Transparency, Science and the EPA Revisited

by Brad Peck

In case you missed it, and I don't think that anyone did, the LA Times ran a story this morning on our efforts to force transparency from the EPA on their finding that greenhouse gases emissions are a danger to public health and welfare. The article begins:

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, trying to ward off potentially sweeping federal emissions regulations, is pushing the Environmental Protection Agency to hold a rare public hearing on the scientific evidence for man-made climate change.

To be specific, in order to ensure that regulations which reengineer our economy are needed and would ultimately be effective, we are pushing the EPA to reveal the data they used to justify their endangerment proposal. We need to drop the articles of faith and use the entirety of scientific study on the effects of climate change not a sub-set, chosen by the EPA not for its validity but rather on its ability to forward their policy goal -- the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions.  Back to the article:

EPA spokesman Brendan Gilfillan said the agency based its proposed finding that global warming is a danger to public health "on the soundest peer-reviewed science available, which overwhelmingly indicates that climate change presents a threat to human health and welfare."...The chamber proposal "brings to mind for me the Salem witch trials, based on myth," said Brenda Ekwurzel, a climate scientist for the environmental group Union of Concerned Scientists. "In this case, it would be ignoring decades of publicly accessible evidence."

No, the agency used secondary scientific sources, studies that largely weren't adequately peer-reviewed and the selective use of scientific studies to justify a policy decision they wanted to make. And in terms of trials based on myth, exactly the opposite -- we DON'T want decades of publicly accessible evidence to be ignored. There are many questions to be asked of the EPA, and forgive the Chamber for not accepting "Trust Us" as an answer. To enact effective policy we need transparency and scientific data which is beyond question, not data deemed beyond questioning.

More on our efforts for transparency here and here.

// Update.  Link to filing.

// Update: 31 August 2009 - Answering a question.

Comments

[cheap viagra online]

I would suggest that you promote eco-friendly business as a way to show the world that the US is a leader in controlling climate change.

[Kramer]

For this to work, somebody needs to make sure that all the AGW organizations that worked on this issued opens all of their data and code for independent review. Currently, people working at sites such as climateaudit.org can't get data from Britain's Hadley climate center. This is bs. They've also tried to get code to see how the programs work but have been refused.

Again, our side will need to get access to any data and code that was used in any part of AGW otherwise we will have a harder time.

[Jeff]

I think it would be worthwhile to look at the history of science. I believe Dark Ages science was based on the person rather than observable events. Appropriately using the Scientific Method, which was developed after the Dark Ages, is critical to all science. As such, I would say that using the term, "consensus" is a throw back to Dark Ages science which really wasn't science.

Demonizing alternative viewpoints demonstrates science weakness since you no longer have observable facts to back up you hypothesis.

As an example, look at the temperature sensor placements. An overwhelming majority of the temperature sensors are not correctly placed causing inaccurate high readings.

The carbon dioxide record in ice is another one that just has some flaws that have yet to be addressed. Freshman science had good information on equilibrium at STP. I have not seen any good discussion on what happens to the CO2 equilibrium over hundreds of years at sub zero temperatures.

The modeling data is a joke. Weather people can't even get tomorrow's weather correct; yet I am to believe a model for 30, 40, 100 years. I used numerical models for petroleum reservoir simulation projects while in grad school. The numerical models were used to determine probability of recoverable oil and/or gas for investment and management decisions; not major policy driving life decisions.

Science is about asking relevant questions not shutting down debate. Are we returning to Dark Ages science or is this the 21st Century?

[Steve Morris]

Dana, Desmond,

"Convection only moves air around, like a fan. Convection will remove no heat at all. If you cut down on IR radiation going back into space by CO2 or increased water vapor in the atmo (or other trace gases) you get a small-scale version of what happened on Venus. Well, actually we don't know just how bad a runaway greenhouse warming crisis could get, so "small-scale" is relative."

Interesting take. My understanding is that Convection is a very efficient means of heat transfer only second to Conduction and placing a distant third is Radiation. It is not so much like a fan as it is hot air balloons, many of them in various sizes, temps, and densities from the balloon sized to mountains. The warmer you heat a gas, the less dense it becomes therefor rising above the more dense air around it. When you heat large masses of air, 1 cubic meter weighs 1.3 kg at sea level, there are equally large, cooler, and denser masses that squeeze under the warmer as they rise. Question: How was that air cooled?

Convection occurs up to 15,000 meters where the stratosphere meets the troposphere. You will often see thundercloud anvils where the cloud is flat on top where it is reaching the point where convection no longer occurs, thus flattening as it spreads out. The air temp at the tropopause is between -50 and -80 C depending whether you are at the poles or the tropics, so the air cools great amounts before reaching a point where convection is no longer possible. Our atmosphere, 4,000 Trillion tons of N2 and O2 within the troposphere, moves nearly all the heat the Earth absorbs from the Sun to the tropopause, or at least a good distance to it. The power of convection is so strong that it continuously moves the entire meter of air just above the surface, all 510 Trillion cubic meters weighing 663 Billion tons, towards the sky along with the heat contained within it every several hours. The air that replaces it warms and the process continues.

There is much more due to post limits, find the rest at The End is Far by clicking my name.

Regards,

Steve

[Dana Kincaid]

"Over 31 thousand individuals with at least a Bachelor of Science degree, including over 9 thousand PhDs have, so far, signed the following petition:"

Well... A BS is easy to get, and I'd have to look at what disciplines the Doctorates were in before that had any weight, yes? I'll read your journal, thanks for your reply, and by the way...

When you say, "It also invalidates the political vituperation that the opposition to AGW comprises “right wing talk radio hosts, dittohead sheeple, religious nutjobs … political hacks paid by oil and gas companies [and] low grade morons”, and similar characterizations found scattered throughout realclimate.org and concentrated on Greenpeace’s exxonsecrets.org", I disagree, because really, that's where I hear and have heard the arguments coming from. Perhaps I don't get out of Indiana enough.

TTYL

- DC

[Jeff Glassman]

Dana Kincaid,

Over 31 thousand individuals with at least a Bachelor of Science degree, including over 9 thousand PhDs have, so far, signed the following petition:

“We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

This petition has zero scientific weight. However, it does contradict the claims of, and unscientific reliance on, a consensus formed to support AGW.

It also invalidates the political vituperation that the opposition to AGW comprises “right wing talk radio hosts, dittohead sheeple, religious nutjobs … political hacks paid by oil and gas companies [and] low grade morons”, and similar characterizations found scattered throughout realclimate.org and concentrated on Greenpeace’s exxonsecrets.org.

One scientist is sufficient to disprove a theory or an orthodoxy. Anthropogenic Global Warming has been revealed as an unparalleled fraud. See, for example, the Rocket Scientists Journal. Unable to stand by itself, it rides on the shoulders of a phalanx of vested climatologists, their professional journals, and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel. It is popularized as the movement du jour of the political left, far removed from any science.

[Dana Kincaid]

Jeff (Glassman). If you get a chance, pls contact me off the board - or I'll read thru your blog/papers and get back to you. I'm willing to listen, though at this time I think you are probably wrong. Nonetheless, I'm willing to listen. I have that much of an open mind.

However. A big part of the problem in getting people to listen to "the other side" of the argument is the people that seem to be on your side. It does not give warm fuzzies when the There is NO Global Warming people are right wing talk radio hosts, dittohead sheeple, religious nutjobs who think that god wouldn't let anything catastrophic happen and political hacks paid by oil and gas companies. That's your burden, Jeff. I know it isn't in your hands, but having low grade morons and religious zealots on your side makes it really difficult to give weight to your arguments, or even discuss them.

Thanks.

Dana

[Thomas Hughes]

Oh my,Mr. or Ms. Kincaid,Are you the paid schill who tasks blogs and discussions with your contingents nut case scewnario rhetoric? If you are not of an ability to has a respectful conversation,and task for science alone and not your countries hogwash(Obviously you are not a US citizen,possibly an Endolay)The process of peer review has created most of the problems of information from any proper sources as so many factions would have 99 percent of every other contingent unable to be informed of anything related to actual astrophysics,and for those who have sequestered this from everyone ,there is a huge financial reason.But that is just their process,mine is completely pro for our planet.
When writers make negative statements about someone with out any ability to be a scientist,everyone suffers for it,person Kincaid. Unfortunately for me and of course to you or your protocoler,more fodder for your childish tantrums and accusations that you should have grown out of by now,I am "That Guy" that CAN explain gravitrational function and cometary processes for our galaxy that have everything to do with the perturbations of the sun and the process spheres. Even though I have a security clearance,I can opt to release anything I choose,and get away with it,yet I release little of what I know for my contingents security purposes.
The feverpitch atmosphere has clouded the whole process on purpose,which side do you come down on? I would thank you to seek your Hyperdimensional Physics Phd. of your choosing to contact me so that you might have some sort of tooling for a fight with a guy like me,cuz ,"You Aintta AH DOin so good SO Fah"

[Jeff Glassman]

Wayne Moyer:

You note that the planet has finite resources. This irrelevant tautology is out of the Delicate Blue Planet school of romantic science now part of our public school curriculum. Everything that man can measure is finite. The infinite, like the infinitesimal, has never been measured. To apply that truth to “the planet” may be poetic, but nothing more.

You observe that the world population is heading toward 6 billion people. Are you making a Malthusian justification for CO2 caps? Are you suggesting the capacity for people has some nearby limit? The movement to cut back on CO2 is directed at the US, the nation nearly at the bottom in reproductive growth rate at 1.1% and second only to Western Europe, whose population growth rate of 0.5% contributes to its economic stagnation. Meanwhile China (1.8%), India (2.1%), Africa (2.6%), and Latin America (2.3%) comprise the brunt of the population bomb, and they are Kyoto-proof.

You say, “Water resources are being stretched and drought affects many states.” We need to recognize that droughts are acts of God; water shortages are acts of government.

You say, “Peak oil has probably passed, despite the overly optimistic prediction of oil companies.” Amazing, isn’t it, how everything oil companies do is wrong. By this logic, you should be a proponent of coal fired and nuclear power.

You say, “The EPA is right to regard carbon dioxide as a pollutant”. In fact within a couple of orders of magnitude of present levels, CO2 is benign, and at any level a greening agent. It is a pollutant only in the bizarre world of the socialist struggle. To be sure, CO2 adds to the greenhouse effect, but the greenhouse effect contributes only a tenth or so of what IPCC says because IPCC neglects the cloud albedo effect. But water vapor at present has three times the effect of CO2 (still, though, a tenth of what IPCC says). Why don’t the AGW proponents worry about man’s water vapor emissions? CO2 does cause warming, but the effect is unmeasurably small. Water vapor emissions are much worse, but still minute. Climate should be the last of our worries; CO2 caps nearly the first.

The US is the marketplace for the world. When our economy catches cold, the whole world coughs. The rest of the world, but not our government, recognizes the dire consequences of the impending collapse of the dollar. The economic status of a nation can be well measured by its energy use per capita. The cost of goods and services can be fairly assessed by the energy consumed in their production. This reliance on energy is especially important when the currency is imploding. Wealth and prosperity rise out of cheap energy. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is well-placed to effect some global sanity in this “teachable moment”. The trade-off is entirely skewed: crippling world prosperity to cut back on the gas that feeds the pristine rain forests and the little animals.

[Wayne Moyer. Ph.D.]

I feel certain that the CEO's of the companies that make up the membership of the Chamber believe firmly that any effort to tax energy use and charge back the external costs of doing business--polluting streams through mountain top removal and operating CFO's comes to mind--will effect their bottom lines and slow economic growth. Probably true. But, has it not occurred to anyone who has looked beyond the corporate boardroom that there is a finite limit to the planet's resources? World population is heading toward 6 billion people. Water resources are being stretched and drought affects many states. Peak oil has probably passed, despite the overly optimistic predictions of oil companies. Soil through out the world is eroding faster than it is replaced by natural processes. World fisheries are over exploited. The EPA is right to regard carbon dioxide as a pollutant, which corporations have dumped into the atmosphere in ever increasing amounts. The free ride is over; companies must include production of all pollutants as internal costs that are reflected in their bottom lines. The Chamber should take a broad view and plan for the next millennium, not just the next quarter or year, by promoting corporate responsibility.

[Mike Craig]

Thanks CofC for trying to force the government to be transparent. The true believers of global warming are not interested in a discussion. With them it's a religion. Anyone who does not believe must be vilified, better yet burned at the stake; but then that creates more warming. What's a zealot to do !!

[Tom Ulcak]

we don't need the scientists of the world and the well-respected scientific organizations around the world to "legitimize" the reality of global warming.

we need the chamber of commerce to finally make it official.

are you kidding me? what arrogance. we have all the proof needed and yet, for decades, we have ignored the dire warnings of the very people who should know - the scientists in the field collecting the data that show conclusively that human activity is causing global warming.

but, we need the chamber of commerce to verify it for us?

what are you people smoking?

[Tom Ulcak]

Why does the Chamber of Commerce require further "proof"? There is no dispute about the scientific reality of global warming. This is like those who still demand proof of the president's citizenship even after the legal birth certificate and a mountain of other documented proofs have already been submitted to the public and has satisfied all the legal experts.

Obviously, the chamber of commerce is either ideologically driven or driven by greed (probably both), and this is just a delay tactic.

How dare you endanger our future, our children's future, and the survival of our civilization by your selfish and short-sighted actions.

[Dana Kincaid]

"There are very very few of us hyperdimensional physics guys who have the proper explanations of planetary/universe science. Please send a "Peer" to test this Phd. man. Is there anyone?"

Ummm... Yer a nut.

Where do you get your ideas from, EE Doc Smith's, "Lensmen"?

[Thomas Hughes]

The paradigm of modern scientific theory about the cause and effect of climatic processes has nothing to do with reality. The tier three public process has created such a folly for everyone concerned. There is no end to the posturing over the tier three explanations and resultant fear paradigm to keep everyone out of the actual loop.
Without proper background,the so called "Climatologists" have caused society billions and billions of dollars and commerce would be well served if the folks in "Commerce" had a proper lesson in climate science.So,of course I am in favor of many,many lawsuits to set the tier three science"kind of guys" down and send them home.
There are very very few of us hyperdimensional physics guys who have the proper explanations of planetary/universe science. Please send a "Peer" to test this Phd. man. Is there anyone?
Most of you tier three men prefer to rely on data models that do not have any elementary planetary physics principles of any sort what-so-ever. And from my interactions ,do not actually desire to release their perceived mis conceptions due to their fear of ridicule and discharge of their paycheck.
Can you just imagine all of the agencies and organizations having to recant their built up machine that has used an improper model of the universe to teach us how to think and where to put our efforts.
What do agencies do when they are challenged with using theoretical processes that have built the so called "Science Departments" of this earth? They hunker down and drown any and all messengers who might upset their theoretical model that has become
"Fact" for them and their investors.
When my testimony from my department is finally brought into the public atmosphere,there will be up-heavel,but there could also be a huge change in the way business does business,and so expressing the desire for hearings,whether in a court atmosphere or other venue would be a great value to those like me who have a completely different set of facts to share.

[Jeff Glassman]

Dana Kincaid,

1. Albedo feedback didn’t help Venus because Venus’s climate is nothing at all like Earth’s. Venus has twice the reflectivity of Earth, but also twice the insolation so net about the same solar energy gets past the clouds. But on Venus, 98% of that energy is absorbed in the atmosphere, so little reaches the surface. The Venus atmosphere is as thick as pea soup and way too hot to sip. Earth’s is Charlie Chaplin’s boot soup. Venus’s atmosphere has a high heat capacity while Earth’s has a low heat capacity, even being humid. Venus’ absorbs most of its energy in its atmosphere, while Earth absorbs most of its energy in the high heat capacity of its oceans. Earth’s climate is regulated by the water cycle through its many phases, a process unparalleled on Venus.

2. The so-called greenhouse effect acts like a blanket to resist radiation from Earth to space through a nearly transparent atmosphere. Earth’s atmosphere supports a temperature drop from its surface to space as heat flows through it. Venus is not analogous.

3. No atmosphere traps heat because heat cannot be trapped. If it stops flowing, it doesn’t exist. For a discussion of the heat trapping and how climatologists went wrong, Google www.rocketscientistsjournal.com for “Zemansky”, a pioneer in the teaching of thermodynamics and the author of “The use and misuse of the word ‘heat’ in physics teaching”.

4. The climate on Venus is irrelevant to the AGW threat because IPCC did not rely on anything Venetian. A quick check of its Third and Fourth Assessment Reports show that IPCC didn’t even use the word “Venus”, even in titles of its thousands of references. IPCC predicts a coming catastrophe based on just Earthly data. That prediction is fallacious on multiple counts as detailed in the Rocket Scientist’s Journal.

5. Climatologists have been unsuccessful in modeling Earth’s climate even blessed with a vast storehouse of data, bits of it going back millions of years. That effort has been unsuccessful not for failure to make a prediction, but for failure to reproduce the history of climate or to make a non-trivial prediction that has been validated. Extrapolating from the scant data about Venus to Earth cannot improve the situation. Modeling by analogy is always treacherous.

6. No one proposed creating a kangaroo court, a show trial, nor putting Cheney in charge. Your straw men are pointless characterizations, and your argument inane.

7. Dana Kincaid asked, “when did NASA start hiring people who think that a show trial is the way to scientific truth?” Surely Dana meant IPCC, but regardless, both NASA and IPCC put science on a show trial every time they rely on peer-review journals to authenticate a source. What counts in science are solely predictions that come true, and neither conformity nor consensus. For a couple of discussions of the failings of peer-review relevant to climate, Google www.rocketscientistsjournal.com for “Lancet” and read what its editor, Richard Horton, had to say about the failure of peer-review. Also Google there for “Miller” and see what Donald W. Miller, MD, had to say about peer-review and grants being driven by orthodoxy, including in climate.

What the U.S. Chamber of Commerce proposes is not a show trial, but a valid, peer-review panel to protect the public against the ethical breakdown in science prevalent today in leading professional journals and at the IPCC. The process is pointed toward a thorough vetting of the technical issues, with ample examination and cross-examination. If the AGW conjecture were defensible, the proponents would be eager for the opportunity to show their work to the public. If the impending catastrophe were real, ethical scientists would be clamoring for audiences to convince and to warn. But alas, the reaction is more likely to parallel Dana Kincaid’s – the science is done, it’s in the Book. Stop producing, send money.

[Dana Kincaid]

1) "For the commenter "chrisd" who says 'shame on the CofC': Shame for what? Do those who believe in human-caused global warming actually NOT want the opportunity to prove their critics wrong once and for all?"

In a show trial? Sounds like you want a teabagger forum where shouting will be appreciated, or kangaroo court run by the Cheneys. I don't think so.

2) "More cloudiness increases Earth's albedo, creating the most powerful negative feedback in the entire climate system."

Didn't help Venus much, did it? The problem with your idea is that doesn't take into account the amount of heat that stays trapped under the clouds. In the winter, generally, is it colder on a cloudy night or a night with no clouds? If you have more clouds then heat loss is greatly reduced, and this planet needs to get rid of heat. We don't have radiators stuck up miles high into the atmosphere. Clouds trap heat. Water is active in infrared. So water will capture IR from the ground, and scatter about half of it back to the ground. So it allows for much slower cooling than without the water vapor present. It also does a good job of storing heat, so that also plays a part.

http://www.is.wayne.edu/mnissani/a&s/GREENHOU.htm

3)"A selection process will be needed to reject jurors or judges possessing such scientific illiteracy, scary logic, and preconceived notions as exhibited in your little rationalization."

This is a court of fact! Oh my, you make me laugh... Since when did NASA start hiring people who think that a show trial is the way to scientific truth? I suppose in that case, NASA should build gigantic cannon to get spacecraft into space, because of course there is nothing for a rocket to push against in a vacuum, and of course we'll have to revisit going faster than sound, because that's really impossible and the Moon landings should be revisited before a jury because we all know that they were faked.

[Roald A]

For the commenter "chrisd" who says 'shame on the CofC': Shame for what? Do those who believe in human-caused global warming actually NOT want the opportunity to prove their critics wrong once and for all? Why aren't such people congratulating the CofC for prompting the IPCC and Mr Gore into a debate, which they seem unwilling to recognize as a golden opportunity - or do all of the believers have no confidence that their position can stand alone on its science merits?

[Linda Miley]

I am not a scientist. However, I am concerned about the Cap & Trade bill which is based on irrational fears of "Global Warming". I have read as much as possible on this topic. The whole reason I am sending this e-mail is to thank the US Chamber of Congress in recommending a "trial" regarding the current science on "Global Warming". If nothing else the trial will dispel the myth that this issue is settled!! Let me quote as best I can Michael Crighton, "Opinion without evidence is prejudice".

[chrisd]

I have but one thing to say to the US Chamber of Commerce: Shame on you. Just, shame on you.

[Thomas Hughes]

Mr.Peck, Please add me to any list you propagate for inclusion in any testimonies the chamber engages in as I have many points to share that others who do not have my background do not consider.I can prove the climate science points needed by our society to put everyone on a proper track of understanding Climate Science. Im sure not many have any understanding of Hyperdimensional Science that my group understands that coupled with Grid Science can answer most questions with a clarity that does not exist in any media or paper I have seen.I would also be available to have a meeting with Mr.Kovacs,the senior VP mentioned with responsibility for these issues for your organization. Thanks.

[Jeff Glassman]

George F. Birchard,

1. NASA is not IPCC. The issue is with IPCC's predictions.

2. IPCC's global climate models calculate the state of the climate starting from 1750 and predicting to about a century hence. That's over 350 years. They would be relatively insensitive to a 20% drop in the solar wind over any decade -- if they were to simulate the solar wind (which they don't!)

3. By convention, climate is at least a 30 year phenomenon. The last 14 years are helpful to the defense, but marginally significant to climate.

4. IPCC predicted catastrophic warming based on data from 1750 to 2001 at the latest, little affected by small changes starting in 1995.

5. Less solar wind means more cosmic rays (according to Svensmark, but dismissed by IPCC), which tends to create more clouds. More cloudiness increases Earth's albedo, creating the most powerful negative feedback in the entire climate system. Except for the word “rapidly”, you deduce as much, written as if you had found a contradiction. It is happening, even though it's not yet climate. Earth has been cooling during the 20% solar wind decline reported by NASA, and IPCC missed every bit of it.

6. One parameter, like the solar wind, does not determine the state of the climate as you suggest. Under Svensmark's model, cloudiness at any time could be limited by galactic cosmic rays or by specific humidity. The former is regulated by the solar wind; the latter, by warming. Where we are now is to be determined.

These observations are relevant to the trial. A selection process will be needed to reject jurors or judges possessing such scientific illiteracy, scary logic, and preconceived notions as exhibited in your little rationalization.

[George F. Birchard,]

The Chamber of Commerce apparently lacks the trained staff to evaluate the quality of scientific research. Mr. Peck writes:

"And in terms of trials based on myth, exactly the opposite -- we DON'T want decades of publicly accessible evidence to be ignored. There are many questions to be asked of the EPA, and forgive the Chamber for not accepting "Trust Us" as an answer. To enact effective policy we need transparency and scientific data which is beyond question, not data deemed beyond questioning."

Lets look at the work of Dr. Jeff Glassman.

Dr Glassman writes:

"ENSO may, as the Consensus says, devastate, but it has only half the capacity of the solar wind to warm the planet. By omitting the solar wind, the Consensus underestimates the natural causes of global warming, simultaneously overestimating the anthropogenic sources by the equivalent of two ENSOs, assigning the error to carbon dioxide emissions. "

In which case the climate should be cooling rapidly now.

NASA reports:

"A 50-year low in solar wind pressure: Measurements by the Ulysses spacecraft reveal a 20% drop in solar wind pressure since the mid-1990s—the lowest point since such measurements began in the 1960s. The solar wind helps keep galactic cosmic rays out of the inner solar system. With the solar wind flagging, more cosmic rays are permitted to enter, resulting in increased health hazards for astronauts. Weaker solar wind also means fewer geomagnetic storms and auroras on Earth. "

So much for the models and predictions of Dr. Jeff Glassman. He is clearly wrong.

And so it goes with the other "experts" the CoC has identified to oppose the scientific consensus for AGW in the climate science community.

The Chamber should get to work helping small business get loans and support to grow. It should get out of meddling in science, which isn't it's business or expertise.

[ManhattanMan]

I have a better idea. Bring a lawsuit against the EPA and let a judge decide.

Better make sure you have standing to sue, though! This means no more front-groups, lobbyists, or CoC to hide behind. Let those who have a financial interest in risking our planet come forward and put their Real Names on a lawsuit and explain to America and the World why OUR risk must subsidize THEIR profits.

If you don't like the EPA regulations, file a suit and sign your name to it. Don't ask the taxpayers to subsidize a non-binding, non-sensical circus of a show-trial.

If you want to pollute us, step out into the sunlight and explain why we should let you. Let us see your face and know your name.

[Dana Kincaid]

"Dana – It hardly seems that posting a comment under your own name is an attempt at subterfuge."

It is a lie of omission to be a corporate lobbyist or "official" climate change denier and not to be open about it. How many people would even bother to look at the names under the blog posts and connect them, hmmm?

What is my affiliation? I'm interested in clean air and good water for my friends and family and god daughter. You can google me under my name.

By the way, Chamberpost, I didn't catch yours...

[ChamberPost]

Dana – It hardly seems that posting a comment under your own name is an attempt at subterfuge. And I missed your affiliation? BP

[Dana Kincaid]

Brad Peck,

If you want transparency, please see posts below. It looks like your column has brought out the climate change denier artillery. Pity they didn't see fit to post their affiliations.

Transparency works in more than one direction.

Thanks,

Dana Curtis Kincaid

[Dana Kincaid]

Barry Cooper! Barry Cooper writes, "Consider that the current period of cooling is happening in a condition of steadily increasing CO2 emissions. Al Gore warned ten years ago that if we did nothing then, all hell would break loose. We didn't, and it didn't. If, of course, we had listened to him, our economy would be much smaller, and he would be attributing the current cooling to his genius."

Barry thinks we are in global COOLING mode.

Barry, how are the Friends of Science doing?

http://www.desmogblog.com/university-of-calgary-audit-exposes-friends-of-science-wrongdoing

[Dana Kincaid]

Jeff Glassman... Wow, We have the heavy hitters here on our little conversation, don't we?

Jeff Glassman. http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/

[Dana Kincaid]

Richard S Courtney... Now where have I heard that name before? Oh! I know! He's a coal industry lobbyist! How nice.

Richard writes, "Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and global temperature do NOT correlate."

But of course one does not want to punch the industry you work for in the nose, do you Richard? It was very naughty of you not to mention your corporate affiliation, dear Richard.

[Jeff Glassman]

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is on-target calling for a trial of the disproved AGW conjecture, now accepted as a scientific theory for public policy. You will find at least three calls for such a trial on www.rocketscientistsjournal.com, where the various errors in the conjecture are published in detail, and defended. Many of these errors are fatal to the whole concept.

As Peck notes, the EPA did not rely on peer-reviewed science, meaning peer-review in the professional journals. However, such reliance would not have remedied the problem, because climate journals do not publish articles critical of climate orthodoxy. Moreover, neither did EPA rely on secondary scientific sources – it relied on IPCC Reports, especially the Third and Fourth Assessment Reports, which condensed model results into a prediction of runaway warming. And these Reports were not peer-reviewed! They were reviewed ultimately by IPCC editors of the various report sections.

The whole process of the science supporting AGW, from the journals to the ultimate and decisive climate modeling, is incestuous. It is intentionally shaped to support the dogma that the surrogate for prosperity, conventional energy usage, will cause a climate catastrophe. Because of this breakdown in the scientific method, IPCC results need to be put on a public, fact-finding trial.

[Tony Thompson]

Interesting that the International Chamber of Commerce supports action on climate change:

"Climate change is a global problem that requires a global solution. Business worldwide is convinced that climate change is one of the major challenges of our time, and that it has
to be addressed in the context of meeting growing energy needs and achieving sustainable development and economic growth. Given the wide range of impacts and interconnectivity of the solutions required, collaborative efforts will be essential to find a way forward. A global post-2012 agreement that includes all major emitters in a longterm framework to address climate change risks effectively and cooperatively and that works within open markets and trade rules is the best course of action."

[Richard S Courtney]

Dana writes:

“It is quite elementary, actually, even if the complexities of short-term weather patterns are too chaotic to nail down. The long-term trend is quite clear, whether you wish to believe it or not.”

Yes, it is very clear.

The “long term trend” is recovery from the Little Ice Age (LIA). This warming from the LIA has been happening for about 300 years and human activities have had no discernible effect on it.

A thousand years ago the global temperature was at least high as it is now, and then global temperature fell to the cool it had in the LIA. No power stations were built and no SUVs were driven at those times.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and global temperature do NOT correlate.

Changes to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration FOLLOW changes to global temperature at all time scales.

Emissions of carbon dioxide from human activities do not correlate to the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.

Reductions to emissions of carbon dioxide from human activity have no known effect on atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration or on global temperature. As the United Nations (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says;
“no systematic analysis has published on the relationship between mitigation and baseline scenarios”

Is that clear enough?

[Dana Kincaid]

"Posted by: Desmond McGrath | August 26, 2009 at 10:54 AM - Dana,

If you think "your people" can avoid PROVING Anthropogenic Global Warming because of CO2 increases before forcing BS policy upon Us that wouldn't change a thing anyway, then you and your people are simply daft. While your and your ilk attempt to dissolve the US Constitution, We still have it and the very first amendment guarantees that We the People have the Right to Petition Our gov't for a Redress of Grievances. This is just one of the many you are about to see, these "brown shirt mobs" are nothing of the sort, We are everyday Americans tired of being Ruled by those that can barely make it through an election..." "...In addition, you also will need to show how the Greenhouse Effect can "trap" more energy at the surface than Convection is able to remove."

Desmond; The only way to get rid of waste heat (overall) is thru re-radiation into space during the "dark" phase of planetary rotation or by reflection of long wave radiation directly back into space via the ice caps. Convection only moves air around, like a fan. Convection will remove no heat at all. If you cut down on IR radiation going back into space by CO2 or increased water vapor in the atmo (or other trace gases) you get a small-scale version of what happened on Venus. Well, actually we don't know just how bad a runaway greenhouse warming crisis could get, so "small-scale" is relative.

Mankind has always had an effect on the planetary ecology (see Easter Island and the London fogs and the Dustbowl and the Great Stink and the Dodo Bird) but now... Now there are nearly seven billion of us, and there is nowhere to run from our mistakes. It is simple to understand (if not to quantify), this effect of CO2 and water vapor in the atmosphere on the amount of heat that remains and does not bleed off in the night time back into space, It is quite elementary, actually, even if the complexities of short-term weather patterns are too chaotic to nail down. The long-term trend is quite clear, whether you wish to believe it or not.

Also, you said, "This is just one of the many you are about to see, these "brown shirt mobs" are nothing of the sort, We are everyday Americans tired of being Ruled by those that can barely make it through an election."

You need to work on the phrasing a bit. Try, "We are a very vocal but normal American minority who are tired of being ruled by the majority that won the election. So we are going to bitch and scream and pout on national TV till we get what we want". If speaking about members of the House, you could add the "and because of the modern very carefully gerrymandered election districts, your greatest threat is a primary challenger backed by us, not the opposing party".

There, much better.

Also, about this, "ilk" thing... "While your and your ilk attempt to dissolve the US Constitution..." I have no interest in dissolving the Constitution, and I'm not one of the people bringing weapons to town hall meetings.

[Barry Cooper]

Where dialogue begins, propaganda ends. In that vein, I find it interesting that the knee jerk first response of members of the 1st Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming, in the process of proclaiming the gospel on the internet, is to pretend that sober analysis conducted by serious, intelligent people, can be dismissed by pretending--all EVIDENCE to the contrary--that those people are stupid.

Stupid is as stupid does. If I could train a parrot to spout "Bible thumper, bible thumper"--and I can--then that is stupid.

Consider that the current period of cooling is happening in a condition of steadily increasing CO2 emissions. Al Gore warned ten years ago that if we did nothing then, all hell would break loose. We didn't, and it didn't. If, of course, we had listened to him, our economy would be much smaller, and he would be attributing the current cooling to his genius.

Consider too that his film consists almost entirely in apparently willfully deceitful deviations from the IPCC's own "science". It was officially declared propaganda by a British judge. The IPCC said nothing. The Swedish gave him the Nobel Prize, even though he had more in common with Leni Riefenstahl than a sober documentarian.

The oceans absorb and hold excess CO2. What is not commonly stated--and further evidence that we are saturated with propaganda--is that in the Earth's history CO2 levels have been as much as TEN TIMES what they are today. What happened? We got huge plants, and huge animals that ATE the huge plants, and huge animals that ate them. It was a good time to be a dinosaur.

And the CO2 levels fell back, naturally. They lag temperature, they don't lead it. This is well known, and abundantly clear from the Vostok record.

I could go on, but the screaming meemees won't listen, and the rest of you likely understand this already. We are being lied to, systematically, by people whose primary goal is more power for them and theirs, and the erosion of constitutional democracy, which many enviromentalists are already openly calling failed. They want total tyranny, and are using a manufactured crisis to get it.

[Norman Higginson]

The Chamber risks being labeled as extremist when it questions global warming which has been repeatedly validated over a long period. I would suggest that you promote eco-friendly business as a way to show the world that the US is a leader in controlling climate change. Right now (I live in Thailand) the US is seen as the home of crazed businesses that have plunged the whole world into recession.

[William Gupton]

"It would be evolution versus creationism," said William Kovacs, the chamber's senior vice president for environment, technology and regulatory affairs. "It would be the science of climate change on trial."

Are all of you crazy or just Mr. Kovacs?

[Sean Hecht]

Notice-and-comment rulemaking, as the agency has done here, has been the standard for thousands of rules issued by EPA, our Department of Homeland Security, and virtually every other federal agency. The Chamber is asking for something completely unprecedented, extraordinary, and without real scientific value here. My co-blogger (law professor and scientist) Holly Doremus explains why this type of hearing isn't scientifically appropriate and wouldn't accomplish the professed goals of the Chamber at http://legalplanet.wordpress.com/2009/08/25/would-a-co2-monkey-trial-improve-scientific-integrity-and-transparency/ .
And I’ve written about how unusual and strange this request is from a legal point of view at http://legalplanet.wordpress.com/2009/08/25/more-on-the-chamber-of-commerces-extraordinary-demand-for-a-scopes-trial-on-climate-change/ in case it's of interest.

[Desmond McGrath]

I hope that the Chamber can make this a trial by jury, and we all can get out from under this aritficially fabricated sword of damocles called Global Warming.

http://www.barefootsworld.net/trial01.html

[Steve Morris]

Dana,

If you think "your people" can avoid PROVING Anthropogenic Global Warming because of CO2 increases before forcing BS policy upon Us that wouldn't change a thing anyway, then you and your people are simply daft. While your and your ilk attempt to dissolve the US Constitution, We still have it and the very first amendment guarantees that We the People have the Right to Petition Our gov't for a Redress of Grievances. This is just one of the many you are about to see, these "brown shirt mobs" are nothing of the sort, We are everyday Americans tired of being Ruled by those that can barely make it through an election.

We don't need a trial, how about getting Your People to simply lay out ALL the Evidence that you all have to support AGW and let Us examine it. In addition, you also will need to show how the Greenhouse Effect can "trap" more energy at the surface than Convection is able to remove. If you have any training what-so-ever in Thermodynamics you will cringe at the thought because Convection transfers far more energy than Radiation at the same temps.

This is not a Bible thumping exercise to introduce Conservative policy. This is an exercise in Science, You provide your Theory for critique and when We can't break it, then your theory is sound just like every other Theory that has stood the test of time. If the AGW theory was worth presenting, then it would be presented and there would be no reason for you all to reject defending it instead of relying on "Peer/Buddy" Review and Consenus. A theory is only sound if SKEPTICS can't break it. Is this news to you?

You and Your People best get ready to be knocked off your pretend horses, The Able People in this Nation have paid bribes/taxes too long to avoid hearing you all whine and we're not Deservocrats or RepubliCons, just plain old Americans who have been herded up with the rest of you. Enough.

It will not be very long before the real scientists in this nation recognize that their funding is also in jeopardy because pretend AGW scientists have besmirched the entire scientific industry.

As the old saying goes "Put up, or shut up". It is time the AGW'ists show their cards!

Have a great day, The End is Far . . .

Steve Morris

[Dana Kincaid]

"Dana - Nice examples of once overwhelmingly held beliefs which failed in the light of scientific and/or public scrutiny. Thanks. - BP"

Unfortunately, "your people", the there is no global warming, Adam and Eve cavorted with Velociraptors, creation is only 6k years old and evolution can't possibly happen are all the same people, and they think Creationism and such is still open for debate.

You want us to have a debate, a "trial", to argue if global warming exists with people who still think that it was a really good idea to elect George Bush twice and blow up entire mountains to get coal? You want us to have a debate, a "trial", to argue if global warming exists with people who believe that the Bible is the LITERAL Word of God?

What, so your constituency can make a few more dollars?

I don't think so. Debating with a block of wood would be more productive.

[ChamberPost]

Dana - Nice examples of once overwhelmingly held beliefs which failed in the light of scientific and/or public scrutiny. Thanks. - BP

[ChamberPost]

jblethen - Here you go.

http://www.uschamber.com/assets/env/uscocpetendangerment.pdf

[Dana Kincaid]

Scientific debate is not for a Church or Court to decide.

By the way, the Earth is flat, 6000 years old, “races” shouldn’t crossbreed and Adam and Eve had dinosaurs for pets.

Oh, and if you don’t believe me, you are demonically possessed.

So, should we believe that the Chamber of Commerce, Bush Administration lapdogs, should be trusted? "To enact effective policy we need transparency and scientific data which is beyond question, not data deemed beyond questioning." We have transparency.

[jblethen]

The Times article says you filed something today. Link?

[Russell C]

A good question to ask the EPA and the Obama Administration: "what is your official response to 'Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the NONgovernmental International Panel on Climate Change' (NIPCC - see: http://www.nipccreport.org/ ), the 880 page report that is a complete rebuttal of the IPCC findings?"

If Al Gore and IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri are completely confident in their position that human-induced CO2 is causing the warming, they ought to welcome the public hearing you propose, so that they could wipe out the skeptics once and for all.

[Bob Armstrong]

Fantastic !

Let me know if I may be of any help . I have implemented the correct classical Stefan-Boltzmann/Kirchhoff relationship , so far just for radiantly heated gray balls and am working on the full spectrum case . Even the basic scalar albedo albedo case shows our temperature is constrained to be about 1%21 whatever temperature the sun decides to be , and that any claim that the extreme temperature of Venus is due to some "greenhouse effect" rather than internal heating shows the scientific illiteracy of the speaker since it is radiating 16 times as energy as any object in its orbit could possibly receive from the sun .

See my http://CoSy.com for the array programming language code in three APLs .