Jim Sensenbrenner: Global Warming Committee Should Be Used To Rein In Obama Administration On Climate Change

WASHINGTON — A leading House Republican climate skeptic on Monday called for his party to preserve a global warming committee created by Democrats so Republicans can use it to rein in the Obama administration on the issue.

Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., said that the economic threat posed by Environmental Protection Agency regulations deserves special attention in the next Congress.

The EPA is set to regulate greenhouse gases next year for the first time, after the Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that it could treat heat-trapping gases such as carbon dioxide as pollutants. Many Republicans, who take control of the House in January, argue that the regulations would hurt the economy and kill jobs.

"No panel has developed more experience on these topics than the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming," Sensenbrenner said in a statement. "These regulations are moving quickly, but the oversight and subpoena power wielded by the select committee would put a tall hurdle in the path and would further expose the economic destruction these policies would bring."

EPA spokesman Brendan Gilfillan responded: "The commonsense and transparent steps we've taken are already proving doomsayers wrong, as evidenced by the fact that 98 percent of states have stated they're in a position to comply in January." That was a reference to every state but Texas agreeing to meet the new federal greenhouse gas emission rules that go into effect at the beginning of the year.

Sensenbrenner, the committee's top Republican, is in line to become chairman if his party keeps the panel. Brendan Buck, a spokesman for the Republican Majority Transition Committee, said that the decision will be made by GOP leadership – subject to approval by the full party conference.

Michael Steel, a spokesman for Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, who is expected to become House speaker, said he has not heard any discussion about the panel. But some Republicans have already advocated putting the global warming committee on ice.

"The American people do not need Congress to spend millions of dollars to write reports and fly around the world," wrote Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., in a recent Washington Times op-ed. "We must terminate this wasteful committee."

Upton is a candidate to become the next chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Democrats established the committee in 2007, after taking control of the House. At the time, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., called global warming possibly "the greatest challenge of our time, setting at risk our economy, environment and national security." With the committee, she said, "the House is giving these issues the high visibility they deserve." But from the very start, Republican committee members scoffed at claims about global warming as "hot air" and "extremism."

The committee has been chaired by Rep. Ed Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat who was co-sponsor of legislation that would have limited pollution linked to global warming and redirected the nation toward greater use of clean energy. The bill narrowly passed the House last year. But it withered away in the Senate this year, despite a call for a carbon tax on fossil fuels or a cap-and-trade system for curbing greenhouse gas emissions by the National Academy of Sciences, which labeled global warming an urgent threat.

Markey spokesman Eben Burnham-Snyder declined to offer an opinion on Sensenbrenner's call.

"While we agree with Congressman Sensenbrenner that the select committee is ambitious and highly experienced in energy and climate issues, renewing the committee is a matter for his party's incoming speaker," he said.

Comments

[motoGpifupleez]

01:13 PM on 11/22/2010

So let me get this straight.

Wisconsin keeps Jim Sensenbrenner but tosses out Russ Feingold?

I'm thinking of a different word to replace "Cheese" in "CheeseHeads".

[stgir]

02:31 PM on 11/22/2010

Oh sure. Kick us while we're down. I am holding out hope that my fellow wisconsinites get their heads out of their a$$e$ by the next election.

[Axlotl]

10:42 AM on 11/22/2010

Ugh. The relationship between conservative viewpoints and morbid obesity never fails to amaze me.

[UkrainianPrince]

02:40 PM on 11/15/2010

Ole-Old-Fart Sensenbrenner will be dead before it affects him... but not the fruit of his loins.

I never realized until recently... the 2007 IPCC report often referenced was based on peer-reviewed, scientific papers/doc­uments/res­each, etc., that had (for review & publication purposes) to be submitted by the end of 2005. Add 2 years for back & forth peer review, comments, questions & journal publication timelines and we are looking at research that took place prior to 2003-2002.
Point is, it seems that we will always be 5 or 6 years behind the actually climate change data. My understanding is that the next IPCC report is due in 2012, so whatever climate change data is reported will be 5 or 6 years behind actual (current) climate events.

Consequently, the thought occured to me... any early warning of reaching a tipping point will not be "reported" to the media, political-hack class & dumb public until at least 5 years after it happens. As slow as our political movers and shakers move to take any serious action, it will be to late for most of us. For myself, at age 65, I have age optimism... I'll be dead before it matters to me. Makes me wonder though about those climate- deniers younger than me or those with children, grand children? Climate change may excelerate BECAUSE Republicans are "in charge" for the near future. Having formerly lived in Wisconsin I know Sensenbrenner is full of Hot air!

[Richard2]

07:45 PM on 11/14/2010

Here is something the chairman could investigate:

"Nothing more poignantly reflects the collapse of the great global warming scare than the decision of the Chicago Carbon Exchange, the largest in the world, to stop trading in "carbon" – buying and selling the right of businesses to continue emitting CO2.

A few years back, when the climate scare was still at its height, and it seemed the world might agree the Copenhagen Treaty and the US Congress might pass a "cap and trade" bill, it was claimed that the Chicago Exchange would be at the centre of a global market worth $10 trillion a year, and that "carbon" would be among the most valuable commodities on earth, worth more per ton than most metals. Today, after the collapse of Copenhagen and the cap and trade bill, the carbon price, at five cents a ton, is as low as it can get without being worthless."

Christopher Booker, in the Telegraph.

[Publicola]

03:10 PM on 11/15/2010

R2: "....Christopher Booker, in the Telegraph."

In addition to being a to being climate science denier, Daily Telegraph OpEd columnist Christopher Booker is also an evolution science denier.

Richard2 denies that Christopher Booker denies evolution science - why do you deny reality, R2?

[Publicola]

03:11 PM on 11/15/2010

Christopher Booker, in the London Telegraph:

----------­­­--------­-­-­------­--­--­----­---­---

Another recent addition to the BBC's hate list is "intelligent design", the movement gathering way among many respected scientists in the US and elsewhere who have become profoundly sceptical about the adequacy of Darwinian natural selection to explain the complexities of evolution...

On the side of the Darwinians were the BBC's science correspondent, the Today presenter and Sir David Attenborough, all of whom went out of their way to ignore the fact that the proponents of "intelligent design" are scientists, some very eminent...

Despite the best efforts of Dr Steven Meyer, an American scientist who was the lone voice arguing for "intelligent design", the BBC trio tried to present it as no more than a cause for religious nutters... Sir David Attenborough clearly had not the slightest idea of what the "intelligent design" thesis is about.

He insisted that "science looks at the facts" and that "We must stick with scientific logic": oblivious to the fact that intelligent design is argued by expert scientists who have come to their conclusions precisely because they are following those principles...

It is fascinating to see how the Darwinians... rest their case on nothing more than blind faith and unexamined a priori assumptions, fanatically intolerant of anyone who dares question their beliefs.

How apt that they should now be supported by that latest home of lost causes, the BBC.

[Dogs And Cats]

02:18 PM on 11/13/2010

The warming trend is unambiguous. NASA shows the trend lines quite well at:
http://ear thobservat ory.nasa.g ov/IOTD/vi ew.php?id= 36699

The deniers were all excited when we had subtle settling from a major uptrend in 2008, but even then, most of the globe was well above the climate averages. For example, Asia, Scandinavia, and Africa's dramatic warm anomalies more than offset the closer to neutral conditions experienced elsewhere.

By the way, 2005 was the warmest year in over a century globally. 2009 was about the firth warmest year measured globally. And 2010 is on track to be close to that.

Both 2008 and 2009 experienced unprecedented heat in the Northwest U.S. and on the west coast of Canada. All-time summer temperature records fell both years in both rural and urban areas. This is putting a strain on glaciers in that region. Most glaciers, everywhere on earth, are retreating. This is well documented in photographs.

[sonofsamphm1c]

03:41 PM on 11/13/2010

2010, into the teeth of a frigid La Nina and a sunspot number capable of spawning an ice age, is actually still in the running to be the hottest year in the instrument record.

Amazing what CO2 warming can fight off.

[Picachu]

07:02 PM on 11/12/2010

Obviously the only sense this guy has is in the beginning of his name

[lesterbud]

03:18 PM on 11/11/2010

The only certain thing in this debate (besides the data if you are smart enough and interested enough to go to the NOAA website and look for yourself) is that if we DO NOTHING, there is 0% chance of positive change.
The GOPer policy is 100% DO NOTHING, and they are proud of it.
Stick you heads in the sand, stick you finger in your ears and hum your favorite hymn or patriotic song as loud as you can.
Climate change will then just pass right over us.

[joseph449008]

03:07 PM on 11/11/2010

There are basically 3 parts to this debate:

[1] Is it warming?
[2] Is it us?
[3] How do you mitigate it?

[1] and [2] are scientifically established, in the view of the vast majority of climate scientists.

[3] is tricky, though, if you do the math. Even if you reduce emissions, the concentration of CO2 will continue to increase. We're already committed to significant warmiing, and (longer term) to consequences of said warming, such as sea-level rise in the order of several meters.

So either CO2 emissions need to be reduced to incredibly low levels, such that its atmospheric concentration becomes reasonable and stable, or we need to come up with techological means to address the problem. The other alternative is to do nothing and wait to see what happens.

[Publicola]

03:59 PM on 11/11/2010

I agree with you on [1] and [2], and somewhat on [3].

The way to mitigate global warming however isn't either/or - what ever substantive steps we take to reduce CO2/GHG emissions will help mitigate global warming, independent of or in addition to other technological solutions.

Also, as yet there are no demonstrably-viable technological means to substantively address the problem (save for GHG-emission reduction), so at present anyway substantive GHG-emission reduction is the only viable game in town.

[Richard2]

07:51 PM on 11/14/2010

1. Is it warming? Are we sure? There are obviously major problems with the land based climate station system. Also, have most older people been experiencing weather that is beyond the extremes of heat and cold that they have experienced during their lifetimes? What we appear to have are "adjusted temperature" data that indicates higher temperatures, but the credibility of the "adjustments" is not good, as indicated by the situation in New Zealand.

2. Is it us? A good question. Beyond the "urban heat effect" which may be underestimated, is man really heating the planet? What are the alternative forces that caused climate change in the past, and may be causing them now?

3. How can you mitigate? How about adaptation, which is what man has had to do since he came on the scene?

[Publicola]

03:23 PM on 11/15/2010

R2: "1. Is it warming? Are we sure?"

Yes and yes. All global temperature databases -- including both satellite records -- unequivocally show that the Earth has warmed significantly over recent decades.

R2: "2. Is it us?"

The scientific evidence supporting anthropogenic global warming is overwhelming.

R2: "Beyond the "urban heat effect" which may be underestimated,"

Or overestimated. In any event most temperature monitoring stations are not in urban areas, and many if not all regions that are less populated show as much or more warming than regions that are more populated.

R2: "What are the alternative forces that caused climate change in the past,"

Changes in solar insolation due to orbital cycles and solar radiative variation is the primary factor; volcanic activity and deforestation also play a role.

R2: "and may be causing them now?"

Known natural forcing agents of past global warming - including changes in orbital cycles and increases in solar radiative output - cannot explain the bulk of said recent warming. Neither has any scientific theory to explain the bulk of said recent warming other than anthropogenic global warming survived scientific scrutiny.

R2: "3. How can you mitigate?"

Reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, and soot emissions too.

[ObjectiveRealist]

11:41 AM on 11/11/2010

"No panel has developed more experience on these topics than the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming," Sensenbrenner said in a statement.

http://c-spanvideo.org/program/293366-1
And yet the _Republicans_ on the panel continue to invite the likes of Christopher Monckton (Tooey!) to testify -- as an "expert"! Clearly "experience" doesn't always lead to _intelligence_.

[anothervoter]

09:18 AM on 11/11/2010

Sorry. Do these people ever exercise?

[lesterbud]

03:19 PM on 11/11/2010

Their flatulence alone......

[anothervoter]

09:18 AM on 11/11/2010

Do there people ever exercise?

[mamacat]

05:33 AM on 11/11/2010

I remember now why I didn't vote for any Republicans in the last election.

[Practical Liberal]

04:06 AM on 11/11/2010

From report with a paraphrase, "Michael Steel, a spokesman for Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, who is expected to become House speaker, said he has not heard any discussion about the panel. But some Republicans have already advocated putting the global warming committee on ice.They will then hire a team of scientists from the American Petroleum Institute and National Association of Manufacturers to time how slowly it takes for the committee to melt through the ice."

[wendynyc]

09:40 PM on 11/10/2010

They are public servants elected to serve those poor energy companies that needd every bit of help to keep their products in every American household all at any cost!

[Bellla]

03:46 PM on 11/10/2010

Ahh but the Republicans WANT a climate disaster....