It's funny you criticize the contributions made to Rep. Whitfield since those companies employ thousands of workers and drive our economy. You're more than likely a fan of the defunct Kyoto protocol - I understand why you might think it would be wise to place an 80% tax on oil. The results would include a number of positive results - tremendous loss of jobs, utility bills too high for most folks to pay, gas prices high enough that people can't leave their homes, all nudging the economy down a steep cliff. Genious. And what are the "real" benefits? Well, the hockey stick graph by Mann would have you believe that reducing the CO2 will simultaneously relieve the temperature flux. I must confess now that I am a research climatologist at a major university (I can't even say the name of my school for fear of never recieving a grant again to perform relevant research, quite unlike Mr. Mann's). Many of my peers are in the same boat. For fear of losing grants, we can't express our concerns over Mann's fabricated hockey-stick diagram. I don't know how much you know about paleoclimates, but there was a major medievil warm trend and a minor mid- to late-millenium cooling trend, both of which Mann has completely ignored. It is true that he threw out very important data that didn't fit into his diagram, i.e. tree cores taken from Bristlecone Pines in southern California. Most pines revealed a major, major increase in CO2 since the industrial revolution, but no corresponding temperature flux. Mann says, "Doesn't fit my graph, throw it out." He's a liar and a manipulator of data. Yes the atmosphere is loaded with CO2 compared with what was present in 1860, but it's so inconsequential. Less than 1%. Even if the content of atmospheric CO2 doubled, it would remain less that 1% and any climatologist can tell you CO2 plays almost no role in the greenhouse effect, it's water vapor that drives global climate change. If enough CO2 were present, in fact, models reveal it would have a cooling effect in the upper atmosphere and reach a warming asymptote at the surface where CO2 could no longer effect warming. Guess what? Most research indicates it has been reached or is very to close to being reached. I could go on, but I'll resist. The burning of oil does have an effect on the atmosphere, sure, but it's such a small amount of CO2 it emplaces that it can never effect climate. We're in a warming trend. That's it. We're still coming out of the little Ice Age from 150 years ago. If you ever cared to looked, surface temps of the earth have sustained a steady decline this new millenium (but like other "hockey stick is the Bible" believers, you won't ever care to take that into consideration. Final point: oil drives our economy, not the weather. And by the way, I don't know what PR pollution you're attempting to clear, but the community of climatologists who have subscribed to Mann's graph have shrouded the relevant research by other non-conformists in as much smoke as is supposedly caused by CO2. In case you didn't notice, you're stance has been accepted and "proven." Climatologists like myself who have now realized that Mann's research was a load of bull have to swallow our tongues and pray that we can get a challenge to his graph printed in a peer-reviewed journal. It is my belief that Mann's graph has red-taped more research than any "discovery" in science history. I wish you smoke blowers would allow the honest scientific community the chance for a real rebutle.

Chrysler is having trouble refinancing a big piece of its debt. Having it said, the financial problem will spread to General Motors and Ford. They and Chrysler asked for cash advance loans from the Government back in November, along with a request for open lines of credit from Ford.  GM Stock has recently taken a huge tumble on the market, after President Obama asked CEO Rick Wagoner to step down from his post as the head of GM and all subsidiaries, which he promptly complied with.  Some experts have advocated that both GM and Chrysler declare bankruptcy and merge, with both discarding all brands that aren't competitive.  Regardless, it appears dark days are still ahead for General Motors.

Interesting. DeSmogBlogger Ross Gelbspan says Michael Mann's hockey stick work "has been thoroughly peer-reviewed and approved by a number of studies, most recently by the US National Research Council," but DeSmogBlogger Richard Littlemore says Mann's work is "a hockey stick that can't keep its stick up."

You guys are split into your own camps of believers and deniers, yet you criticize others for not agreeing with every part of global warming movement orthodoxy!

(Does this mean Richard Littlemore is on the take from the fossil fuel industry?)

Richard Littlemore is right to be skeptical, while Ross Gelbspan should be more careful, as his spin has overtaken the facts. The NAS study did not "approve" the hockey stick work (whatever "approve" means) however Mann might wish -- with Gelbspan's help -- to spin it otherwise. And Congressman Whitfield's Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations invited Mann to testify on the 27th after Mann, through a lawyer, refused to testify at a hearing on the 19th because he did not want to interrupt his vacation. (If you doubt this, go to the Committee website at http://energycommerce.house.gov/ and download and watch the archived webcast of the July 19th hearing, where the lawyers' letters to the Committee were discussed openly by the Congressmen as part of the hearing.)

A question for Mr. Gelbspan: Why has Michael Mann so stubbornly refused to make his data public, so his hockey stick paper can be genuinely peer-reviewed?

Tartly Critical Wrote:

 "When one clicks on the link to read the story Gelbspan says is 'exonerating,' one sees that the story says no such thing. It says two new studies found problems with the hockey stick paper without agreeing fully with the critics, either."

 Actually, one of the stories "endorses" the stick, the other claims it is "robust" against the criticisms levelled against it.  You seem to be just bandying words.