With a rather amusing title to their piece — ok, we know where you guys stand already — National Journal has invited some (unrevealed) number of relevant experts to opine on whether the EPA should agree to the U.S. Chamber’s petition seeking a trial on the science that EPA claims underlies its “endangerment” finding. As you may recall, EPA happened to acknowledge in its Finding that it outsourced the underlying scientific determination, principally to the UN’s IPCC, a group that openly admits it performs no scientific research.

– We interrupt this blog post for some breaking news! –

Oops! Sorry. The IPCC used to admit that, for years, until, coincidentally (or not) about a month ago I began broadcasting this fact (see here, here, here, here, here and here). Now — suddenly, as of sometime in the past three weeks — its admission, of over a decade’s standing, that it “does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters” (cached here) has been airbrushed out; as of right now, they are falling over themselves to claim that “the IPCC is a scientific body.”

When and how did that happen?

Call yourself what you want, IPCC, but you still perform no scientific research.

UPDATE: A reader helpfully notes the following: “It appears they just fiddled around with their website (something that’s not all that uncommon with organizations that have too much time on their hands). The admission is still there, but now it’s under the organization tab.”

– And now, back to our regularly scheduled blog post. –

Well, there was that one fellow at EPA who decided to look into the underlying science of the EPA endangerment finding because, you know, that was his job. Having dared to do so, his whole office is now on the chopping block. More evidence that “science’s rightful place” is wherever it can’t get in the way of the statist agenda.

Five invited experts have responded to National Journal. Two of them are in the alarmist camp, supporting the “endangerment” finding and regulatory agenda that will flow from it. Neither was willing to predict that the side they support would prevail in such a contest, and/or that the trial should even occur. Instead, one of them dances around the issue with non-responsive and largely template rhetoric, the other ducks the question altogether that he’s supposedly responding to.

Weird. Really weird, what with that side long claiming to have overwhelming evidence.