More problems with yesterday's global warming report

I expect this series to continue as more problems with the report surface. I predict that you will note in the comments below that the sources I link to are known skeptical sites. Mostly true--and it's a standard argument used by global warming activists. However, I can only respond by saying that skeptical scientists are shut out of the discussion in the venues appreciated by activists, and scientists wanting to get their opinions in front of the public and policy-makers have little choice in the matter. I'm hoping to offer some improvement on the situation here. As someone who believes that global warming exists and should be addressed, but who also believes that science consists of back and forth between scientists, shutting out one side of the discussion (as the government report completely does) is guaranteed to produce bad science.

American Thinker: Lies, Damned Lies and BBC Climate Reports

When the global warming alarmist house of cards finally collapses, exposing the pseudo-science/scare-journalism axis that has perpetrated the world's greatest mass delusion, among the first led out into the public square for ritual humiliation ought to be BBC ‘science' and ‘environment' correspondents.

Comment on Endangerment Proposal - Marlo Lewis, Jr. | CEI

Most critically, EPA does not apply its judgment to the core scientific issue—climate sensitivity. If climate sensitivity is low, as investigations by Dr. Richard Linden (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), Dr. William Gray (Colorado State University), and Dr. Roy Spencer (University of Alabama Huntsville) suggest, then 21st century warming is likely to be below the low-end (1.8ºC) IPCC “best estimate,” and endangerment of public health and welfare is not “reasonably anticipated.”

Statutory and constitutional reasons also counsel EPA not to finalize the Endangerment Proposal. An endangerment finding will trigger a regulatory cascade with potentially devastating economic impacts that Congress never intended or approved when it enacted §202. Regulatory litigation rather than legislative deliberation will determine the direction of public policy and the extent of the burdens imposed on the private sector, vitiating our democratic system. We could end up with a Mega-Kyoto system without the people’s elected representatives ever casting a vote. Moreover, the only way EPA can regulate greenhouse gases under the CAA without risk of administrative chaos and economic disaster is to flout statutory language, play lawmaker, and effectively “amend” the statute, violating the separation of powers.