The ANPR is one of the steps EPA has taken in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts vs. EPA. The ANPR record will set the stage for the debate on climate policy/science in the Obama Administration and in the new Congress.

EPA sought comment on the best available science for purposes of the “endangerment” discussion including the more recent findings of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, and the most recent IPCC report (AR4).

Here are some of the many responses submitted during the first step after comments were requested on the first step, the CCSP Unified Synthesis Product in August here, here, here, here and here.

Here is a small sampling of some of the responses to the ANPR, the third and final phase of the EPA process of evaluation.

* Why the EPA should find against “Endangerment” by World Climate Report

* Major Issues with IPCC Report by John McLean

* Series of detailed responses catalogued at the Heartland Institute.

* Detailed Response from Dr. Pat Michaels

* NIPCC excerpts as a Rebuttal by Dr. Fred Singer

* Challenging Endangerment by Dr. Fred Singer

* Challenging the Appropriateness of the CCSP and Adequacy of the Scientific Literature used by Ross McKitrick

* Detailed Response by CEI

* The Economic Costs of the EPA’s ANPR Regulations by Heritage Foundation by David Kreutzer, Ph.D. and Karen Campbell, Ph.D. Center for Data Analysis

* A geologist’s response by Dr. Don Easterbrook

* Global warming as a response to cloud changes due to the PDO by Dr. Roy Spencer

* In-depth analysis from Craig Idso

* Response by American Environmental Coalition

* Response reiterating CCSP responses

* Response on the failure of models to replicate observed changes and the neglecting of natural factors, most notably here Ocean Multidecadal cycles

* Response by American Environmental Coalition is here.