However, this is not a “that crazy Ken” type of editorial. While some will certainly point at this as a “Flat Earth” political response to established scientific fact, the fact remains that environmental protection and cleanup should not be an article of faith. It requires established proof from a variety of sources. It must address those whose criticism is based on scientific analysis and it must demonstrate that the sometimes costly actions taken to rectify the situation will have the desired result.
In this case, the EPA decision was reached relying on data from the UN International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an organization outside the EPA’s control and with different scientific standards. While Cuccinelli’s claim that the information within the IPCC study was doctored is likely overstating the issue, the EPA should not be relying almost solely on outside sources. If outside sources are used in determining the final finding, then those studies should be open to heavy scrutiny and scientific review.
The problem is that Cuccinelli is not all right and not all wrong.
The “Climategate” e-mails play a core role in the debate and Cuccinelli’s argument. A series of e-mails from British university professors show a desire to silence critics and circumnavigate peer review, but there is precious little that would serve to debunk climate change as a whole.
While environmental skeptics have certainly been guilty of relying only on those studies and evidence that support their position, i.e. “the world temperature can’t be rising—look at all the snow;” some environmental activists have been equally as guilty of accepting certain pro-environmental findings without pausing to consider their credibility and whether additional study will confirm the results.
Cuccinelli’s legal challenge faces an uphill battle. It is unlikely that the reliance on outside data will rise to the legal requirement that the decision was reached arbitrarily. However, the EPA should take Cuccinelli’s suggestion and reexamine the decision and consider devoting resources to an internal study examining the issue under tighter scientific protocols. But Mr. Cuccinelli, you need to understand that it will likely go to supporting what a myriad of other studies have found—that greenhouse gases caused by human activity have a causal relationship with climate change.
Whatever his underlying beliefs may be, Cuccinelli is correct that the EPA should base their findings off a variety of data, including studies conducted under their own auspices. Maybe these studies will work to convert critics to climate change believers and enlist opponents to environmental protection to their side. If the EPA studies don’t show an environmental impact, we’ll all owe Mr. Cuccinelli an apology.
This appears to have been written based solely on Cuccinelli's statements. Most of what you've said about the EPA and the sources it used in its findings is just not accurate.