Climate Change - We Need A Different Approach

by Tita Freeman

A few weeks ago at the launch of our Free Enterprise campaign a reporter asked U.S. Chamber president and CEO Tom Donohue if he had read a NY Times editorial by Senators Kerry and Graham on a bi-partisan approach to climate action. Donohue indicated that he had read the piece and that it contained some good ideas -- many of which we have been pushing for a long time. With work on climate change legislation ramping up in the Senate, we have just sent the below letter to Senators Boxer and Inhofe outlining our continued support for strong federal climate change legislation:

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce believes climate change is an important issue for this Congress to address. The Chamber stands ready to work with Congress to resolve this issue in a bipartisan manner that recognizes regional differences, the state of the technology, and the compelling need for a solution that minimizes overall economic impact. As your committee reopens discussion on a climate bill, the Chamber urges you to take steps to bridge the political and geographical divide that prevented the enactment of comprehensive climate legislation in 2003, 2005, and 2008, and appears to have stalled the current effort.

It is time to consider a different approach.

The challenge of drafting comprehensive climate legislation is not "whether" to do something, but "how." There are many good ideas out there that can serve as a solid, workable, commonsense and realistic foundation on which to craft a bill. The Chamber commends Senators Kerry and Graham for their recent New York Times editorial on the need for comprehensive climate legislation. The Chamber welcomes the call for a new conversation on how to address the issue, and believes their editorial can serve as a solid, workable, commonsense foundation on which to craft a bill. Many other important details are needed, but the Chamber agrees that the objectives outlined in that editorial, coupled with their clear recognition that "this process requires honest give-and-take and genuine bipartisanship," can move this important policy objective forward in a bipartisan manner that garners strong business community support.

Senators Kerry and Graham have set forth a positive, practical and realistic framework for legislation, one that echoes the core principles that the Chamber embeds in all of its communications on climate policy. The Chamber agrees with a great deal of the principles set forth by Senators Kerry and Graham, in particular that legislation should: minimize the impact on major emitters; reduce price volatility for consumers; protect global competitiveness; invest in renewable energy sources; take advantage of nuclear power; streamline the permit system; make us the "Saudi Arabia of clean coal" by fostering carbon capture and sequestration technology; commit to increased environmentally responsible onshore and offshore oil and gas exploration; contain consumer and intellectual property protections; protect against agency regulation under existing laws not written for greenhouse gases; strengthen the hand of our international negotiators; and increase our own energy security and energy efficiency.

Good ideas are not limited to Senators Kerry and Graham. Proposals by Senators Alexander, Barrasso, Baucus, Bingaman, Cantwell, Dorgan, Lieberman, Murkowski, Vitter and Voinovich (to name a few) all contain elements that can be used in conjunction with the Kerry- Graham proposal and the positive aspects of S. 1733, the "Clean Energy Jobs and Power Act," to craft a realistic, cost-effective and environmentally meaningful climate change bill.

Shaping a bill the Chamber, the broader business community, and a bipartisan majority in the House and Senate approve of will take significant effort. 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. But the Chamber believes Senators Kerry, Graham, and the other named Senators have taken a constructive and positive stand on global climate change and energy security, rising above partisan politics and opening a real discussion on how to address this important issue. The Chamber has developed many other recommendations that would complement these approaches to strengthen our nation’s energy security, power our economy, and create jobs, and protect the environment, and we welcome the opportunity to meet with you to discuss these important issues.

Sincerely,
R. Bruce Josten

We look forward to working with the Senators to help in developing economically and environmentally sound climate action legislation around our long-held principles which we have presented many times.  Here are few for further reading:

• Five Positions on Energy and the Environment
• Support for Renewable Energy
• Climate Action - The State of Play
• May 14th 2009 Letter to Congress
• Engaging Internationally on Climate Change
• January 8th Testimony on "America's Energy Security Challenges"
• Our 2009 State of American Business
• Transition Plan for Securing America’s Energy Future
• Do the Right Thing on Climate Change
• Managing a Changing Climate: Challenges & Opportunities

// Update: press release here - "the Senate has an opportunity to promote a workable bottom-up plan that starts by addressing the fundamental building blocks—rather than the top-down approach of targets and timetables it has taken thus far"

Comments

[ChamberPost]

Apples and oranges Dittrich. (BP)

[A. Dittrich]

If the US Chamber of Commerce is not opposed to efforts to combat and ameliorate climate change, then why in the world have you raised hundreds of thousands of dollars from US business to prosecute the young climate activists who staged a humorous satirical press conference announcing the Chamber had decided to help fight climate change?!!

Why not just have a sense of humor, and let the incident pass by? Why are you vigorously prosecuting them in the courts?

This is clear proof of your hypocrisy! You should either cease your prosecution of these young people, or own up to the truth of your opposition to efforts to combat climate change and cease your campaign of obfuscating disinformation on the subject. Yes, sure, you want something done about it, just not ever anything that is actually proposed in Congress, just always something else, that no one but polluting businesses support, because, oh, let me think out this unfathomable mystery, oh, perhaps because whatever you support WOULD NOT CHALLENGE THE VILE PRACTICES OF POLLUTING CORPORATIONS, OR HAVE ANY USEFUL EFFECT IN THE FIGHT AGAINST THE DEVASTATIONS OF ADVANCING CLIMATE CHANGE AT ALL!!!

[jorge kafkazar]

I have bachelor's and master's degrees in engineering, including physics and chemistry courses, radiation into gases, astrophysics, and mathematics. I've spent over 500 hours in the past year looking into AGW science. My conclusion? It's drivel.

The statement that added CO² will cause disastrous global warming is on a par with the bumblebees- can't-fly canard: all theory, and much evidence to the contrary.

Climategate has revealed that skeptics have been right all along: pro-AGW scientists were cooking the books since early days. Those implicated by the leaked memos include IPCC science insiders at the highest levels, those responsible for virtually all "global temperature records" relied upon by the IPCC and for the IPCC summary reports themselves.

If AGW science were valid, why did Climategate scientists find it necessary to manipulate data, evade FOI requests, plan to destroy data, threaten boycotts of neutral journals, prevent publication of dissenting views, and then, for the cherry on top of this insidious farrago, proclaim a fictitious consensus?

AGW has been exposed as the greatest hoax in history, driven by a propaganda machine funded by billions of our tax dollars in the service of global socialism and tyranny. It's time for the Chamber to make a stand, take an unequivocal position against this treasonous destruction of American industry.

"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." --Winston Churchill

[Willis Eschenbach]

Joel, thanks for your comments. My objection to Dr. Pachauri is that he uses his position to spread alarmism and to push for things like vegetarianism as a cure for climate ills. This is a misuse of his authority.

Next, you say:

Yes, science does not operate by consensus. However, when we use science to inform public policy, we have found the best way to do so is to ask the scientists accomplished in their fields to review the current state of the science and explain what is and is not generally agreed to and with what (estimated) confidence various statements can be made.

I do not have a problem with that. However, in climate science this "consensus" has been forged by political means rather than scientific means. People complain that Exxon gave ten million to the study of the climate, but say nothing about Al Gore spending three hundred million, not to advance the science, but to push a particular point of view about the science. You can buy a lot of "consensus" for three hundred million ...

Finally, none other that Dwight Eisenhower warned about the "scientific-governmental complex". He clearly foresaw today's situation, where the majority of climate science funding comes from the government. As a result, scientists who do not believe in the "consensus" are frozen out of funding. Once again, this fosters a false illusion of consensus.

There are a number of well known, eminent scientists who do not think that the temperature of a complex system like the climate could even theoretically be ruled by a minor trace gas. Despite years of claims that "the climate is settled", climate science is a new field where fresh discoveries are made daily. Despite huge increases in computing power, the forecasts of current GCMs show no sign of improvement over those of thirty years ago. Yes, they hindcast better ... but as the current decade of flat temperatures shows, their forecasting ability is quite poor ... but by gosh, they are getting much faster at producing poor results. Despite decades of dedicated searching, there is still very little evidence (as opposed to model results) that CO2 controls the global temperature like a thermostat controls the our house temperature. And our estimate of climate sensitivity, which was 1.5 to 4.5° for a doubling of CO2 thirty years ago, has hardly improved at all. Climate is widely recognized to be chaotic, but our attempted analyses are generally linear (if CO2 goes up by X, temperature will rise by Y).

All of these are very troubling signs. That a "consensus" exists at all in these conditions is even more troubling. An honest scientific assessment would be "we don't know". We don't know if CO2 rules the climate. We don't know whether the world will be warmer or cooler ten years from now. We don't know how much our measurements are corrupted by urban heat and abysmal thermometer siting. We don't know if the earth has an equilibrium temperature, or whether it is free to rise or fall without constraint. Our historical data is inadequate, short, and full of holes. Much of the climate system is not available for direct measurement.

And yet people like Pachauri stand up and pontificate that there is enough of a "consensus" to advise spending billions and billions of dollars on the off chance that reducing CO2 will make a degree's difference in 50 years ...

So while your idea of getting the best scientists together to see what they agree on works when the science is well understood and not politically driven, in a highly politicised and poorly understood arena like climate science all we are getting is eco-religious dogma wrapped up in the latest feel-good trappings. As the release of the CRU data shows, the "consensus" is maintained by collusion.

We don't have billions to waste, the climate is killing people today as we speak, and the "scientific consensus" claims that the best thing to do is cripple the economic growth of poor countries for decades to possibly provide a slight benefit in 50 years. That is the result of your plan ... can't say I'm impressed.

[Joel Shore]

Willis: If Dr. Rajendra Pachauri gave his own personal opinions on climate change, then I would not in fact give them much weight at all. However, as head of the IPCC, his job (among other things) is communicating the science of the IPCC reports which are written by people who are extremely accomplished in their field. He is not just giving his own personal views. And, at any rate, I prefer to read the IPCC documents themselves rather than listen to Dr. Pachauri.

As for Crichton, I don't want to speak ill of the dead but I am surprised to see you falling for his sophistry. Yes, science does not operate by consensus. However, when we use science to inform public policy, we have found the best way to do so is to ask the scientists accomplished in their fields to review the current state of the science and explain what is and is not generally agreed to and with what (estimated) confidence various statements can be made. This is much superior to having each individual citizen or policymaker come to their own view on the science, since few people have the time or background to do justice to the task, and in general what happens in that case is that people just come to the view that enforces their own pre-conceptions. A good example of this is, of course, evolution vs intelligent design where the scientific community has reached consensus conclusions on the science that I think both of us would agree are far superior to the conclusions reached by a large proportion of the U.S. public.

[Willis Eschenbach]

I got to thinking more about Joel Shore's claim that Inhofe's list of scientists didn't have the "qualifications to pontificate about the subject" of climate science.

In that regard, there's Dr. Rajendra Pachauri. Dr. Pachauri has a PhD in industrial engineering, whose first job was at the Diesel Locomotive Works in Varanasi, India.

So he's trained as a locomotive industrial engineer. But now, of course, he spends all day every day "pontificating about the climate" as the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC. His latest lunacy is that we should all become vegetarians so the climate won't go off the rails ... riiiiiight.

So Joel, you should email him too, tell him he's not qualified to pontificate about climate ... and in this case, I agree with you entirely.

[Willis Eschenbach]

Joel Shore, I see you are still beating the drum of the "consensus". As Michael Crichton remarked,

"I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period."

Crichton's speech is excellent, I urge everyone to read it so you can understand the idiocy of believing simply because there is a consensus.

http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html

I also note that you claim the 700 scientists listed by Inhofe are "a hodge-podge of various scientists, forecasts meteorologists, and others who have no real qualifications to pontificate on the subject."

Like these people?

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense...The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

“Whatever the weather, it's not being caused by global warming. If anything, the climate may be starting into a cooling period.” Atmospheric scientist Dr. Art V. Douglas, former Chair of the Atmospheric Sciences Department at Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska, and is the author of numerous papers for peer-reviewed publications.

“Earth has cooled since 1998 in defiance of the predictions by the UN-IPCC....The global temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade and the coldest of the millennium...which is why ‘global warming’ is now called ‘climate change.’” - Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado.

The full list is at http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9 (PDF). It puts the lie to your claims that there are no climatologists or atmospheric scientists or environmental scientists or atmospheric physicists on the list. If you have the balls to tell Dr. Joanne Simpson that she doesn't have the "qualifications to pontificate on the subject", then send her an email to tell her so. I await your notification here on this site that you have done so. Absent that, I'll have to assume that you don't have the qualifications to pontificate on the subject.

[Canada Guy]

Everyone knows that preventing climate change, or at least the worst consequences of it, is not going to be easy. While the task required is large and difficult, there are some simple, quick, and easy fixes that can make a real difference, and perhaps even buy us more time. But they are being ignored.

http://www.selfdestructivebastards.com/2009/11/low-hanging-fruit.html

[Catherine Hughes]

What is the REAL reason for the US Chamber's capitulation? Who "got to" who? A big mistake, this goes against everything the Chamber stands for and all that I represent at our local Chamber. What's next, siding with card check and government single payer health care?

[Joel Shore]

Mike M: The IPCC's conclusions have been endorsed by most of the major scientific organizations on the planet (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change ). The IPCC's conclusions have even been accepted by ExxonMobil for heaven's sake ( http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/energy_climate_views.aspx ), which touts the fact that two of its own scientists contributed to the IPCC reports!

Senator Inhofe's list of "700 scientists" is a hodge-podge of various scientists, forecasts meteorologists, and others who have no real qualifications to pontificate on the subject.

The so-called "skeptic" movement is anything but skeptical and has increasingly divorced itself from all reality, making itself completely irrelevant to the policy debate about what to do about climate change.

[Mike M]

Eric Olson said: "There has to be a point where you act on the consensus of trained people - who really have no stake in the climate going badly"

Ok Eric, let's see a LIST OF NAMES in your 'consensus' and then compare it to the real world consensus of THOUSANDS of scientists in climate and associated fields who know that the AGW theory is all but dead. I hate to break it to you but the UN is a POLITICAL organization not a scientific body and there are no '2500 scientists' who believe in AGW; (go ahead, just TRY to get a list of their names). Then go to the EPW Senate minority page and see over 700 mostly PhD scientists who are skeptics. The difference in their thinking is $$$$! No, not oil money for hose 700+ Eric - over 30 BILLION of our hard-earned tax dollars are spent by US government to 'study' the problem and that spending has generated a whole class of people in government and at the UN who will simply keep LYING about AGW to keep their jobs. In contrast, most of the honest non-government academic skeptics receive ZERO from oil companies, (some oil companies are endorsing AGW to get rich on carbon credits!), and many skeptics are even risking losing goverment grant money for speaking up. Banks are now looking at derivative carbon credit trading that will make Michael Milkan look like he ran a fraulent lemonade stand in comparison - TRILLIONS of dollars are at stake! .. and all based on a LIE. The USCC has sold its soul.

[ChamberPost]

Further commentary here:

http://www.chamberpost.com/2009/11/climate-change---finding-the-balance.html

[Gale Combs]

So the Chamber agrees with the traitors here in the USA that we should commit Economic Suicide.

When is the Chamber planning to move to China and join Maurice Strong, the globalist behind the global warming hoax???

Wide awake Small Businessman

[Rick Beikoff]

We business owners in Australia were hoping your litigation against the EPA would put an end to this hysterical AGW scare. What happened? We would really appreciate the opportunity to hear why you changed your mind. In the meantime, we are very, very disappointed.

[Eric Olson]

If all these angry business owners writing their venomous letters were suddenly to develop a strange new medical symptom, they would seek an expert, called a medical doctor. If the initial diagnosis was truly alarming, the proper thing to do would be to immediately get a second opinion. If you had the time and money, you could keep this process up for weeks, getting more detail and clarity on the problem, from doctors and health researchers in the finest medical centers around the world. Well the Earth is the patient now, changes are happening, and we've been getting the diagnosis worked out by earth and climate "doctors" for DECADES. There has to be a point where you act on the consensus of trained people - who really have no stake in the climate going badly -- and get them to recommend a course of treatment. I think the Chamber has recognized this imperative, and I salute you for this thoughtful decision.

The way I read your letter, you will continue to keep your eye on the well being of your members, while also acknowledging the larger task of at least STARTING to move away from business as usual. Every such change has led people to cry that the sky will fall on their businesses. Now the US must lead on an effective GLOBAL accord, because although that can't create a perfectly level playing field, a global accord should help keep the playing field from getting more imbalanced than it already is. The US business community should now turn to the task of doing all it can to ensure an effective global accord is achieved. Carbon restriction will soon be upon us, in some form, so a strong global accord is now needed to help avoid a loss of our competitiveness.

[Richard Lee]

The Chamber was on the right track, representing businesses and taxpayers against the Big Lie, promoted by anti-business interests, that a tiny trace gas will cause climate catastrophe.

There isno evidence whatever that carbon dioxide has any effect on temperature. None. All of the putative "evidence" comes from computer models, but not from the real world; as CO2 has risen, global temperatures have been dropping for almost a decade now. The empirical evidence of the decline in global temperature has been verified by NASA, NOAA, and HadCRUT, among many others.

But now you want us to believe that after giving your legal action against these anti-business alarmists serious consideration, and then, after the Chamber's governing body has discussed the pro's and con's, and then made the thoughtful decision to move forward with this necessary lawsuit, that the CoC has now simply read an editorial and spoken to a senator -- and based on that, the Chamber is now flipping 180°, and giving up??

There is more to it than that. They got to you, and you caved. That much is obvious. You are fooling no one.

The Chamber may have taken the easy way out this time. But your credibility has been completely destroyed in the process.

They got to you. It's as simple as that. And you caved.

[reliapundit - the astute blogger]

IDIOTS.

AGW = BS.

[Mike Houlding]

As an interested observer in NZ I can only echo the disappointment and disgust expressed by previous commenters.

We are looking for some principled response to this global warming/climate change scam, and thought with the Chamber's actions it had arrived.

Money indeed talks, and it has obviously spoken loud and clear to your directors. I hope your core membership treats the Chamber with the disdain it deserves.

[Don Amundson]

After watching the USCC cave to political pressure on it's AGW stance I see no reason for your organization to exist.

[DonS.]

You decided to support AGW based on an incoherent column by two non-scientists? Are you mad?
I am divesting myself of all companies which are members of your organization and I urge others to do the same.

[John Warden]

Dear Tom Donohue and Mr. R. Bruce Josten
US Chamber of Commerce

Gentlemen,

Several years ago, I dropped my company's membership in the Chamber when the state and local branch decided to support a very anti-business high tax proposal without any attempt to poll its members. I had, however, almost decided to rejoin the Chamber because of the position the national organization had taken on the global warming issue. Now, I am glad that I procrastinated: your recent capitulation on this issue is bizarre and unconscionable in the face of a rapidly growing body of science that casts extreme doubt on the CO2 hypothesis and in the face of overwhelming evidence of the economic and political damage that will be wrought by any attempt to control CO2.
I and my company are heading for the National Federation of Independent Business and the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Yours truly,

John Warden
Montgomery, Alabama

[Mike M]

Good bye US Chamber of Commerce - don't let the door hit you on the way out. There is not ONE piece of empirical evidence that all CO2 causes any measurable amount of global warming let alone the puny amount we add to it. Over 100's of millions of years, it has been MUCH higher on our planet, (5X to 20X more!) with ZERO correlation that those MUCH higher concentrations ever caused runaway global warming. All of AGW theory is based on models and NONE OF THE PREDICTIONS MADE BY THOSE MODELS BACK IN ~2001 EVER CAME TRUE! The models are therefore INCORRECT but here you are obeying a facist get-rich scheme between big business and big government to the demise of your true base - small business. It's a SCAM and now even the US Chamber of Commerce is joining in to kill our economy. US Chamber - YOU ARE FIRED!!!

[James Tallman]

Congratulations, USCC. You have just shown America that there is, in fact, no integrity left in business. I can only hope that your members leave in droves for the opportunity presented by the CEI. At least they aren't comfortable "selling out" to the largest tax scam in history.

Believe me, there is no legitimate science behind AGW. There is only speculation, based on models created by people who have no education or experience with computer programming. Evidently, the GIGO (garbage in - garbage out) principle applies even to corporate alliances such as yourself.

[John Lindholm]

As a person in a business that will be greatly impacted by the upcoming energy tax I am disappointed to see the U.S. Chamber selling all Americans out to the hype that passes as the Global Warming movement.

No matter how much the man made Global Warming believers protest, the science is not settled and this legislation is not about any change other than the transfer of wealth and power.

If the issues were to be debated not forced upon us there might be some hope. Sad to say that they will never allow it as they cannot defend their position.

[Paul McCauley]

Dear R. Bruce Josten,

Quite a nice use of cliches: climate change, bi-partisanship, etc., but they don't address reality.

"Climate change" is not significantly effected by anything Man can, or has done, similarly "global warming", as "global cooling" is not significantly effected by Man.

Global warming CO2 "pollution" simply doesn't exist and a court challenge to this ridiculous EPA maneuver will scientifically bear that out that.

Bi-partisanship is necessary here only to overcome the popular and correct understanding that this Cap and Steal legislation and provide cover to those who desire this power grab - especially for when this legislation proves to result in the economic destruction and loss of United States sovereignty to the carbon credit consortium through the UN.

Look, Gore's atrocious film was debunked in the UK in 2007, yet we still have it forced upon our children in the US. Where is our will to seek the truth, do we want our children to continue to learn the lies of the power hungry elite who avoid debate and review?

Carbon sequestration? Come on. What a charade. You know it's unnecessary and insane - have some backbone and stop encouraging wasting citizen's, customer's and the nation's resources and time on such efforts.

Stop pandering to the political gamesmanship and ignorance of geologic history, plausibility and impossibility. Climatological science is a science in it's infancy and improper actions by us, the ignorant climatological infant, will only provide unintended consequences that will likely be much more difficult for us to solve - do no harm.

The best and only viable path to our even getting past beginning to comprehend our climate, let alone tweak it is for us to live in an healthy and vibrant economy and society where we have the capital to undertake the necessary research and experiments that will further enrich our knowledge and enable us to learn how to act responsibly and be able to be held accountable for missteps that will surely be made as we learn.

Coal, oil, gas, nuclear energy are our only real and our best sources for dependable energy and will be for many hundreds of years, maybe thousands (breeders). Solar and wind can, at best, be supplemental sources even though they are the false darlings in some dreamer's eyes - they are not realistically efficient or dependable enough.

Let's regain a healthy vibrant economy (with jobs) through using what we have (coal, oil, gas and rebuild nuclear) to immediately become energy independent while investing in future tech and science that will enable us to meet future REAL challenges, some of which we surely won't foresee.

Unlimited fortunes can yet be made, and made honestly and safely, if we just stand up to the false claims of those plotting to exploit honest, safe capitalistic workers providing the highest standard of living in history. As we progress and learn we are better able to continue with increasing options at our disposal so that when a valid threat appears we will best be able to address it.

We can't shut down our energy generators before greater production has been established, and there is no reason to. Why can't those who promote such irresponsible plans be held suspect and avoided?

Look, it's not difficult. Let the American spirit rip and lead the world, once again, before it takes us tens, or hundreds of years to regain our stature.

[Claude Harvey]

As an engineer who is well versed in the science involved in global warming issues, I cannot adequately describe my disgust at the Chamber's reversal in this matter. That reversal and its flimsy excuse will hold a special place for all time in the annals of organizational cowardice. You knew better, but you caved under pressure.

Claude Harvey

[Paul McCauley]

Wait a minute. The Chamber wants us to believe that an op-ed by ill-informed opportunistic politicians can trump science and the best interests of the Chambers Members and Country?

The Chamber leadership is too intelligent for that. To sellout the U.S. for a few carbon credits is unforgivable. The political/economic tactic has been used often by this Administration. Shame on the Chamber for succumbing.

We all know here that CO2 is not the problem and this entire charade by the AGW Alarmists is power agenda driven at the expense of our national sovereignty and future.

This maneuver by the Chamber will cost it it's future, but in true Capitalistic fashion inspire the determination of it's members to create anew a new, better representative organization that will, once again, be true to the business fundamentals of this great country.

It is a shame that this Chamber has chosen to cut short it's representation of true American Business for some fraudulent and dangerous power-hungry anti-science elitists.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has died.

[Joel Shore]

As a physicist with a strong interest in climate change science, I am glad to see that the Chamber of Commerce appears to be recognizing the importance of taking serious steps to address the climate change issue. However, I hope that this represents a true change in Chamber policy and not just posturing in order to stem the tide of resignations from your organization by companies that accept the science and the urgency to take serious action to combat climate change.

I look forward to the Chamber playing a much more constructive role in addressing this serious issue than it has in the past.

[rickM]

Reducing electrical consumption with no viable commercial alternative to fossil based fuels is about as bad a business decision as anything I've seen. And is part and parcel of the CAGW mantra on reducing CO2 emissions.

Bravo Chamber! This is why business will choose an alternative to your organization. I also don't believe you polled your members. The CEO of GE, while leading a large corporation, is fully in bed with this administration. You should have stood on principle, rather than kowtow to whatever happened in the background to cause this.

[PaulK]

I'm sorry, but I am not understanding the change in position of the Chamber. If anything, the science behind climate change is coming unglued. I would suggest reading some wattsupwiththat.com before going forward with costly policy. I am really disappointed with Lindsay Graham's loss of sensibility.

[hunter]

There may be a political imperative to join the AGW fantasy that we can manage the climate by way of CO2 regulation. But you are selling out the people, and rewarding those who have highjacked climate science with fear mongering.
The best that can be hoped for is that AGW inspired legislation will not harm too many people or cost too much more money. Your caving in to this dims that hope.

[Jon Becker]

The article in Natural Geoscience proposes that prehistoric global warming resulted from carbon soot eminating from the burning of wood and cow dung in household cooking and heating.

So the Dinosaurs lived in houses?

The article also advances the claim that Global Warming due to CO2 "is done in order to advance a political and in fact socialist agenda to redistribute wealth".

Black carbon would absorb the sunlight coming down and reradiate it back into space at a longer wavelength, thereby causing Global Cooling which is not what we see.

The Natural Geoscience article is politically motivated by large corporate conglomerates.

[Randy Dutton]

Researchers find that reducing soot, ozone and HFCs, whle adding biochar, will push back catastrophic climate change by 40 years
In Washington, researchers led by Nobel Laureate Dr. Mario Molina have found that the “dangerous threshold of 2 degC warming” can be pushed back 40 years by reducing non-CO2 climate change agents such as black carbon soot, tropospheric ozone, and hydrofluorocarbons, as well as expanding bio-sequestration through biochar production.
The scientists are reporting in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) that a binding legal agreement to cut HFC—the Montreal Protocol ozone treaty—has already delayed climate change by seven to 12 years.
A fast-action strategy presented in the paper is reducing black carbon soot, an aerosol produced largely from the incomplete combustion of diesel fuels and biofuels, and from biomass burning. It is now considered to be the second or third largest contributor to climate change.

Black carbon is responsible for almost 50 percent of the 1.9 degC increase in warming of the Arctic since 1890 as well as significant melting of the Himalaya-Tibetan glaciers that feed the major rivers of Asia, providing fresh water to billions of people. Researchers consider black carbon an ideal target for achieving quick mitigation because it only remains in the atmosphere a few days to a few weeks and can be reduced by expanding the use of diesel particulate filters for vehicles and clean-burning or solar cookstoves to replace those burning dung and wood. With indoor air pollution killing 1.6 million people a year, global action to cut soot emissions would reap major benefits for both public health and climate.

Ground level or tropospheric ozone doubles as a major climate forcer and health hazard. It also lowers crop yields. A recent study reported that ozone’s damage to crop yields in 2000 resulted in an economic loss of up to $26 billion annually. It is formed by “ozone precursor” gases such as carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, methane, and other hydrocarbons, many of which can be reduced by improving the efficiency of industrial combustion processes. Reducing tropospheric ozone by 50 percent could buy another decade’s worth of time for countries to start making substantial cuts in CO2.

Biochar is one of the few promising “carbon-negative” strategies that can drawdown existing concentrations of CO2. The fine-grained charcoal product is a stable form of carbon, produced from pyrolysis, that can be plowed into soil where it remains for hundreds to thousands of years, also serving as a natural fertilizer.

[Randy Dutton]

Recent research shows carbon soot, causes 50-60% of the melting of ice fields and glaciers, not CO2. The cap and trade legislation, Copenhagen Agreement, and other means to restrict our economy are red herrings. The problem is NOT CO2, which is essential for life on Earth, but rather other pollutants, which are not covered under the proposed legislation. In fact, the CO2 legislation will cause more real pollution. For the sake of the US economy and in an effort to reduce REAL pollution, don't fall for the proposals by Progressive legislators who have an agenda contrary to American free enterprise. We have many other, more effective solutions in tackling pollution that will benefit America. Tell the Progressives NO to CO2 controls. ......................................
US researchers have remodeled soot emissions, concluding that soot is causing nearly 60 percent of the global warming impact of CO2, and because soot has a shorter lifecycle than carbon emissions (that can last for up to 100 years), tackling soot offers a “faster win” against climate change than carbon strategies.
The article, in Nature Geoscience, concluded that previous soot models had not previously accounted for the absorption of reflected sunlight. In possible confirmation of the data, significantly higher soot concentrations are found in the Arctic than Antarctic, and observations in the northern polar region show higher ice-melting rates not previously explained by the carbon emission model of climate change.
“Between 25% and 35% of black carbon in the global atmosphere comes from China and India, emitted from the burning of wood and cow dung in household cooking and through the use of coal to heat homes. Countries in Europe and elsewhere that rely heavily on diesel fuel for transportation also contribute large amounts,” commented nature.com on the sources of soot emissions.