US Chamber of Commerce reverses stance

PRESS RELEASE Contact:

Christine Hall, 202.331.2258

CEI-logo

U. S. Chamber Caves to Special Interests on Energy-Rationing Legislation

CEI Invites Small Businesses to Join With CEI to Fight Kerry-Graham

 

Washington, D.C., November 4, 2009 – The Competitive Enterprise Institute responded today to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s announcement that it will now support energy-rationing legislation by calling on small businesses to drop their Chamber membership and join CEI in fighting this catastrophic legislation.

 

In a November 3 letter to Senators Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the Chairman and Ranking Member, respectively, of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, the Chamber announced that it would now support legislation based on a recent New York Times op-ed by Senators John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).

 

“It appears that the Chamber has caved under enormous pressure from some of its biggest member companies. They have reluctantly enlisted in the effort to reward these big special interests with gigantic windfall profits at the expense of consumers and small businesses,” said Myron Ebell, CEI Director of Energy and Global Warming Policy.

 

“We invite small businesses whose interests are no longer being well-represented by the Chamber on this critical issue to drop their membership in the U.S. Chamber and join us at CEI in fighting against all energy-rationing legislation, even so-called compromises that only partly wreck the economy. We welcome their support. We will not capitulate,” said Ebell.

 

“In its letter, the Chamber repeatedly cites the Oct. 14 Kerry-Graham op­-ed in The New York Times as the reason for cuddling up to cap-and-trade,” noted CEI Senior Fellow Marlo Lewis. “But the Kerry-Graham column was a hopelessly confused muddle.”  (Dr. Lewis explains why it is a muddle here.)

  • To support CEI’s efforts to defend consumers from needless energy taxes, visit CEI.org/support, or contact Al Canata.

 

###

95 thoughts on “US Chamber of Commerce reverses stance

  1. Holy Cow, this is BIG!!
    Not good but BIG!
    Don’t these stupidos realise that once they have given, they cannot take back? And, when the promised free spondulics do not arrive, they are screwed?

  2. The Chamber had an admirable position based on principle, and now has endorsed a calamitous policy (because of an op-ed?). Between this and AARP endorsing the Pelosi healthcare bill, it makes you wonder if there are any organizations left with integrity.

  3. Energy rationing for its industry? The very primary ingredient for production (and quality of life)! America is rapidly on its way to becoming a second rate power.

  4. It’s pure blackmail and arm twisting, the trademark of the AGW cronies.
    The announced process has to be continued and all entrepreneurs who believe in freedom and free enterprise should leave this Chamber of Commerce for what it is.
    The Competitive Enterprise Institute takes action on this and I think this a brilliant solution. No public organization should cave in to any pressure and they will feel the consequences from both sides. Small companies are the big paying majority and I hope they will leave the Chamber en mass.
    I am quite confident the “Old Boys” network is infiltrated now which is a dire indicator of what is going to happen in the Senate.
    Americans have to find a way to resist this because it will destroy your society, economy and freedom.
    These are practices which normally happen in countries referred to as BANANA REPUBLICS.
    It’s a disgrace.
    Tomorrow there will be spontanious demonstrations in Washington and the Town Hall’s against the current Government.
    So those who resist are not alone.
    Opposition is building.

  5. Ron de Haan referred to banana republics, agreeing with one of my fears: America may make history by becoming the first banana republic to possess nuclear weapons.
    I am particularly disappointed with Lindsey Graham, who ought to know better.

  6. Actually, if you read the sKerry op-ed piece, taking the first letter of each second word, it spells out “do what we say or we burn down your business and break your legs”. So, technically, they did make the decision after reading the op-ed piece.
    Seriously, I’m not a fan of characterising it as “enormous pressure”, in fact it was a gigantic carrot and a bit of blackmail.
    I was trying to come up with an analogy to explain to someone what this means, but I can’t find anything ridiculous enough. How about two men lost in the desert, voting to voluntarily discard their last canteen of water?

  7. Only sensible things in the Kerry/Graham article were, streamlining the permissions schedules for nuclear & exploit your own gas & oil.
    DaveE.

  8. This is really sad…For originally taking such a position and then saying Ok you get your way!!!! Did they ask the 3,000 members what they thought of this matter??? Probably not! Money talks!

  9. It will be telling to see how many businesses transfer memberships. It seems very similar to IPCC and the recent 18 science orgs whose leadership supported cap and steal (except the APS! What happened to the ACS?) where the rank and file was not consulted. The leadership seems (like many CEOs and Boards) that they are, and can, make hugely impacting decisions for the org, and they can if nobody confronts them.
    The word needs to get out to the membership of the Chamber so they are informed of the appeal to them by CEI. Very important.
    Also, the Tea Party is having a call, fax, email-in to Congress tomorrow. Another opportunity for mass input to save ourselves – don’t think anyone else will.

  10. Hunter, no problem. I am disturbed by Graham’s thinking and sent him a email complaining about his loss of conservative thinking. I thought bi partisan meant checking for the truth from both sides, not giving in without full examination of the facts.

  11. We should make a call to Glenn Beck and organize a call to all small business owners to quit the Chamber of Commerce, throw out their Apple Computers a.o.
    Beck today missed and interview with Palin because his appendix was taken out, so maybe he is in the right mood to follow up on this.
    Yes, I know, Glenn Beck is not everybody’s friend, but I was really impressed with the Monckton/Bolton interview.
    Let’s grab those SOB’s where it hurts them most, in their wallets.

  12. Jerry Lee Davis (18:55:05) :
    “Ron de Haan referred to banana republics, agreeing with one of my fears: America may make history by becoming the first banana republic to possess nuclear weapons.
    I am particularly disappointed with Lindsey Graham, who ought to know better”.
    Jerry Lee Davis,
    I have referred to Banana Republic not only because of this incident.
    There were two more today:
    In California, the capital stressed Government has taken 10% from the pay checks as a loan to be paid back next year. Obviously something like this is possible in the US of today and I wonde what happens if this goes Nation Wide.
    Also today 21 top bank managers were called in to take directives from the “pay Czar” to cut down management wages. This also includes banks that have no Government loans. This is Communism. Unbelievable.

  13. I can’t remember when I last did this, but today I had the TV on for just a short while listening to news when the interview with Al Gore came on. As background, I am a far left liberal when it comes to a woman’s right to choose an abortion, consenting adults to marry, improved mental health care, public choice health care for those who can’t get covered any other way or can’t get fully covered, and public education free of religion, and I still have left over rants against Bush Jr. When it comes to other issues, I am a far right individual. Anyway, today, I was so disgusted with Gore that I ended up turning off the TV entirely. It stayed off the rest of the evening.
    I made hot spicy tomato jam instead. This stuff is to die for served with cornbread and BBQ ribs.

  14. I really think anyone who remotely paid attention during 7th grade chemistry class understands deep down that true science isn’t — and will never be — an exercise in coercive totalitarian groupthink.
    I’m sick of having to listen to the tulipomania of the day. Someday this bubble of idiocy will burst.

  15. The goal is “zero growth”
    http://www.weaselzippers.net/blog/2009/07/obamas-science-adviser-called-for-placing-caps-on-economy-to-strive-for-zero-economic-growth.html
    Because it’s good for the planet.
    http://www.americansolutions.com/energytax/2009/10/kerry-killing-the-economy-is-how-we-reduce-emissions.php
    The insanity has only just begun. Then, if we can put some breaks on it in 2010, maybe we can bring it to a halt in 2012. And, to do it right and sustain a victory, we’ll have to be as relentless at restoration as they were at destruction. If not, they will only come back again. Education is the key, and at the moment it’s held by the Left.

  16. This is no doubt how the agenda intends to respond to it’s losses in 2 states today. When there is an accident ahead, you slow down, not hit the gas.
    Yes, Sen. Graham should know better, as should the Chamber of Commerce. It’s dump ’em time, and American are paying attention to who’s listening and who has taken leave of their senses.
    We are not stupid. Even the family dog gets it that America is flat broke.
    We look at it all day long. Supermaket shock, business closures, no jobs, gas prices, bills, fees everywhere, cut services, empty houses, homelessness, you name it. 24-7.

  17. ALARM ALARM ALARM
    Cap&Trade can be a done deal by Tuesday the 10th of November!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    This is how the USA is going to lose it’s freedom, by a coup:
    E&E News: Reid gives Boxer green light for nuclear option
    November 4, 2009
    Posted by: David Lungren David_Lungren@epw.senate.gov
    In Case You Missed It . . .
    E&E News
    Reid gives Boxer green light for ‘nuclear option’
    By: Darren Samuelsohn, E&E senior reporter
    November 04, 2009
    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has given the chairwoman of the Environment and Public Works Committee the go-ahead to advance global warming legislation by Tuesday if Republicans have not ended their boycott by then, according to three sources close to the process.
    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=c15c16fb-802a-23ad-497c-f7da55bc23ee
    Also read: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2009/11/kerry_graham_lieberman_announc.html

  18. I’ve found the perfect metaphor of what is now going on:
    ” Increasingly, the road to Copenhagen resembles a suburban street on Halloween with the number of climate change freak shows and stunts reaching a nadir in recent weeks. Nicholas Stern says we should turn vegetarian in order to combat climate change. If you must eat meat, eat kangaroos, says Ross Garnaut, because…”
    http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/janetalbrechtsen/index.php
    h/t Icecap

  19. So, will Apple, Nike, and their socialist brethren be rejoining the Chamber of Cowards?
    Maybe it’s time to start boycotting any businesses who continue as members.

  20. I was so looking forward to changing to Apple, tho more expensive, at the next opportunity before I found out all this (detest GatesI). Any other alternatives?
    Maybe it would be better try to get fired, go on the dole, just go back to the land, eat homegrown goat, rabbit and the ubiquitous chestnuts and grapes (not so hard to make your own wine), grow my own tobacco, pot and morning glories (in addition to the usual). On cold nights, I’ll put up a tent and sleep with my tomato plants to keep them warm and give them a little extra CO2.
    The world is clearly going to hell in a handbasket, insanity reigns.
    OK, I’ll recover, still ready to go down fighting.

  21. It appears that the yahoos in Washington are determined–and desperate–to shove Cap & Tax and government-controlled health care down the throats of the citizenry. Polls show that a majority of Americans want neither. These strong-arm tactics are energizing a backlash that will be felt at the polls next November. All incumbents should be nervous.

  22. There’s a lot to be said for remaining neutral when politicians and maniacs are jumping up and down about anything. It’s very hard to fight the inmates of an Insane Asylum (no slight intended), City Hall, and The White House all at once. It reminds me of Halloween. Now that the kids are grown, we just shut off the lights and huddle up inside watching the boob tube or reading. I applaud the courage of the few at the USCC who sought to fight the tide of stupidity washing the world’s elite but felt they were jumping into the deep end without their water wings. Sometimes silence really is golden. True! Someone oughta try. Wonder whats going to happen next year during the medterm election? Maybe we’ll wise up and replace everyone up for reelection with a Real Nerd.

  23. I trust that CEI will now be writing to all chamber members, explaining what has happened (most small businesses are too busy trying to survive to notice the big game being played with them as pawns), what the consequences will be to them if cap & trade is passed and why the chamber has sold them down the river for the sake of political expediency. Let’s hope the members take the message on board and vote with their feet.
    There is still hope.

  24. Invest in sackcloth, ashes, crow and eggs.
    The AGW movement is like a wagon with a sign on it that when translated says “All fools please board. Next stop is disgrace.” I notice my least favorite people from both the left and right are boarding. There but for the grace of God go I.

  25. Mark Bowlin (18:27:42) :
    The Chamber had an admirable position based on principle, and now has endorsed a calamitous policy (because of an op-ed?). Between this and AARP endorsing the Pelosi healthcare bill, it makes you wonder if there are any organizations left with integrity.
    re: AARP – that organization is not run by the “members”, one pays but there are no votes for boardmembers, nor is there any accountability to the “members”. Mostly, the executives do as they please – and earn righteous amounts of money.
    The Chamber has political types at the top, and they cave under pressure from the big constituents whose oxen are going to be severely Gored, if they don’t play along (sorry, I couldn’t help myself). Those of us who haven’t been active politically, better get with it, now! The situation is getting close to irreversible using normal political processes.

  26. The loss of small businesses is what kills small communities. I drive through Wallowa County and see empty small store fronts lining main streets all the way to Wallowa Lake. Even the tourist trap stores in Joseph are having a hard time selling $2.00 souvenirs made in Bangladesh. But who cares? We can’t fill political coffers like big business top level managers can. One donation from each of their management employees in a single business can equal an entire state’s small business contributions so why care about us? Red or blue, hell even the multicolored, politicians represent their contributors. Period.

  27. yonason (00:07:13) :
    The goal is “zero growth”
    [fast forward]
    Because it’s good for the planet.
    [fast forward]
    Education is the key, and at the moment it’s held by the Left.

    Dishonest banking going back to 1913 (and 1694) is the key. It causes the boom/bust cycle which in turn leads to calls for more socialism/government control. It has produced mal-growth. Counterfeit money is the root of much of the evil today.

  28. The CoC knows this is bad for business and yet is climbing on board anyway. Jeers to them. I hope the manufacturers they represent abandon them in droves.
    All I can hope is that the focus on health care prevents a U.S. climate change bill before 2010, when hopefully the Repubs pick up a few senate seats. At least an expensive health care bill would theoretically have benefits, unlike a carbon tax which will simply strangle economic growth.

  29. We are all in a lifeboat, togather…and our nominal leaders have decided that we can solve our problems by punching holes in the bottom of the boat…at this point, all the rest of us can do is learn to swim…it is a long way to shore….
    We can look forward to three more years of this…so very, very sad…I would be depressed about the whole thing, except that history tells me that we have a system that brings out real leaders when we really need them and a population that can be ruthlessly pragmatic when the situation arrises…interesting times indeed….
    cdl

  30. From the Op-Ed piece that brought on this change of heart…
    “First, we agree that climate change is real and threatens our economy and national security. That is why we are advocating aggressive reductions in our emissions of the carbon gases that cause climate change.”
    I don’t mind too much the use of climate change instead of global warming in the first sentence. No one argues that climate doesn’t change. However, using the Switch in the second sentence strains credibility. The Team believes carbon gases cause global warming and runaway global warming at that. Reducing emissions only helps if the hockey stick is true and if the Ice Age cycle is broken.
    Sounds pedantic, but they can’t have it both ways, can they?

  31. Ron de Haan (01:22:27) :
    ALARM ALARM ALARM
    Cap&Trade can be a done deal by Tuesday the 10th of November!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Referred to by Lord Monckton as “The X-box and PlayStation 360s” Thou dost protest too much.
    Chamber of Commerce, noun
    [C] (plural chambers of commerce)
    “an organization consisting of people in business, who work together to improve business in their town or local area.” Cambridge Dictionary
    By definition Chambers of Commerce are local representative bodies for businesses to establish and grow relationships with their communities. This will never change as good, small business owners care little about big lobbying groups like the US Chamber. Big lobbying is fraught with lots of back channel DC politics like the unreported visit by the White House to the Chamber recently:
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29132.html
    The original letter sent by the Chamber is signed by R. Bruce Josten without title. This is bad form and the authors of the exercise should be reprimanded for failure to conform to proper letter-writing etiquette!
    From the US Chamber letter:
    “The Chamber will continue to oppose bad policies that resemble the failed climate proposals of the past, such as bills that jeopardize American jobs, create trade inequalities, leave open the Clean Air Act, open the door to CO2-based mass tort litigation, and further hamper the permitting process for clean energy.”
    Throughout the letter reference to global climate change is made. Yet the bill under consideration is: S. 1733, the “Clean Energy Jobs and Power Act,” The Chamber’s stance and that of cogent Americans should be that unless and until there is irrefutable evidence of man-made CO2 caused climate change – the discussion is of an energy bill that will likely have little effect on global climate or weather. i.e. drop the alarmist language and you’ll get more support.

  32. Holy crap. But I won’t add any condolences to the U.S. economy yet because the death will likely be a gradual one.
    CEI et al. should really allow institutional members and gain a more mainstream status in many segments of the society.

  33. Kendra (06:21:35) :
    I was so looking forward to changing to Apple, tho more expensive, at the next opportunity before I found out all this (detest GatesI). Any other alternatives? . . .

    Go ahead and switch. I’ve been using Macs since 1987, and still love ’em, despite the insane left-wing politics their board avows.
    Rush Limbaugh is also a die-hard Mac user and advocate. The Mac OS is just better. So if it’s good enough for Rush (and me), it should be good for any conservative.
    BTW, didn’t the Goracle leave the Apple board?
    /Mr Lynn

  34. Wasn’t there a hoax press release put out in mid October saying pretty much the same as this story? Is that same environmental activist group at it again? Has the Chamber actually had a spokesman come out and confirm this? I find it hard to believe the Chamber made the same 180 that was a hoax 3 weeks ago.

  35. This thread (and the Chamber’s cowardly action) reminded me that I should fire off a letter to Sen. Graham. So I did, via the Comments page on his website, http://lgraham.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.EmailSenatorGraham
    Here’s the letter:


    Dear Senator Graham:
    I was greatly disappointed to see you endorsing so-called ‘climate change’ legislation along with the Senator from my state, John Kerry, whose support for far-left causes is unremitting.
    Senator Kerry knows nothing about the issue. For expertise, talk to Senator Inhofe, who has devoted much time to the science.
    I urge you to take a hard look at the science, which clearly demonstrates that the very modest warming in the last two decades of the 20th century were neither unusual, nor unprecedented (the 1930s were just as warm, and the Medieval Warm Period, when the Vikings farmed in Greenland, was much warmer).
    Since 1998 there has been no warming, only cooling.
    Carbon dioxide is a trace gas in the atmosphere (380 parts per MILLION) that is essential for all plant and animal life. It is not a ‘pollutant’ or a hazard to mankind or the planet. The human contribution to atmospheric CO2 is only 4% of that 380 ppm. The principal ‘greenhouse gas’ in the atmosphere is water vapor.
    The alarmist climate modelers assume that water vapor multiplies the tiny effect of CO2 in trapping atmospheric heat. Recent studies have shown this to be false. I will list a few websites below where you can pursue these issues.
    Throughout the climatic history of the Earth, CO2 does not precede increased temperature; CO2 FOLLOWS it! The alarmists have the causation backwards. CO2 dissolves better in colder water. When the oceans warm, they release CO2 into the atmosphere.
    Alarmists like Al Gore and Jim Hansen misrepresent the science deliberately. That is because, like the UN IPCC itself, they are not really interested in “saving the planet.” Their aim is a system of (what Al Gore called) “global governance.”
    Are you in favor of ceding US sovereignty to a socialist global entity that can control our energy use and consumption? That is what the so-called ‘Cap and Trade’ bills in the Congress will lead to: read the treaty proposed for the Copenhagen conference in December.
    The IPCC has committed scientific fraud in pursuit of goals first enunciated by the Club of Rome. The Pied Piper of climate alarmism has led Western governments to funnel vast sums into research, which in turn has ensnared thousands of well-intentioned scientists into fashioning grant proposals that conform to the ideology of ‘climate change’, just to get grant money and keep their academic positions.
    But the tide is turning. The climate is cooling, the Sun is quiet, and more and more scientists are beginning to realize that they have been victims of a process of ‘group think’ and too-ready acceptance of an hypothesis (CO2-driven, anthropogenic global warming) that has no basis in fact.
    The science is NOT settled! Please reconsider your support for the egregious legislation known out here in the hinterlands as ‘Crap and Tax’.
    It is hard to imagine a Republican advocating a new tax on energy (which this will create), one that will hit ordinary working people the hardest, and during a recession no less!
    Thanks for your attention.
    Some web sources:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com
    http://www.climateaudit.org/
    http://www.icecap.us/
    http://climatedepot.com/
    and many, many others.

    /Mr Lynn

  36. Tim Huck says:

    The Team believes carbon gases cause global warming and runaway global warming at that.

    No, they are arguing that it causes a significant warming but not “runaway global warming” in any sense that this term is usually used.

    Reducing emissions only helps if the hockey stick is true….

    No…The “hockey stick” is just one of the lines of evidence of AGW and the most circumstantial one at that. In principle, it is possible to have the late 20th century not be the warmest period in the last 1200 years and still have AGW be correct (and, conversely, it is possible to have the late 20th century be the warmest period in the last 1200 years and still not have AGW be correct). At any rate, most scientists in the field still believe that the second half of the 20th century is in fact the warmest 50-year period in the last 1200 years, although the difficulties associated with temperature proxies make it difficult to assess the confidence in that conclusion.

    …and if the Ice Age cycle is broken.

    No. The ice age cycle operates on significantly longer timescales. It takes thousands of years to descend into a glacial period. And, the original notion that we were about due for the next glacial period is no longer believed to be correct because of the current low eccentricity of the earth’s orbit….It is likely to be another 30000 years or so. The closest analog to our current interglacial is probably the one about 400,000 years ago, which lasted a fair bit longer than our interglacial has lasted thus far.
    Furthermore, the amount of greenhouse gases that we are putting into the atmosphere are understood to be enough to overwhelm the orbital effects that trigger the ice age – interglacial cycles.

  37. And as for the GOP boycott of the climate change bill, which only Dems voted on:
    “Specter said that the vote would send a signal to other countries in advance of a climate change conference next month to hammer out a new international treaty.
    “It is not the best signal, but it is a signal that the Senate is ready to move forward,” he said. ”
    Not the best signal, how right you are, Arlen. It says America is poised to become a SuperVictim Nation, and it plans to sacrifice it’s small business along with the destruction of the bulk of the remaining economy.

  38. “Sounds pedantic, but they can’t have it both ways, can they?”Tlm Huck
    But of course they can. They will claim that it (CO2) leads to climate “extremes”.
    This jello will take a lot of patient nailing.
    My thanks to all you patient nailers. I predicted prior to 2002 that “heat” would eventually be a scare since it is inescapable when work is performed (if I remember my thermo correctly).
    I was accused of being insane. Perhaps. But it gives me insight into the other side.

  39. Joel Shore
    “And, the original notion that we were about due for the next glacial period is no longer believed to be correct because of the current low eccentricity of the earth’s orbit….It is likely to be another 30000 years or so.”
    Eccentricity is the weakest of the orbital cycles – the earth’s obliquity is more important by far. But as we don’t understand enough about climate, who can say when we are due?
    “At any rate, most scientists in the field still believe that the second half of the 20th century is in fact the warmest 50-year period in the last 1200 years,”
    Completely untrue. There is, and has been a consensus for many decades that a medieval period existed that was warmer than today and global. There are over 200 papers that span botany, zoology, archeology and history, that testify to this. They are appearing all the time. Just recently there was a paper showing that the Inca civilization enjoyed a warm period around 1000AD. Those scientists that disagree with this consensus come down to a handful based around the hockey stick team. Paradoxically, it is the IPCC that tell us we should listen to the consensus, but in this instance they are doing the exact opposite.
    Memo from Overpeck: “We must get rid of the medieval warm period.” I rest my case.

  40. I gave AARP the boot years ago because they were lobbying to impoverish my children and grandchildren by spending money on my peers, the greediest generation in the history of the nation.
    Now the CofC has lost its collective mind. Google their site and read their manifesto which, under the circumstances, is
    hilarious.
    Don’t own much stock anymore, but will divest any companies which are members of CofC on Dec 1. Gonna buy gold and bury it in the backyard.

  41. I thought the CoC had filed a lawsuit opposing this nonsense. A backflip of Olympic proportions.
    Richard (18:35:22) :
    “America is rapidly on its way to becoming a second rate power.”
    No power. Wind isn’t that reliable. Just second rate.
    Now a Sterling engine connected to Congress …

  42. I wonder what Antarctica is for?
    I see practical fusion is drawing near. If and when that happens, it will be interesting to see if that is attacked.
    Anti-growth people, I understand your hysteria but it is the banker’s fault, just like people have been saying for hundreds of years.
    Fix the banking model and we WILL have sustainable growth and prosperity. Otherwise:
    Booms, busts, depressions
    and never ending war.

    and continued environmental damage.

  43. wsbriggs (07:03:20) :
    Mark Bowlin (18:27:42) :
    The Chamber had an admirable position based on principle, and now has endorsed a calamitous policy (because of an op-ed?). Between this and AARP endorsing the Pelosi healthcare bill, it makes you wonder if there are any organizations left with integrity.
    re: AARP – that organization is not run by the “members”, one pays but there are no votes for boardmembers, nor is there any accountability to the “members”. Mostly, the executives do as they please – and earn righteous amounts of money.

    Which is why instead of joining AARP I signed up with American Seniors Association (americanseniors.org) , at least ASA does not automatically support big government programs.
    Likewise, I would like to know if anyone here knows of a list of the major corporations who are actively supporting cap and trade, so I can change my purchasing habits accordingly.
    As far as Apple vs Microsoft, use an intel/amd X86 family computer and run a linux system such as Ubuntu, ( http://www.ubuntu.com/ ). That is what I will be running when I build my next system.
    Larry

  44. Retired Engineer (12:13:10) : Richard (18:35:22) : “America is rapidly on its way to becoming a second rate power.”
    No power. Wind isn’t that reliable. Just second rate. Now a Sterling engine connected to Congress …

    Completely powerless? Thanks to tree hugging advocates like Joel Shore?

  45. Joel Shore (10:45:34) : “…The “hockey stick” is just one of the lines of evidence of AGW and the most circumstantial one at that. In principle, it is possible to have the late 20th century not be the warmest period in the last 1200 years and still have AGW be correct ..
    1. It is NO EVIDENCE – IT IS A FABRICATION AND A LIE !
    The rest of your argument is a load of cr..p. In 1990 the IPCC specifically said that they couldnt assign a specific cause to the current warming because THEY DID NOT KNOW what caused the past GREATER WARMINGS.
    They still dont know but a lot of people spent a considerable amount of time and money to fraudulently remove the past warmings.
    It maybe still possible for AGW to be correct, as you say, in that it could have caused some of the current warming, but then it would be on equal footing with a million other theories including perhaps the flying spaghetti monster.

  46. Hey Joel, since you brought it up…
    “The “hockey stick” is just one of the lines of evidence of AGW and the most circumstantial one at that”
    Why don’t you elaborate on the CAUSAL evidence for AGW?
    If you can, Steve Milloy has $500,000 waiting for you. There’s probably a Nobel Prize too.
    Here’s guaranteeing you won’t. Thanks for playing…

  47. Joel Shore (10:45:34) :
    “Furthermore, the amount of greenhouse gases that we are putting into the atmosphere are understood to be enough to overwhelm the orbital effects that trigger the ice age – interglacial cycles.”
    Do you have a source for this?
    “No. The ice age cycle operates on significantly longer timescales. It takes thousands of years to descend into a glacial period.”
    True with respect to acknowledged glacial periodicity. But there are incidents of rapid climate cooling that cannot be explained by Milankovitch or other orbital dynamics. For example the Younger Dryas cooling of 12,000 years ago. This event began and ended within a decade and for its 1000 year duration the North Atlantic region was about 5°C colder.
    The only mechanism to explain these effects seems to be ocean dynamics which we are learning plays a much larger role in climate than anthropogenic additions to trace gases.
    The National Academies has published on the need for more research to explain abrupt climate change which acknowledges natural climate variability long before burning of fossil fuels.
    http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309074347&page=1

  48. Just checked the C of C blog post . Most of the comments were negative , but none have been posted in a few hours . Have they shut down the comments ? BTW , I recognized the names of a couple of commenters who also post here . Guess who was all for it .

  49. Robert Wood (18:31:26) – 4/11:
    This is just sooo suicidal! American Capitalists, where are you????
    There are very few if they are large. They all are Global Capitalists these days and can make a much greater profit in developing countries (China, India, etc.) or by bringing foreign workers to the U.S. either on “work visas” or as illegal aliens. Unfortunately Bush was a Global Capitalist enabler — Enron saw all the goodies in cap-and-trade and so did Bush. The Republicans are most fundamentally responsible for the financial boondoggle (Paulson).
    The banks are not our banks. The honchos of the Chamber of Commerce are not American corporations anymore. General Electric is not an American Corporation; “we” don’t own our main media outlets anymore. American education is not designed to produce the best and the brightest; it is purposefully designed to give mediocracy. Many children with the guidance of their parents fight the system and strive for excellence. Middle class Americans with their community requirements, smarts, and good business sense are too expensive for Global Corporations. The latter, in company with George Soros and his leftist ilk (but remember he used/uses thuggish capitalist free market methods to gain his billions), funded Obama’s campaign, took over the DNC, and managed all the fraud (ACORN, etc) that went along with it.
    Now these Global Corporations of the Chamber of Commerce have all their special dispensations so that not one of the honchos will suffer from cap-and-trade. We know how that back-room trading goes. Something like the UN “food for oil” program.
    We must stop this now. November 3rd was a decent start, but we’ve a long way to go. Are we sure Glenn Beck “only” had an appendix problem? As ar as I can see, he one of the few in the “global corporate mass media” who is teaching anything about these serious problems.

  50. Climate policy imperils China and India.
    “China should roughly halve its greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 to keep the world on a safe climate path, the head of the U.S. delegation at U.N. climate talks in Barcelona said on Thursday.
    The EU/UN/Al Gore CO2 “stabilization” goal — 450 parts per million by 2050 — would require heroic (suicidal?) sacrifices on the part of developing countries. Stabilization at 450 ppm would require, at a minimum, a 50% reduction in global emissions by 2050. Because most of all the increase in global emissions over the next four decades (indeed, the next 90 years) is projected to come from developing countries, meeting the stabilization target would require developing countries to lower their emissions more than 60% below baseline projections even if industrial countries magically achieve zero net emissions by 2050!”
    What does this mean?
    Just think with me.
    1. If China at Copenhagen signs up to a 50% CO2 reduction goal, and Europe and the USA to a 80% to 95% reduction goal, this will mean that China still is a Nation by 2050 and Europe and the USA will have ceased to exist.
    2. There is no talk about Russia in this article, Russia is not mentioned anywhere?
    3. A voluntary Economic Suicide of Western Europe and the USA would leave China and Russia as blossoming Nations by the year 2100, even if they commit to reduce their CO2 levels by 50% by 2050.
    5. Viewed from the geopolitical view from twenty years ago, the moment the Cold War ended, this would mean that the outcome of the Cold War would be reversed if we signed up to Copenhagen in December under these conditions.
    Conclusion:
    The entire AGW hocus pocus is nothing more but a Communist Plot to get rid of the free World.
    Do you now understand where we are fighting against?
    Do you now understand why Obama reversed the decision to install a missile shield
    in Western Europe?
    Do you now understand why Obama does not act against Iran?
    Do you now understand why we have so many radicals in the Obama Administration?
    It’s because the Russians are pulling the strings.
    Twenty years after the Iron Curtain fell, the West has arrived at the point where it is going to lose the “Cold War”.
    The Russians only have to adapt to Communism again (which they will, be sure of that) and the entire World will be under “Communist Control”.
    Longer wars have been fought in human history and the Russians, they are excellent
    chess players.
    Does this make any sense to you or not?
    http://www.globalwarming.org/2009/11/05/climate-policy-imperils-china-india/

  51. For the record there are two sepearate positions at play here.
    1) The Chamber Law Suit is directed at the EPA ruling which is a regulary agency set to fill the void caused by inaction in the Congress.
    2) The Chamber has been a Pro-AGW Group for years and presented its policy framework this spring to then President Elect Obama.
    http://www.energyxxi.org/reports/Transition_Plan.pdf
    There is no change in stance, they oppose regulation of GHG by the EPA because that would hurt their largest members but support the rent-seeking Cap and Trade system for those same companies who are set to raise energy prices via deployment of token renewable projects and clean up on the trading of free credits. They also take as agreement the capitulation of members hoping to boost their brand image with some green paint. The Chamber represents the Large Corporate World and not the interests of most small and mid sized companies.
    Nothing new here.

  52. PaulK
    Lindsay Graham has obviously lost his conservative mind, a sad day indeed.

    Paul, I am not sure what island you’ve been marooned on, Graham has an R behind his name, but he’s no conservative. From the standpoint of the Tea Partiers, Lindsay Graham is rePUBLICan ENEMY #1. I know for a fact that there is a search underway to find a candidate who can knock him off in the primary. With Republicans like Lindsay Graham, who needs Democrats.
    http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/PhotoPopup.aspx?id=511405

  53. “”” Alex (07:30:00) :
    The CoC knows this is bad for business and yet is climbing on board anyway. Jeers to them. I hope the manufacturers they represent abandon them in droves.
    All I can hope is that the focus on health care prevents a U.S. climate change bill before 2010, when hopefully the Repubs pick up a few senate seats. At least an expensive health care bill would theoretically have benefits, unlike a carbon tax which will simply strangle economic growth. “””
    So where’s your peer reviewed evidence that an expensive health care bill would theoretically have benefits.
    For a practical demonstration of Obama/Pelosi/Reid’s version of government mandated Socialized medicine; go down to your local pharmacy and wait in line for a H1N1 swine flu shot; a project which is totally managed by the Federal Government that y’alls elected to run stuff for you.
    I can’t believe some of the comments here about what some people think is their right to choose to do; while they rant about something else they want the government to control; presumably for other people of course.
    That kind of selective morality is what folks like Lindsey Graham live for.
    If everybody following their own true anarchistic bents elects to have governmnet provide for just the things they want done; the result is a government that can give you anything you want; and also take everything you have.

  54. @George Smith: Correct, again, George. I just want what the founders wanted: As little government as possible, and the people decide what is possible.

  55. Vincent says:

    Eccentricity is the weakest of the orbital cycles – the earth’s obliquity is more important by far.

    But when the eccentricity is small, the difference in insolation between the Northern and Southern Hemisphere summers is small…and it is the insolation during the Northern Hemisphere summer at moderately high latitudes that is thought to be important in determining whether the ice sheets can grow.

    Completely untrue. There is, and has been a consensus for many decades that a medieval period existed that was warmer than today and global. There are over 200 papers that span botany, zoology, archeology and history, that testify to this. They are appearing all the time. Just recently there was a paper showing that the Inca civilization enjoyed a warm period around 1000AD. Those scientists that disagree with this consensus come down to a handful based around the hockey stick team.

    Until Mann et al.’s work, there had been no attempt to construct a global…or even hemispherical…temperature record. For certain regions, there may have been times in a broadly defined ~500 year period denoted as the MWP when temperatures were higher than today. However, the periods of warmth tended to be asynchronous in different regions and hence the global or hemispherical average for that period shows a broad shallow bump rather than a narrow steep rise as it does today. Even the oft-cited plot that appeared in the first IPCC report, which was only really schematic and based mainly on estimates from Europe, did not show the MWP to be any warmer than the late 20th century once one extends the plot from where it left off (1970 or there-abouts) to the present day using instrumental temperatures.
    Indiana Bones says:

    True with respect to acknowledged glacial periodicity. But there are incidents of rapid climate cooling that cannot be explained by Milankovitch or other orbital dynamics. For example the Younger Dryas cooling of 12,000 years ago. This event began and ended within a decade and for its 1000 year duration the North Atlantic region was about 5°C colder.

    These sharp events, which are likely large changes in climate in different regions (and even different signs in different regions) but perhaps not so much in the global mean seem to have occurred during glacial conditions or the transformation out of them and may be due to cataclysmic events such as the failure of a large land sheet ice dam that caused a huge influx of freshwater into the North Atlantic.
    P Walker says:

    Guess who was all for it .

    I give up. 😉
    Derek D says:

    Why don’t you elaborate on the CAUSAL evidence for AGW?
    If you can, Steve Milloy has $500,000 waiting for you. There’s probably a Nobel Prize too.

    I’ve elaborated on it before. As has Real Climate ( http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/the-co2-problem-in-6-easy-steps/ ). As has the IPCC.
    As for the Steve Milloy ploy, that is a gimmick based on the fact that science does not operate by proof but by the weight of the evidence. Hence, with Milloy as judge and jury, the evidence will never be sufficient. If you don’t believe this, see this similar prize offered: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind.html

  56. Weather events can steepen or lessen a linear trend in one season. So Joel, tell me again how this whole shebang is somehow not weather!

  57. Folks, the gorebots have their marching orders. They’ve been wound up and aimed in this direction:
    “We’ve got to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period!”
    So a little honesty is called for at this point, to counteract the following contortions pretending that the MWP was not a global event. Joel Shore spins as follows:

    “Until Mann et al.’s work, there had been no attempt to construct a global…or even hemispherical…temperature record. For certain regions, there may have been times in a broadly defined ~500 year period denoted as the MWP when temperatures were higher than today. However, the periods of warmth tended to be asynchronous in different regions and hence the global or hemispherical average for that period shows a broad shallow bump rather than a narrow steep rise as it does today. Even the oft-cited plot that appeared in the first IPCC report, which was only really schematic and based mainly on estimates from Europe, did not show the MWP to be any warmer than the late 20th century once one extends the plot from where it left off (1970 or there-abouts) to the present day using instrumental temperatures.”

    Well, that’s just not true. But marching orders are marching orders. It is very easy to refute the revisionist history claiming that the MWP was not global. I’ll leave the deconstruction to an acknowledged expert on the subject:

    U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works
    Hearing Statements
    Statement of Dr. David Deming
    University of Oklahoma
    College of Earth and Energy
    Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, and distinguished guests, thank you for inviting me to testify today. I am a geologist and geophysicist. I have a bachelor’s degree in geology from Indiana University, and a Ph.D in geophysics from the University of Utah.
    My field of specialization in geophysics is temperature and heat flow. In recent years, I have turned my studies to the history and philosophy of science. In 1995, I published a short paper in the academic journal Science.
    In that study, I reviewed how borehole temperature data recorded a warming of about one degree Celsius in North America over the last 100 to 150 years. The week the article appeared, I was contacted by a reporter for National Public Radio. He offered to interview me, but only if I would state that the warming was due to human activity. When I refused to do so, he hung up on me.
    I had another interesting experience around the time my paper in Science was published. I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.”
    The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was a time of unusually warm weather that began around 1000 AD and persisted until a cold period known as the “Little Ice Age” took hold in the 14th century. Warmer climate brought a remarkable flowering of prosperity, knowledge, and art to Europe during the High Middle Ages.
    The existence of the MWP had been recognized in the scientific literature for decades. But now it was a major embarrassment to those maintaining that the 20th century warming was truly anomalous. It had to be “gotten rid of.”
    In 1769, Joseph Priestley warned that scientists overly attached to a favorite hypothesis would not hesitate to “warp the whole course of nature.” In 1999, Michael Mann and his colleagues published a reconstruction of past temperature in which the MWP simply vanished. This unique estimate became known as the “Hockey Stick,” because of the shape of the temperature graph.
    Normally in science, when you have a novel result that appears to overturn previous work, you have to demonstrate why the earlier work was wrong.
    But the work of Mann and his colleagues was initially accepted uncritically — even though it contradicted the results of more than 100 previous studies. Other researchers have since reaffirmed that the Medieval Warm Period was both warm and global in its extent.
    There is an overwhelming bias today in the media regarding the issue of global warming. In the past two years, this bias has bloomed into an irrational hysteria. Every natural disaster that occurs is now linked with global warming, no matter how tenuous or impossible the connection. As a result, the public has become vastly misinformed on this and other environmental issues.
    Earth’s climate system is complex and poorly understood. But we do know that throughout human history, warmer temperatures have been associated with more stable climates and increased human health and prosperity. Colder temperatures have been correlated with climatic instability, famine, and increased human mortality.
    The amount of climatic warming that has taken place in the past 150 years is poorly constrained, and its cause — human or natural — is unknown. There is no sound scientific basis for predicting future climate change with any degree of certainty. If the climate does warm, it is likely to be beneficial to humanity rather than harmful. In my opinion, it would be foolish to establish national energy policy on the basis of misinformation and irrational hysteria.
    [my emphasis]

    So we can see what’s happening here. Hundreds of studies have shown that the MWP was a global phenomenon. Those studies further debunk Mann’s MWP Hokey Stick — and they debunk the credibility of anyone else pretending that the MWP didn’t really happen.

  58. This is just sooo suicidal! American Capitalists, where are you???? – Robert Wood
    There are very few if they are large. – pyromancer
    Got it in one. Thanks to the hostile raiders in the 80’s and the WTO in 1995 the USA doesn’t have much industry left. and most is not OWNED by Americans.
    Statistics showed in 1990, before WTO was ratified, “..Foreign ownership of U.S. assets amounted to 33% of U.S. GDP. By 2002 this had increased to over 70% of U.S. GDP…” – http://www.fame.org/HTM/greg%20Pickup%201%2010%2003%20report.htm
    This is a sampling of the industries with over 50% foreign ownership, according to Source Watch http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Foreign_ownership_of_U.S._corporations
    * Sound recording industries – 97%
    * Commodity contracts dealing and brokerage – 79%
    * Motion picture and sound recording industries – 75%
    * Metal ore mining – 65%
    * Wineries and distilleries – 64%
    * Database, directory, Book and other publishers – 63%
    * Cement, concrete, lime, and gypsum product – 62%
    * Engine, turbine and power transmission equipment – 57%
    * Rubber product – 53%
    * Nonmetallic mineral product manufacturing – 53%
    * Plastics and rubber products manufacturing – 52%
    * Other insurance related activities – 51%
    * Boiler, tank, and shipping container – 50%
    * Glass and glass product – 48%
    * Coal mining – 48%
    A real eye opener isn’t it. But it gets worse. The Department of Homeland Security says “…80% of our ports are operated by Foreigners and they are buying and running US bridges and toll roads…” – http://www.alabamaeagle.org/issues.asp?action=form&formID=2105&recordID=131006
    “..An analysis of the 2007 financial markets of 48 countries shows the world’s finances are in the hands of a few mutual funds, banks, and corporations. This is the first report of global concentration of financial power ..” – http://www.insidescience.org/research/study_says_world_s_stocks_controlled_by_select_few
    The “harmonization” {see http://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm122049.htm} of first world agriculture laws with WTO wishes resulted in a massive transfer of land ownership from private to corporate worldwide. But the greedy cartels running the World Trade Organization are not satisfied with part of the cake they want it ALL.
    “..Up for grabs at the negotiating table is worldwide privatization and deregulation of public energy and water utilities, postal services, higher education and state alcohol distribution controls; a new right for foreign firms to obtain U.S. Small Business Administration loans; elimination of a list of specific U.S. state laws about land use, professional licensing and consumer protections, and extreme deregulation of private-sector service industries such as insurance, banking, mutual funds and securities…” – http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0305-02.htm

  59. Smokey,
    A skeptical person would ask, “What evidence has Demming given to back up that claim of the person who wrote the e-mail saying, We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.’?” Has Demming ever produced this e-mail so that we can read it? How do we know he did not mis-read, mis-remember, or misrepresent what was actually said?” A true-believer simply takes Demming’s claim at face-value.

    Hundreds of studies have shown that the MWP was a global phenomenon.

    You linked to one study (published in two places) that claimed to review the evidence from other studies. The two places that this paper appeared are (1) “Energy and Environment”, which is not a serious peer-reviewed journal and which is only received by a handful of libraries throughout the world and (2) a small climate science journal, where its publication caused a scandal because many of the editors, including the person just about to assume the role of Editor-in-Chief (Hans Von Storch) found the study to be seriously flawed and to state conclusions that were not supported by the data in the study, and these editors resigned from the journal en-masse. By the way, the publisher of the journal also admitted that the publication of this paper was an error…The only real point of disagreement between the publisher and those that resigned was whether or not this mistake was a one-time thing or evidence of more serious problems with the editorial policies of the journal. (See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Storch ).

    Those studies further debunk Mann’s MWP Hokey Stick — and they debunk the credibility of anyone else pretending that the MWP didn’t really happen.

    Now you link to a junk-science website which reviews the literature from their own biased point-of-view and furthermore does not address the main issue that is that one can’t just point to random studies of temperature in some random places showing warmth at some random times and then conclude anything about the global or hemispheric average temperature.
    If you want to read the actual scientific views regarding the current state of temperature reconstructions, you have to actually go to respected scientific reviews, such as the NAS one: http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676 (If you want to continue to believe what you want to believe irregardless of what the scientific community believes, you can just keep reading what you are reading, but don’t expect anyone outside your small cadre of true-believers to listen to what you have to say.)

  60. Joel Shore (07:58:38) :
    If you want to read the actual scientific views regarding the current state of temperature reconstructions, you have to actually go to respected scientific reviews, such as the NAS one: http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676
    ————–
    I think I’ll wait for the post-Briffa era edition before I order my copy.

  61. Joel Shore,
    So now you are cravenly implying — based on zero evidence — that Dr Deming lied in his testimony to Congress. That is as reprehensible as most alarmists ad hominem attacks; when they lack the facts, they attack the person.
    For those following Joel Shore’s endless commenting throughout the work week, I should make something clear: this debate is not between people who believe the globe is heating up and those who think the globe is cooling. That is what the alarmist contingent wants everyone to think. But it is a false comparison.
    The real debate is over the fact that the alarmist contingent has taken a scientifically dubious position, and they refuse to disclose the empirical evidence it’s based on; it’s a secret, see? Skeptics are expected to trust them.
    On the other side of the debate, skeptical scientists [which include all honest scientists] take the properly skeptical position that the alarmist contingent’s CO2=CAGW claims are based on non-empirical evidence, like their always inaccurate computer models, and on their published opinions, which reference other opinions in their clique in a circular argument, and on their adjusted, massaged, altered, cherry-picked and missing data, etc.
    This is not good enough for scientific skeptics. Skeptics demand the full and complete public archiving of all raw data and all methodologies used. But the alarmist crowd fights tooth and nail to withhold the data that they base their conclusions on. Their deliberate stonewalling is dubious, deceitful, and directly contrary to the scientific method.
    For the umpteenth time: Skeptics have nothing to prove. It is the job of the purveyors of the hypothesis that CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming to transparently provide all of the raw data and methodologies they used to arrive at their conclusions.
    But rather than cooperate, they stonewall requests for information. That means they have something to hide. They are hiding the empirical evidence that they assure us verifies their CAGW claim. [Always remember that computer models, and grant sniffing papers, etc., are not empirical, real world ‘evidence’. Raw data is evidence.]
    The fact that climate alarmists continue to withhold raw data and obstruct requests for cooperation at every opportunity is a red flag to every honest, skeptical, questioning scientist. Like a platoon of Elmer Gantrys, climate alarmists are saying “Trust us.” But what scientific skeptics hear them saying is: “You should buy this pig in a poke.”
    So the real argument isn’t whether the temperature is going up or down, or whether CO2 will lead to runaway global warming and climate catastrophe. The real question is: why does the alarmist crowd refuse to abide by the scientific method by hiding their actual raw data and methodologies? Why do the rest of them keep silent when their pals refuse to share information? That information is necessary for falsification; hiding the necessary information is extremely suspicious.
    What skeptics are saying is: “Convince us.” Show us exactly how you arrived at your CAGW conclusions. Show us all of your data, from start to finish.
    But the climate alarmists refuse to cooperate. They view scientific skeptics as the enemy, threatening their grant gravy train, rather than viewing skeptics in their proper role: seeking the truth through the scientific method. The truth is what matters in science, and withholding information means they are withholding what is necessary for finding the truth.
    Climate alarmists are not going to convince skeptics of anything until they provide complete and total transparency every step of the way. When information is requested, every honest scientist has an obligation to promptly provide it. Until they do, skeptics will remain rightly skeptical of their questionable claims. There is just too much money and control at stake to accept the alarmists’ plea to ‘trust’ them. First, cough up the data. Start diligently following the scientific method. Then, the climate alarmists will start to be seen as something other than shifty propagandists pushing a self-serving agenda.

  62. Joel Shore (19:13:15) :
    For example the Younger Dryas cooling of 12,000 years ago. This event began and ended within a decade and for its 1000 year duration the North Atlantic region was about 5°C colder.
    These sharp events, which are likely large changes in climate in different regions (and even different signs in different regions) but perhaps not so much in the global mean seem to have occurred during glacial conditions or the transformation out of them and may be due to cataclysmic events such as the failure of a large land sheet ice dam that caused a huge influx of freshwater into the North Atlantic.
    Joel, your standard rebut relies on appeal to authority. As this reply incorporates no such appeal, only imaginative speculation, I conclude that your answer is really, “I don’t know.” Even if an ice dam failed it would be evidence that abrupt climate change has occurred in the past as a result of natural phenomena and not by any action of man.
    “Furthermore, the amount of greenhouse gases that we are putting into the atmosphere are understood to be enough to overwhelm the orbital effects that trigger the ice age – interglacial cycles. See, for example, http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/11/13/2418491.htm
    In your defense of this statement you reference a link to an interpretation of a paper “Transient nature of late Pleistocene climate variability,” Nature 2008 Crowely and Hyde. As it remains behind a pay-wall I could not read the entire paper, however the abstract draws absolutely no conclusion in support of your link or your statement. Instead, the authors predict a rapid expansion of the Eurasian ice sheet and “permanent mid-latitude Northern Hemisphere glaciation,” in the near geologic future. i.e. your authority predicts a rapid transition to the next ice age with no mitigating effects of CO2 man-made or otherwise.
    To further support the argument that CO2 plays little or no role in Earth’s glaciation processes here are two studies – one suggesting extremely high levels of radiocarbon 14 during the last ice age, and another showing CO2 playing zero role in the lengthening periodicity of glaciation.
    http://uanews.org/node/4815
    http://www.usnews.com/science/articles/2009/06/22/carbon-dioxide-not-to-blame-in-ice-age-mystery.html
    Together Joel, this suggests unkempt attention to detail or an overt effort to disinform those who read your posts. Marching orders?

  63. philincalifornia:

    I think I’ll wait for the post-Briffa era edition before I order my copy.

    Bah…I haven’t been following this whole saga in gory detail since it is not the aspect of climate science that I find most interesting, but it appears that, like most of McIntyre’s stuff, it is a way overblown making of mountains out of molehills. See http://deepclimate.org/2009/10/30/briffa-teaches-but-will-mcintyre-ever-learn/ and references therein.
    Smokey says:

    So now you are cravenly implying — based on zero evidence — that Dr Deming lied in his testimony to Congress. That is as reprehensible as most alarmists ad hominem attacks; when they lack the facts, they attack the person.

    No…I gave three possibilities: “How do we know he did not mis-read, mis-remember, or misrepresent what was actually said?” You know, I am being skeptical…just like you want everyone to be. Oh, never mind, we are only supposed to be skeptical about certain things.

    That is as reprehensible as most alarmists ad hominem attacks; when they lack the facts, they attack the person.

    You mean like attacking S. Robert Lichter and dubbing the STATS poll a “push poll” when you don’t like the results (even though that organization has much stronger ties to the Right than the Left)?

    For the umpteenth time: Skeptics have nothing to prove. It is the job of the purveyors of the hypothesis that CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming to transparently provide all of the raw data and methodologies they used to arrive at their conclusions.

    (1) Just repeating something doesn’t make it true. You can keep thinking that you and your so-called “skeptic” friends have no responsibilities and the responsibility always falls on someone else. (I thought that you conservatives believed in personal responsibility…Or is that just for other people?) However, the fact is that the science has advanced well beyond that point and in fact AGW is a part of the accepted scientific theory in the field of climate science. So, sorry, but you cannot dictate to the scientific community what they should do…Or, you can try, but they will simply ignore you, as they should.
    (2) The data and methodologies have been provided to the extent that they are required by journals, funding agencies, and the like. In many cases, scientists have gone well beyond these requirements, which I think is great and should be encouraged, although it should not be required just because there are a group of people who feel the rules should be different for them than for everybody else. What Briffa, for example, did not do is violate agreements with collaborators by releasing their data when they had shared their data in confidence with him; instead, he referred McIntyre to these collaborators to ask for the data directly. McIntyre apparently got this data and then (under some pretty lame excuse that he wasn’t absolutely sure it was the right data), he apparently continued to pretend that he didn’t have the data and to demand that Briffa provide him with it.

  64. Indiana Bones says:

    Even if an ice dam failed it would be evidence that abrupt climate change has occurred in the past as a result of natural phenomena and not by any action of man.

    Your point being what exactly?

    In your defense of this statement you reference a link to an interpretation of a paper “Transient nature of late Pleistocene climate variability,” Nature 2008 Crowely and Hyde. As it remains behind a pay-wall I could not read the entire paper, however the abstract draws absolutely no conclusion in support of your link or your statement.

    I don’t have access to Nature either. And yes, everything in the paper is not in the abstract. That is why I linked to that news article that discusses this aspect of their paper in more detail.

    To further support the argument that CO2 plays little or no role in Earth’s glaciation processes here are two studies – one suggesting extremely high levels of radiocarbon 14 during the last ice age, and another showing CO2 playing zero role in the lengthening periodicity of glaciation.

    Those articles don’t make the argument that CO2 plays little or no role in Earth’s glaciation processes here are two studies. The first study simply discusses a spike in the carbon-14 isotope and I am not sure how it relates to anything that you want to relate it to. The second study discusses whether or not CO2 played a role in the change in the periodicity of glaciation about 1,000,000 years ago is a very different question…and one that I think remains unsettled at any rate. (No one paper can be definitive, particularly when it is so new that other scientists have not yet had the time to react to it.)

    Together Joel, this suggests unkempt attention to detail or an overt effort to disinform those who read your posts. Marching orders?

    My goal is to inform. I leave the disinformation to others, some of whom seem to be quite skilled at it. And, I take marching orders from noone.

  65. Joel:
    My first point is that abrupt climate change of the order now being touted as caused by AGW, occurrs as natural variation in the past.
    A careful reading of the ABC article interpreting the Crowley paper fudges what Crowley says. Had CO2’s insular effect against oncoming ice age been a focus of the paper – it would have been in the abstract. It was not.
    The two studies I cite both attest to the theory that atmospheric CO2 levels have little to do with the onset or continuance of ice ages or glaciation.
    Thank you for acknowledging who you do take your orders from: I have long been an admirer of Mr. Noone, making it hard to decide the better of his two works: “A Kind of Hush, or Mrs. Brown…” This explains in part your rogue behavior and recalcitrant posts.
    http://www.peternoone.com/

  66. Indiana Bones says:

    My first point is that abrupt climate change of the order now being touted as caused by AGW, occurrs as natural variation in the past.

    As I pointed out before, we don’t have a very good idea of what the global temperature change was and there seems to be some thinking that it was quite small even though regional changes were large. But, whether or not this is so, I don’t really understand what you think this proves. We know that significant climate variations occurred in the past and, in fact, this provides evidence of just how sensitive the climate system is to perturbations and also raises potential issues such as whether the warming that we are causing could lead to a slowdown or shutdown of the ocean’s thermohaline circulation.

    A careful reading of the ABC article interpreting the Crowley paper fudges what Crowley says. Had CO2’s insular effect against oncoming ice age been a focus of the paper – it would have been in the abstract. It was not.

    Well, it turns out that one can find a copy of the full paper on the web (with the help of Google Scholar, which is an excellent resource): http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/postgraduate/MSc/gisSociety/news/Crowley_Hyde_Nature08-1.pdf The issue is not a major focus of this particular paper but is something that they mention:

    For the best-fit run, transition to the large Eurasian ice sheet occurs shortly after the present (Fig. 5a). Our results therefore suggest that the actual climate system may have been geologically close (104–105 yr) to the final phase of a 50-Myr evolution from bipolar warm climates to permanent bipolar glaciation. (Presumably, future society could prevent this transition indefinitely with very modest adjustments to the atmospheric CO2 level.)

    Indiana Bones says:

    The two studies I cite both attest to the theory that atmospheric CO2 levels have little to do with the onset or continuance of ice ages or glaciation.

    Frankly, that seems to be grasping at straws. As for the paper regarding the change in the periodicity of the glacial cycles, it would certainly be testament to CO2’s large importance if it were responsible for this change in periodicity but I hardly think the conclusion (of that particular paper) that it was not responsible implies that CO2 plays no significant role in the ice age – interglacial cycles. (From estimates of the various radiative forcings involved, CO2 is believed to be responsible for about 1/3 of the temperature change between the glacial and interglacial periods…and is also believed to play an important role in sychronizing the behavior in the two hemispheres.)
    And, I see no connection whatsoever with the paper that discusses a past spike in the isotope C-14. Here is the full paper (although you probably need a subscription, which I do have for Science, to read it..You could also try Google Scholoar): http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/292/5526/2453 and here is a “Perspectives” article discussing it: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/292/5526/2443 On skimming through them, I see no support whatsoever for your interpretation. In fact, the only reference to current issues involving CO2 in the paper seems to be this:

    …the observation that the carbon cycle apparently operated substantially more sluggishly in the recent past may have profound implications regarding the oceans’ capacity to take up anthropogenic CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning.

    Indiana Bones says:

    Thank you for acknowledging who you do take your orders from: I have long been an admirer of Mr. Noone, making it hard to decide the better of his two works: “A Kind of Hush, or Mrs. Brown…” This explains in part your rogue behavior and recalcitrant posts.
    http://www.peternoone.com/

    🙂

  67. Joel,
    a C14 spike may indicate an unusual cosmic anomaly or function as a proxy for raised atmospheric CO2 levels. Generally, radiocarbon techniques indicate atmospheric levels of CO2 as recent as 10,000 years ago are much higher than consensus assumes (190-250 ppm) 1.4B years ago atmospheric CO2 was as much as 200 times today’s levels. 45 – 34 million years ago the atmospheric carbon dioxide level was up to five times greater than today…
    “The Eocene-Oligocene is considered to be one of the major transitions in Earth’s climate, witnessing the first major expansion of the East Antarctic Ice sheet,” Schouten, Eldret et al, Geology.
    http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/36/2/147
    According to ancient sea surface algae that were recently isolated in deep sea drill core, this rapid expansion of ice was also accompanied by CO2 levels averaging 1500-2000ppm.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/06/050622134142.htm
    Thus we have evidence that cooling and expansion of ice sheets has occurred in the past even in very high atmospheric CO2 conditions. This tells us the IPCC projections of warming due to doubling CO2 – invoke climate dynamics unseen in the geologic record.

  68. Indiana Bones says:

    a C14 spike may indicate an unusual cosmic anomaly or function as a proxy for raised atmospheric CO2 levels. Generally, radiocarbon techniques indicate atmospheric levels of CO2 as recent as 10,000 years ago are much higher than consensus assumes (190-250 ppm)

    How do you conclude this? This does not seem to be even remotely related to any of the conclusions that the authors of that study reached…and is, of course, in contradiction with ice core data for CO2 levels during that time (measured in different ice cores from multiple locations).

    1.4B years ago atmospheric CO2 was as much as 200 times today’s levels.

    That would be ~7-8% of the earth’s atmosphere! Are you sure about that? I have seen estimates of as much as 10-20 times today’s levels but I don’t think I have seen estimates of 200X.

    45 – 34 million years ago the atmospheric carbon dioxide level was up to five times greater than today…

    Yes…And, it was also generally quite a bit warmer during that period.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/06/050622134142.htm

    This study that YOU linked to actually provides more evidence of the correlation between CO2 levels and temperatures. As the article explains:

    The data indicates that between 45 – 34 million years ago the atmospheric carbon dioxide level was up to five times greater than today, with a sharp decrease and then stabilization to near modern day levels between 34 – 25 million years ago.
    During the early part of the Paleogene Period, from 65 – 34 million years ago, global climates were much warmer than today with very little ice present at the poles. The boundary of the Oligocene and Eocene Epochs 33.7 million years ago was marked by rapid global cooling and the formation of large continental ice sheets on the Antarctic.

    Indiana Bones says:

    Thus we have evidence that cooling and expansion of ice sheets has occurred in the past even in very high atmospheric CO2 conditions. This tells us the IPCC projections of warming due to doubling CO2 – invoke climate dynamics unseen in the geologic record.

    In fact, the evidence is that the CO2 levels were initially high and then dropped and at about the same time the climate cooled dramatically, so in fact, they provide more evidence of the close correlation between CO2 and temperature. (Of course over tens of millions of years, one also has to start to worry about other effects such as changes in continent locations, oceans currents, mountain ranges, etc. These become even more important as one goes back hundreds of millions of years.)
    And, here just for good measure is a short piece summarizing what paleoclimatologists believe the record to show http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/sci;306/5697/821 Their conclusion is “the climate system is very sensitive to small perturbations and that the climate sensitivity may be even higher than suggested by models. “

  69. Joel:
    “That would be ~7-8% of the earth’s atmosphere! Are you sure about that? I have seen estimates of as much as 10-20 times today’s levels but I don’t think I have seen estimates of 200X.”

    I too found it a bit heavy handed but:
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/09/030918092804.htm
    Joel:
    “In fact, the evidence is that the CO2 levels were initially high and then dropped and at about the same time the climate cooled dramatically, so in fact, they provide more evidence of the close correlation between CO2 and temperature.”

    This is why I cite the Geology study demonstrating the rapid cooling taking place prior to the drop in CO2. You know by now that the majority of geologists who study Earth over geologic time – disagree with the suggestion that CO2 drives temperature.
    You may have already seen Rothman’s paper and graph indicating little or no climate change from CO2 in the strontium record over 500My:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC123620/figure/F4/
    His conclusion (less consensus waiver) is, “The resulting CO2 signal exhibits no systematic correspondence with the geologic record of climatic variations at tectonic time scales.”
    Of course in modern times we see a steady yet slow rise in CO2 at a fraction of its past volume, likely the result of ocean outgassing whilst recovering from LIA.
    I think we can all agree that there is an urgent need to transition from old fossil energy to renewable energy sources. The campaign to do so claiming catastrophic global warming is an outdated idea whose behavior, like that of excessive energy consumption – needs amending.

  70. Indiana Bones:

    I too found it a bit heavy handed but:
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/09/030918092804.htm

    Interesting…although that comes with some pretty large errorbars. He says it is somewhere between 10 and 200 times today’s levels.

    This is why I cite the Geology study demonstrating the rapid cooling taking place prior to the drop in CO2.

    I don’t see where it says that or even claims to have good enough time resolution to conclude that. It is certainly possible that the cooling began before the CO2 level dropped, as is believed to have been the case for the glacial – interglacial cycles, but I’d be a bit surprised if they had good enough time resolution back so far to determine this.

    ou know by now that the majority of geologists who study Earth over geologic time – disagree with the suggestion that CO2 drives temperature.

    And, you know this how? In fact, both the American Geophysical Union, the European Federation of Geologists, the Geological Society of America, American Quaternary Association, and the International Union for Quaternary Research have all issued statements that basically concur with the IPCC ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change ). (The American Association of Petroleum Geologists, American Geological Institute, and American Institute of Professional Geologists have issued non-committal statements.)
    Most scientists in the field believe that the causal relationship between temperature and CO2 levels works both ways and that is why they have tended to stay quite tightly correlated with each other.

    You may have already seen Rothman’s paper and graph indicating little or no climate change from CO2 in the strontium record over 500My:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC123620/figure/F4/

    Given the uncertainties, poor time resolution, and the fact that over such timescales there can be considerable changes in other climatic influences such as locations of continents, mountain ranges, ocean currents, I think the correlation is actually not too bad. Clearly, more work is needed over these long time periods both to get better data and to understand the other factors that influence the climate on these geologic timescales. However, this has little impact on what we would expect on the short timescales that we are interested in.

    Of course in modern times we see a steady yet slow rise in CO2 at a fraction of its past volume, likely the result of ocean outgassing whilst recovering from LIA.

    That is just silly talk. The current rise in CO2 is due to our emissions. The evidence on that is incontrovertible. The oceans aren’t outgassing CO2; they are in fact absorbing it…and without such absorption by the oceans and the biosphere, the rise in CO2 since the start of the industrial revolution would have been about twice as large.

    I think we can all agree that there is an urgent need to transition from old fossil energy to renewable energy sources. The campaign to do so claiming catastrophic global warming is an outdated idea whose behavior, like that of excessive energy consumption – needs amending.

    Well, I am glad that we both agree on what we should be doing as far as energy sources. However, independent of that, I think it is necessary to get the science right.

  71. “Well, I am glad that we both agree on what we should be doing as far as energy sources. However, independent of that, I think it is necessary to get the science right.”
    As do I. Thank you for a productive dialog.
    IB

Comments are closed.