "ozone layer" is not some delicate, static and fragile
wrapping about the outer atmosphere but rather a dynamic and highly volatile
component, both created and destroyed by solar radiation. Ozone creation is a continuous
process, so we can not "run out" of stratospheric ozone. The more ozone (O3) is
destroyed, the more free oxygen radicals (O1) are available to bind with free oxygen (O2)
to create ozone (O3), the same applies with free oxygen (O2).”

37
Item 9: From ES-4, Projected Risks and Impacts Associated with Future Climate
Change

“Risk to society, ecosystems and many natural Earth processes increases

with increases in both the rate and magnitude of climate change.
Climate warming may increase the possibility of large, abrupt regional
or global climatic events (e.g., disintegration of the Greenland Ice Sheet
or collapse of the West Antarctica Ice Sheet .”

As has been the case is many of the previous sections, much of the TSD discussion is
wrapped around what I will term “runaway modeling”. This suggested nomenclature is
placed here because it is obvious that so much of what is being developed at great
taxpayer expense is based purely on conjecture, and very little on fact.

Let’s focus for the moment on Greenland, and beginning with actual temperature history:

Figure 22. Average Summer Temperature record at Angmagssalik, Greenland

1892-2009. [After Michaels (24)]

As one reviews the context of Figure 21, it is inescapable that temperatures trended down
from around 1930 to about 1990, then trended up until the present. This pattern is not too

38
dissimilar from the annual average U.S. temperature, except for the temperature range,
where we varied from about 51-55 degrees F, while Greenland varied from about 4-8
degrees C. In essence, they experienced almost twice the average summer temperature
extremes as we did for the entire year.

Angmagssalik is a southern Greenland weather station. Weather records dating back to

1780 are available for southern Greenland, and the trend for the whole region on an
annual basis is similar to that for Angmagssalik, except for a minor detail. The highest
temperatures recorded in the southern region occurred around 1930, where the average
annual temperature was about 8.8 degrees C. The recent maximum occurred around
2001, with an average annual temperature of about 8.2 degrees C.

Figure 23. Southern Greenland Temperatures 1787-2007. [After Michaels (24)]

You need to know that there was no increase in sea level from the period 1820-1930, and
further that the Greenland Ice Sheet was in no danger of disintegration during the
warmest time in its modern history. If current temperature trends (beyond dates in Figure
22) are any real indication, then I would anticipate that the ice sheet may well be
thickening at the present and into the future.

39
In fact, “There’s nothing very new going on in Greenland…,” according to Patrick
Michaels (24).

So, let’s talk about Antarctica.

It actually appears that the ice is building up on the continent, as opposed to melting
away, as some suggest. Let’s be clear, the Western peninsula may be experiencing a
temporary loss of ice, but I would not expect that condition to persist.

The actual data shows us that the elevation change of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet has
been undergoing buildup since around 1995, and may have maxed locally around 2001.
This evidence is presented below, courtesy of Davis (25).

Figure 24. Antarctic Ice Sheet Elevation Change 1992-2003. [After

Michaels (24), and Davis (25)].

The data and therefore the evidence implies that the East Antarctic Ice Sheet has been
building steadily since around 1993. A more conservative view would suggest the apex of
buildup occurred 2001. In any event, it would appear that recent time history indicates
that ice at East Antarctic is in no imminent danger of disintegration.

40
 “Escalating Ice Loss found in Antarctica: Sheets Melting an
Area Once Thought to Be Unaffected by Global Warming”

-Washington Post, January 14, 2008

Post writer Michael Kaufman (24, 26) was only too anxious to report just published
results by Eric Rignot and colleagues: “Climate changes appear to be destabilizing vast
ice sheets of Western Antarctica that had previously seemed relatively protected from
global warming… raising the prospect of faster sea-level rise than current estimates
(27).”

Rignot, et al.’s study is at variance with all recent simulations of 21st century climate in
the Antarctic, which predict a gain in ice because of increasing snowfall (24). The
increased snowfall would be anticipated due to warming temperatures, if temperatures do
indeed continue to rise.

Rignot, et al are not alone in the rush to get Antarctica to cooperate with their modeling.
British researchers Andrew Shepherd and Duncan Wingham summarized six recent
studies of Antarctic ice and concluded that it is most likely that the East Antarctic ice
sheet is gaining about 6 cubic miles of ice per year, and the West Antarctic is losing
about 12, for a net loss of 6 cubic miles per year (24, 28). They do submit, however, that
the data are so poor that it is difficult to assume there have been any major changes in the
past decade.

Shepherd and Wingham also summarized recent findings for Greenland’s ice and
estimated a net annual loss of 25 cubic miles. When combined with the data from
Antarctica, the loss figures contribute to an annual sea-level rise of 0.01 inches per year,
an amount far too small to measure (24).

I present all of this as background in placing into full context the misinformation
circulating around the fears about sea level rise due to the supposed disintegration of the
ice sheets of both Greenland and Antarctica.

Now, let’s take a look at some more of the actual data.

41
 Figure 25. Sea ice surrounding and including Antarctica [After Michaels (24)]

As can readily be seen, there is no evidence whatsoever that the ice mass on and around
Antarctica is such that there should be any cause for concern as to its longevity. In fact,
shortly after the Kaufman “News” article it became known that the departure from the
norm was its largest ever on January 2008. Needless to say, that development got no
press whatsoever.

Based on the actual evidence as indicated above, I strongly disagree with the statement

"Climate warming may increase the possibility of large,

abrupt regional or global climatic events (e.g.,
disintegration of the Greenland Ice Sheet or collapse of
the West Antarctica Ice Sheet .”)

That statement is utterly nonsensical.

42
Item 10: Actual data indicates a disconnect between CO2 concentration and
temperature, refuting the assumption of global warming due to CO2.
(Author Comment)

If there has been one single dominant theme in your “findings”, it has been that CO2 is
the single most hazardous and endangering substance man has ever encountered. Study
after study and model after model point to this colorless, odorless, tasteless gas as the
primary driver of temperature on this planet.

But, what does hard, credible data indicate with respect to this purported linkage?

Figure 26. Arctic-wide surface temperature anomalies 1878-2001. [After Soon (26)].

Over the time range monitored, the data clearly shows that there is virtually no
correlation between Arctic-wide surface air temperature and CO2 concentration. Other
studies have demonstrated a similar result.

Some have attempted to place great weight on ice core evidence linking temperature and
CO2 concentration, and I have reviewed multiple such studies. However, other
researchers [Jaworski, (30)] reach a different conclusion regarding this suggested linkage:

“The man-made climate warming hypothesis is based on the assumption that

mainly through burning fossil fuels the pre-industrial level of CO2 of about 290
ppmv has increased by about 30%. However this assumption is at odds with
direct measurements of CO2 over the past 200 years. Furthermore recent
estimates of pre-industrial levels of CO2 have been largely based on analyses of
polar ice cores which do not fulfil the essential closed-system criteria required for
reliable reconstruction of the pre-industrial and ancient atmosphere.” (30)

43
Many researchers have demonstrated, in my opinion unequivocally, that the absolute
primary driver of temperature on this planet happens to be the center of our solar system.
I have yet to locate any source that can dispute the evidence that the sun is the primary
driver of global temperature. In support of this claim, please note the following figure.

Figure 27. Arctic surface air temperature compared with total solar irradiance as
measured by sunspot cycle amplitude, sunspot cycle length, solar equatorial
rotation rate, fraction of penumbral spots, and decay rate of the 11-year sunspot
cycle (29,31). Solar irradiance correlates well with Arctic temperature, while
hydrocarbon use (32) does not correlate. [After Soon (3)]

In my opinion, Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Astrophysics Center has

compiled in this single graphic the essence of the very strong counter argument to any
who would suggest that CO2 emissions from fossil fuels represent the primary driver of
global warming. That correlation, as suggested by Marland, et al, of Oak Ridge National
laboratory (co-contributors to this graphic), simply does not exist. Based on multiple lines
of evidence, certainly including that above, I strongly disagree with the hypothesis that
greenhouse gas emissions are responsible for global warming.

44
CONCLUSIONS

In the broadest sense, I would conclude that the political drivers behind the wheel
of this “findings” vehicle have completely overwhelmed any sense of scientific
support, or lack thereof, for the myriad of complex conclusions drawn and
implied to “endanger” the citizens of this country.

Given the overarching relationship to the current administration’s drive to

“remake” the American economy and industry, I strongly suspect that the EPA
Administrator is doing her level best to please the President. However, that’s no
excuse for the blatant disregard for multiple lines of factual evidence that
significantly contradict finding after finding in this nearly 200 page manifesto.

As has been strongly suggested in the memo “leaked” from the White House, (but
co-authored by multiple reviewing agencies), “…making the decision to regulate
carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act for the first time is likely to have serious
economic consequences (emphasis mine) for regulated entities throughout the US
economy, including small businesses and small communities.”

Given that the “DELIBERATIVE - ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE” memo was

apparently submitted by the Office of Management and Budget, I would assume
they have a fairly tight grip on the economic implications related to your and the
administrations objectives of “cleaning up our environment”.

Having reviewed every page of the “Proposed Endangerment Finding…, I can

only conclude that either you are not competent to manage the scientific input of
your agency, or you are fully cognizant of the lack of credibility of many of the
findings, and have chosen to ignore open scientific protocol and the invitation of
multiple experts outside the EPA and the enclave of the CCSP. In my opinion,
that is a very serious mistake.

With all due respect to the many scientists who may have been involved in
support of this “Proposed … Finding”, and unable to convince you that your path
is significantly errant, I submit that you have already irresponsibly spent millions
of dollars of taxpayer money in an effort to completely subvert good science, and
you are simply failing in your fiduciary responsibility to the American public.

I am not well informed as to the scientific makeup of the EPA, but it is obvious
that many of the ‘findings’ included in the document were heavily influenced by
the IPCC, which given the discussion included in the ‘Introduction’ above, I
suggest significantly tainted your opinion, and virtually eliminated objectivity in a
majority of the issues reviewed.

45
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. First and foremost, I strongly recommend that you shelve this document, and
take a good, long look at comments incoming from especially the group I
identified in the Introduction.

2. Secondly, once you have seen those comments, I strongly recommend you
deploy that group of scientific leaders in multiple capacities to assist you and
your staff scientists in endeavoring to actually acquire and properly process
the vast database necessary for comprehensive review.

3. Thirdly, I propose that you take a leadership role in redefining priorities in

your agency, such that you address real, dangerous, actual pollutants that have
the potential to do real harm to American and World citizens. You know what
they are, and you know, by virtue of the fact that CO2 is absent from your
defined list of pollutants, where your priorities should be refocused. You need
to advise the American populace that CO2 is not now, has never been, and
will never become a pollutant of any kind.

4. I recommend that you do everything in your power to insure that near term
Congressional hearings related to HR 2454 will include testimonies from
multiple highly qualified experts from the list I provided in my Introduction,
who will be only too happy to fully open the debate related to gaining a
clearer understanding of climate science, global warming and all related
subjects.

5. I recommend that if you find you cannot comply with Recommendation 4

above, that you resign from your position, and ask the President to look again
at the American landscape in an attempt to find an individual who will, in fact,
look out for the actual interests of American citizens, as related to the true and
necessary protection of Her Environment, as opposed to seeking a Political
solution destined to fail and materially undermine Her very economic being.

Respectfully submitted,

Dennis Hedke

Dennis E. Hedke

46
REFERENCES
1. United States Senate Minority Report, U.S. Senate Environment and Public
Works Committee, Minority Staff Report (Inhofe),
http://www.senate.gov.minority/ , December 11, 2008.
2. Horner, C., Red Hot Lies, Regenery Press (2009), p 295.
3. Soon, W., et al, Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, 12, 79-90, 2007
4. Evans, David, The Australian, “No Smoking Hot Spot”, July 18, 2008.
5. Jansen, E., J. , et al., Palaeoclimate. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical
Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M.
Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)].
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY,
USA.
6. Segalstad, T., Proceedings of the Third International conference on Climate
Change, 2009, www.CO2web.info
7. Georg-Beck, Ernst, 180 years of Atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical
Methods, Energy & Environment 18 No. 2, 2007
8. Keigwin, L. D. (1996) Science 274, 1504-1508.
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/keigwin1996/
9 Christy, John, Earth Science Systems Center, University of Alabama Huntsville,
10. McKitrick, R., as cited in “Red Hot Lies”, Horner, Regenery Press 2009.
11. Monckton, Christopher, Would CO2 Emission Cuts Save Arctic Ice and Reduce
Sea-Level Rise? Science and Public Policy Institute, April 20, 2009.
12. Bindoff, N.L. et al., Observations: Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level. In:
Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working
Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B.
Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
13. Moerner, Nils-Axel, Estimating Future Sea-Level Changes from past Records,
Global & Planetary Change 40: 49-54.
14. Jevrejeva, S., Grinsted, A., Moore, J. C., and Holgate, S. (2006) J. Geophysical
Res. 111,2005JC003229.
http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/author_archive/jevrejeva_etal_gsl/
15. Leuliette, E. W., Nerem, R. S., and Mitchum, G. T. (2004) Marine Geodesy 27,
No. 1-2, 79-94. http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
16. Denman, K.L., et al, 2007: Couplings Between Changes in the Climate System
and Biogeochemistry. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, Manning, Z.
Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
17. Idso, Craig, CO2, Global Warming and Coral Reefs: Prospects for the Future,
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change and Science and
Public Policy Institute, January 12, 2009.

47
18. Pelejero, C., Preindustrial to modern interdecadal variability in coral reef pH
Science Volume 309, No. 5744, pp. 2204-2207, 30 September 2005.
19. U.S. National Climatic Data Center, U.S. Department of Commerce 2006 Climate
Review. http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/cli mate/re search/cag3/na.html
20. Landsea, C. W. (2007) EOS 88 No. 18, 197, 208.
21. Goldenberg, S. B., Landsea, C. W., Mesta-Nuñez, A. M., and Gray, W. M.
(2001) Science 293, 474-479.
22. Jevrejeva, S., Grinsted, A., Moore, J. C., and Holgate, S. (2006) J. Geophysical
Res. 111, 2005JC003229.
http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/author_archive/jevrejeva_etal_gsl/
23. Milloy, S., http://junkscience.com/Ozone/ozone_seasonal.html
24. Michaels, P.J., Climate of Extremes, CATO Publishing, 2009
25. Davis, C.H., et al “Snowfall Driven Growth in East Antarctica Ice Sheet Mitigates
Recent Sea Level Rise”, Science 308 (20050:1,898-1,901).
26. Kaufman, M., Washington Post, “Escalating Ice Loss found in Antarctica: Sheets
Melting an Area Once Thought to Be Unaffected by Global Warming”, January
14, 2008.
27. Rignot, E., et al, “Recent Antarctica Ice Mass Loss from Radar Interferometry and
Regional Climate Modeling.” Nature Geoscience (2007): doi: 10.1038/neo102
28. Shepherd, A., and D.J. Wingham. “Recent Sea-Level Contributions of the
Antarctic and Grenland Ice Sheets.” Science 315 (2007): 1,529-32.
29. Soon, W., “Variable solar irradiance as a plausible agent for multidecadal
variations in the Arctic-wide surface air temperature record of the past 130 years.”
Geophysical Research Letters 32, (2005).
30. Jaworski, Zbigniew, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological
Protection, Warsaw, Poland, October 15, 2008.
31. Hoyt, D. V. and Schatten, K. H. (1993) J. Geophysical Res. 98, 18895-18906.
32. Marland, G., Boden, T. A., and Andres, R. J. (2007) Global, Regional, and
National CO2 Emissions. In Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change.
Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, TN, USA,
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.htm

48
49