The Mann Statement of Claim prominently displayed, as one of only two quotations from the “inquiries”, an extended quotation from the Myths vs Facts webpage, included as one of three Resources accompanying the EPA decision denying reconsideration of various petitions for reconsideration of the Endangerment Finding (though Mann’s Statement of Claim falsely cited the gazetted (Federal Register) denial decision itself as its source.) The Myths vs Facts document (as well as the Factsheet and Press Release, also linked as “Resources”) contained statements and assertions that were both untrue and which were undocumented in the actual language of the “formal” documents that they were supposedly supporting.
The identity of the authors (and reviewers, if any) is not disclosed in the supporting documents (RTP documents) for the denial decision – Jean S speculated a few days ago that Gavin Schmidt was involved in EPA’s supposed investigation and “exoneration” of Michael Mann; Schmidt has thus far refused to comment.
In today’s post, I’ll discuss who wrote (and possibly reviewed) the Myths vs Facts document.
In an earlier post, I had speculated that these documents had been prepared by the EPA communications office. This speculation has proved correct. The Myths vs Facts document was authored by non-specialists in the EPA communications. Neither it nor the other “Resources” appear to have been externally peer reviewed – somewhat ironic in light of Mann’s reliance on the document.
Today’s post is based on a FOIA production by EPA to one of the parties to Mann’s libel proceedings (CEI).
On December 6, 2013, CEI filed an FOI request with EPA, the first two items of which asked EPA for:
- Any documents, other than published studies, relied upon or reviewed by EPA in reaching the factual conclusions or making the claims found in the following passages from [Myths vs Facts]: [the passage is the extended quotation reproduced in the Mann Statement of Claim].
- Any documents specifying or listing the authors of that publication…
On April 25, 2014, EPA provided an interim response, indicating that further information would be provided in the future on a “rolling” basis. It asserted “deliberative and attorney-client privilege” (FOIA exemption 5) to expurgate. The first production of documents contained no reference to the Myths vs Facts document, though it did contain some correspondence about the RTP documents.
On May 29, 2014, nearly six months from the original request, EPA provided a second production. The production consisted of 11 emails between July 19 and July 28. In the covering email, EPA stated:
The names listed in the To, From and CC field in these emails comprise the individuals who authored the document.
Six different document names are attested in the emails (which were heavily expurgated and redacted by EPA). The following table shows the date and originator of each version (middle column) and recipients/cc in the right column.
Document
Data (From)
To/CC
Draft Communication Strategy
July 19 (Birgfeld)
Berlin, Drinkard
Factsheet
July 20 (Birgfeld), 22 (Jantarasami), 28 (Birnbaum)
Kruger, Millett, Drinkard, Hannon, (OGC)
Outreach Piece
July 20 (Birnbaum), 22 (Jantarasami)
Kruger, Birnbaum, Millett, Drinkard
Press Release
July 26, 27 (Birgfeld)
Milbourn
Talking Points
July 20, 22 (Birgfeld), 28 (Birnbaum)
DeAngelo, Samenow, Millett, Drinkard, Hannon (OGC)
Web Text
July 22 (Birgfeld), 28 (Birnbaum)
Rosseel, Hannon (OGC)
The webpage associated with the denial decision included three “Resources”: a Factsheet, Press Release and Myths vs Facts, plus web text of the page itself. The documents attached to the emails, that were labeled “Press Release” and “Factsheet” are presumably predecessor to the corresponding documents in the Resources accompanying the denial decision. I surmise that document entitled “Web Text” is the text for the web page.
None of the attached documents contain the phrase “Myths” in the document name. This leaves either “Outreach Piece” or “Talking Points” as possibilities for the Myths vs Facts document. Of these two, the “Talking Points” document seems more likely (as it, but not the Outreach Piece, was sent to John Hannon of the Office of General Counsel on July 28 (together with the Factsheet and web text) as “outreach materials” for review. (The analysis differs only slightly if “Outreach Piece” is the predecessor document.)
The Authors of Myths vs Facts
Based on this identification (and the names only change slightly if the Outreach Piece is identified), the author of Myths vs Facts appears to be Erin Birgfeld, Director of Communications, Climate Change Division. Birgfeld’s (linkin profile here) education background was in biology and environmental toxicology, with her prior EPA employment in the EPA’s “Methane to Markets Partnership”. Lesley Jantarasami (profile here, here), then only months removed from being an intern with the US Forest Service, drafted other outreach documents and might also have been involved (in emails not produced.)
The first draft was prepared on July 20, 2010, less than 10 days prior to the rollout of the Denial Decision. During this week (and even on rollout morning), comments and changes to the RTP documents were still being made. The FOIA documents thus far provided show that the Myths vs Facts document was distributed for comment to EPA communications specialists and EPA general counsel, but none of these documents show whether responses were received. I’ll briefly review the email chronology.
On July 20, Erin Birgfeld sent a first draft of the Talking Points to Ben DeAngelo and Jason Samenow with the following covering text:
Based on our conversation, here are some TPs [talking points] that I think get at the heart of what we talked about.
DeAngelo was the lead author of the Endangerment Finding. DeAngelo is a long-time EPA staffer, who, according to his linkedin profile holds a Master’s Degree in Geography, earned at the University of Toronto. Samenow was also a co-author of the Endangerment Finding. Although also an EPA staffer, Samenow appears from time to time at the Washington Post’s Capital Weather Gang and received an award from George Mason University in 2010 as Climate Communicator of the year. EPA’s production of relevant emails did not include a response or acknowledgement from either DeAngelo or Samenow.
On July 22, under the subject line Outreach Materials, Birgfeld sent a revised version of Talking Points (together with the Factsheet, Press Release and Outreach Piece) to John Millett and Andrea Drinkard, both EPA communications staffers, with Millett the more senior.
Attached are the outreach materials for Endangerment. Dina [Kruger] is still reviewing the tough Q and As so they are on a later track. Please let us know what you think. We are trying to get drafts to Seth [presumably Oster, Associate Administrator, Office of Public Affairs ] by tomorrow. We are also having OGC [Office of General Counsel] review these concurrently.
No responses are shown in the FOIA documents.
On July 28, the day before rollout, Rona Birnbaum, Chief, Climate Science and Impacts Branch sent the Factsheet, Talking Points and Web Text to John Hannon (Office of General Counsel) for legal review (copying Erin Birgfeld).
Communications materials for review. Web page, still work in progress (Dina [Kruger] has reviewed)
EPA Policies
EPA Guidelines require that EPA carry out external peer review for “influential scientific information”, as well as prescribing standards of “transparency”. EPA policy states that information “disseminated in support of top Agency actions” will generally considered to be “influential”:
6.3. EPA will generally consider the following classes of information to be influential, and, to the extent that they contain scientific, financial, or statistical information, that information should adhere to a rigorous standard of quality:
Information disseminated in support of top Agency actions (i.e., rules, substantive notices, policy documents, studies, guidance) that demand the ongoing involvement of the Administrator’s Office and extensive cross-Agency involvement; issues that have the potential to result in major cross-Agency or cross-media policies, are highly controversial, or provide a significant opportunity to advance the Administrator’s priorities. Top Agency actions usually have potentially great or widespread impacts on the private sector, the public or state, local or tribal governments. This category may also include precedent-setting or controversial scientific or economic issues.
It is hard to contemplate actions that better fit these criteria than proceedings connected with the Endangerment Decision, including the denial of the petitions for reconsideration. Since the Myths vs Facts document was disseminated in support of a “top Agency action” fitting these criteria, it would appear to be “influential” scientific information under EPA Guidelines.
Under EPA (and OMB) policies, as “influential scientific information”, the Myths vs Facts document ought to have received external peer review, which, obviously, it did not receive.
Second, EPA policies also prescribe “transparency” for influential scientific information. Despite these transparency requirements, EPA heavily expurgated their FOIA production, asserting “deliberative and attorney-client privilege” (the latter only applicable to exchanges with the OGC). While this privilege does apply to many documents, transparency obligations for “influential scientific information” appear to supercede kneejerk assertion of “deliberative” privilege.
Conclusion
The EPA’s “Myths vs Facts” document, relied upon in the Mann Statement of Claim, contains untrue assertions that are not supported by the language of the more “formal” documents. It
appears to have been written by Erin Birgfeld, an EPA communications officer (with possible involvement of Lesley Jantarsami.) It seems highly doubtful, to say the least, that Birgfeld had detailed personal knowledge of the Climategate emails or the various associated controversies. Nor does the document appear to have been peer reviewed by anyone who had detailed personal knowledge of the Climategate controversies. Birgfeld sought review of the Talking Points document from within the EPA communications office and the EPA Office of General Counsel, but there is no record thus far of responses or comments on the document. Nor are any of the parties from whom Birgfeld sought review known to have investigated the Climategate emails or to have personal knowledge of the Climategate controversies.
It seems implausible that any DC judge, where memories of Susan Rice’s honoring of Bowe Bergdahl as a “hero” are still fresh, could rule that Steyn or Simberg or CEI are required to accept assertions in Washington Talking Points memos as established “facts”.