[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 81 (Tuesday, June 12, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H3052-H3060]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
GLOBAL WARMING
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 3, 2001, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) is
recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I will be discussing global warming
tonight but I would like to just say one or two words and I would hope
that my colleagues in the next presentation about the strategic defense
initiative will have a debate. I would be very happy, along with others
here, to participate on the other side of that issue.
Let me just say I could not disagree with my colleagues more on the
issue of missile defense. I am the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Space and Aeronautics and we do have the capacity and the capability of
knocking down an enemy missile that might have a nuclear warhead that
would murder millions of Americans.
Should we have a defense to prevent millions of Americans from being
incinerated if the Communist Chinese would launch a rocket at us? I
think that it is prudent that we try to develop the system.
The answer to many of the questions that were brought up tonight is
that if the system does not work and cannot be made to work, we will
not buy the system. It is incumbent upon us, incumbent upon us, to
spend the money that is necessary to see if that system can be
developed. I believe it not only can be developed but we have already
knocked out of the sky several missiles that were launched from other
locations without a previous flight plan, I might add.
What we have today, we knew they were coming but not exactly what the
flight plan was. Let me just say this, in the future I would hope,
especially the young lady with two grandchildren, that she does not
face a situation where an American President is told the Chinese have
just launched a missile; there is nothing we can do, nothing we can do
but let it incinerate a part of the United States. I hope her children
are not there or her grandchildren are not there. We have to look at
this as a real possibility.
The Communist Chinese have dramatically expanded the capabilities of
their missile offense, and mutually assured destruction means nothing
to that enemy. Those Americans who are listening to this might think it
would be prudent that America in the future would have a system to
defend itself in case the Communist Chinese would threaten the United
States with an attack that would murder millions of its people unless
we give in. I think it is a very prudent course of action.
I will be very happy to debate with my colleagues in the weeks and
days ahead if they want to have a debate rather than a presentation
here on the floor.
Now I do have my presentation tonight, which I have on global
warming, especially considering that President Bush has come under
severe attack for his refusal to bow before the pressure of a very
well-organized effort that they are trying to pressure him to accept
the idea that the world is in peril because it is becoming more and
more warm because of industrialization. It is vital that the public
understand that what is going on in this attack against President Bush
is about a political agenda; that global warming is not a scientific
imperative. It is a politically-driven theory.
Those espousing global warming are building on public fear and
apprehension. Young people in particular are being lied to about the
environment and about global warming. Global warming, of course, is one
of the worst falsehoods that they talk about. When I meet with student
groups, it is clear they are being told false things about a lot of
areas of the environment.
In fact, I meet every student group from my district that comes to
Washington, D.C. I always ask them the same question: How many of them
believe that the air today in Southern California is cleaner or worse
than it was when I went to high school in Southern California 35 years
ago? Consistently, 95 percent of these students who live in Southern
California who are coming to my office say they believe that the air
quality today is so much worse than it was when I went to high school
and how lucky I was to live in an era, in the early 1960s, when we had
such clean air in Southern California.
This, of course, is 180 degrees wrong. These young people have been
systematically lied to about their environment. They are being told
they are being poisoned by the air. But, in fact, the air quality in
Southern California is better than it has ever been in my lifetime.
They cannot believe it when they hear it.
They also cannot believe that the quality of the Potomac River, the
water quality around us, is better, even the quality of the soil. Even
the number of trees and forests that we have have increased. They have
been lied to time and again about the environment, and again the global
warming theory is the worst of all.
These lies are being used to justify to Americans of all ages, to
justify a centralization of power in Washington, D.C. and a
centralization of power in global government through the United Nations
and other institutions that are run by unelected and unaccountable
authorities.
Let us get into what global warming is all about. Global warming is a
theory that carbon fuel, coal, oil, gas, et cetera, that this carbon-
based fuel is putting CO2 into the atmosphere, and
CO2 is causing the temperature to rise, which will cause a
drastic change in the weather, the ice flows, animal life, plant life
on our planet.
First and foremost, let us recognize this: All of the recent
scientific reports agree that there may, or may not, be a minor change
in the planet's average temperature over this last 100 years. There is
no conclusive proof that man is the cause of that perhaps minor change.
That is not what we are being told. The American public is being told
all of these scientific reports are claiming that global warming is
absolutely a fact and there is no arguing with it. One reads those
reports and they will find that there are weasel words and there are
all sorts of caveats in these reports that suggest the scientific
community cannot say this.
Climate science seems to be a very recent entry into the pantheon of
scientific study. Prior to 1980, there was only a handful of
climatologists. Now they seem to be everywhere. Try to find a
researcher on global warming who is not in some way tied to some sort
of research contract by the Federal Government. Now, could it be that
the reason for the increase in the numbers of global warming advocates
has something to do with the access to government funding for research?
Eight years ago, when President Clinton took over the executive
branch, he saw to it that there would be no one getting scientific
research grants from our government unless they furthered the global
warming theory.
We were tipped off to this when the lead scientist, and I would say
the Director of Energy Research for the Department of Energy, Mr. Will
Happer, was precipitously fired from his position because he did not
agree with the global warming theory and did not believe that it had
been proven. He wrote a little article about it, and Vice President
Gore came down on him like an iron fist and he was out of that job.
Dr. Happer, I might add, is now a professor of physics at Princeton
University. But his removal as the director of research at the
Department of Energy sent a message, clearly heard throughout the
scientific community, you do
[[Page H3053]]
not agree with global warming; you are not going to get the contract.
This has gone on for 8 years.
There does not appear to be much information on global climate change
prior to the mid-1980s. What we have been able to find out, prior to
that time period, is that generally people in those times, the
scientists, were arguing that we were on the edge of a new ice age. It
was not global warming. Then it was global cooling.
{time} 2215
In fact, in the span of 20 years, climate models have gone from
predicting our eminent demise by freezing to death in a new ice age, to
being baked in an oven to death in a global furnace. Interestingly
enough, some of the leading proponents of global warming used to be the
same advocates for global cooling.
Now, historically speaking we know that the globe and its climate
have different ebbs and flows, and there have been ice ages in the past
and there have been tropical ages in the past, without interference
from man. That is even before man came on the scene.
In the last 1,000 years, for example, we have witnessed, even since
man has been on the scene, in this last 1,000 years, we have witnessed
a huge temperature swing over much of the world. Early in the last
millennium, Lief Erickson established a colony on Greenland, and that
colony on Greenland was free of snow for over half a year every year.
In less than 100 years, 100 years later, that colony had to be
abandoned because the climate had grown so much colder and the snow so
much thicker that a new ice age appeared and apparently was on the way,
a mini-ice age, not making Greenland hospitable to human habitation
anymore.
I wonder in the current climate of scientific investigation what
would have been predicted had scientists been available then to chart
the course of what direction the world was going. We probably would
have been told then that the Earth was on its way to an environment in
which only the Eskimos would survive, and all of this was due to, who
can tell? Certainly humankind had very little influence on the weather
and temperatures then. No one could argue that.
Of course, that trend and lower temperatures reversed itself. Yes, it
was getting cooler; but it then reversed itself, because at some point
the Earth naturally has a way to adapt to cooler or warmer
temperatures.
This historical recollection gives us a reason for concern about some
of the trend lines. You take a trend line going in one direction and
launch it way out into the future to see that that may not be accurate.
It may not be accurate because the world can adapt.
If, in fact we have a minuscule trend towards warming, it could be
that we are in fact emerging. Right now, instead of having the trend
line being ominous, all it could mean is a trend line of minuscule
warming, 1 degree in 100 years. It could mean that we are just emerging
from a cooling period, from a period that is a little bit cooler.
Now, none of us should forget our lessons that we learned in sixth
grade about those huge glaciers. Remember that? The huge glaciers once
covered all of North America. In fact, it happened three or four times.
The glaciers would come down, go back, and most of North America and
Europe were covered. In fact, the Great Lakes were, if I remember what
I was taught, were gouged out by these glaciers; and when the glaciers
receded, these lakes were filled with water.
Well, when the glaciers moved forward, it represented a major change
in the global climate towards global cooling. When the glaciers
retreated, and we are now in a time period when the glaciers are
retreating, that must mean that the Earth is getting a little bit
warmer. Well, to use that as some sort of scientific basis to say that
humankind is creating a warming trend on our planet that threatens and
puts our planet in peril is nonsense. The one thing that those glaciers
going back and forth did not indicate was that human beings had
anything to do with the global weather change that was taking place.
Nor did human beings have anything to do with the fact that all the
dinosaurs were killed off by this global change in weather.
It seems to me that to understand climate change, we need hundreds of
thousands of years' worth of observation and far more types of data
than are currently available. Instead of serious scientific
investigation and debate, most of those currently clamoring about
climate change are looking at unbelievably shallow evidence and rushing
to the conclusion that human beings are the cause of this change. But
human beings were not around when these other traumatic changes
happened in weather and temperature, which occurred in our distant
past.
Recently, we have been treated to yet another spectacle of media
climate-change hype. As I say, our President is under attack. Our new
President, George W. Bush, made it clear that the United States will
not be bound by the so-called Kyoto Protocol.
The liberal media and academic establishment went berserk. Just think
of it, the President of the United States is calling into question the
validity of man's impact on the global climate. Again, elitists have
arrogantly labeled an American President as some kind of a moron. Well,
they did the same thing to Ronald Reagan when he tried to end the Cold
War, and they were dramatically wrong then too.
George W. Bush is intelligent, and he has common sense. A few days
ago the American people were presented something to make them believe
that George W. Bush was not so intelligent. They were presented with a
National Academy of Science report on climate change.
Now, if you read your newspaper about a week ago or saw the network
news coverage, you would think that the President had been dressed down
by the scientific community and that, once again, the experts had
solidly, solidly, rallied behind the contention that global warming is
here and it is a result of human action and that that determination is
irrefutable. Well, that is what you would believe by the news reports.
Dan Rather, let us take a look at Dan Rather's report in particular.
Dan Rather on CBS news was perhaps the worst in terms of his bias and
inaccuracy of the presentation of that report. His lead to the story
stated uncategorically that the report had proved global warming was
here and that humans were the cause. How many listeners noted that
after 3 minutes of Dan Rather's report, that at the end of that report,
Dan Rather's own correspondent stated that the National Academy had not
stated that humans were the cause of the temperature increase, and that
temperature increase was 1 degree over 100 years?
Now, how many people noticed that? You had Dan Rather leading into
his report that the report stated unequivocally that there had been the
global warming and that humans were the cause. Yet at the end of the
report, his own reporter put a little tag on that that they could not
absolutely say that it was caused by human actions and human activity.
The National Academy of Science report is filled with weasel words
and caveats. That was true of many of the other scientific
investigations. Almost every one of the scientific investigations, the
findings about global warming were not conclusive enough to make any
solid statement other than words to the effect that further research is
necessary.
Just like Dan Rather, it totally misportrayed what that report was
all about. Over and over and over again, the American people have heard
about reports that global warming is absolutely here, and it has been
misportrayed to them. That is not what those reports have said.
Sometimes reports have said that, and you go back to who did the
reports, just a very small group of radicals who are not respected by
the scientific community in those reports. Yet we hear about the
reports all the time, and we see these same misquoted reports as being
used to justify dramatic headlines and very frightening reports over
the broadcast news media.
For the record, I will submitting two documents highlighting some of
the caveats and some of the weasel words, you might say, in the NRC
report that indicates that the NRC is not making that conclusive and
unequivocal decision that global warming is here and that humans caused
that, which is what we heard on CBS news and read in the newspapers
throughout this country and were used to beat our President
[[Page H3054]]
up. Falsehoods. That is what was used to beat our President up. I will
submit this for the record.
By the way, the report states that the temperature on Earth, again,
let me state this, may or may not be, may or may not be, 1 degree
warmer than it was 100 years ago. One degree change over 100 years.
Think about that. A 1-degree change? These experts cannot predict the
weather one day in advance. How can they predict and calculate and
analyze the weather back 100 years ago, when they did not have any of
the scientific equipment that was available to them, that is available
to them today? How can anyone give credibility and be given credibility
claiming a minuscule temperature change that supposedly has taken place
across the face of this enormous planet?
Remember, 100 years ago they did not have any satellites; they did
not even have telephone communications in most of the world. But across
the face of this planet, that it was cooler then by a whole 1 degree?
Can anyone listen to that with a straight face? Give me a break. Give
the American people a break.
Well, one remembers just a few years ago President Clinton was so
committed to proving this theory that he invited hundreds of
climatologists who agreed with global warming to the White House. These
were people who he thought were sympathetic to the global warming
theories. During that time in the White House, I understand a major
storm broke out in Washington and was just drenching the entire area;
and well, what happened is that of all those hundreds of climatologists
that came to the White House to reconfirm global warming, only three of
them thought ahead enough to bring umbrellas.
So, what does that tell you? These are the people who are going to
decide who can guide us down the path of accepting global warming,
which then would lead us to dramatic changes in our lives because we
would be giving power and centralization of authority away from what we
have it today.
What is essential to the global warming theory, of course, is not
just that the temperature is on the rise, but that human beings,
especially western civilization, and particularly those of us who live
in America, we are at fault; the Americans, the people who live in
western civilization and human beings in general, we are the ones at
fault for global warming.
Okay, so let us concede before we get into that that the Earth may or
may not be 1 degree hotter than it was 100 years ago. That, however, is
not necessarily a catastrophe. If the Earth is 1 degree warmer now than
it was 100 years ago, that may be a good thing. It may be baloney; it
may be a good thing. I do not know. It may be a good thing, especially
if that 1 degree warmer is a nighttime temperature in the northern
hemisphere in the fall or winter. That would be a very wonderful thing,
to have it a little bit warmer during that time.
In fact, some of the people claiming to believe in the global warming
theory are in fact saying that is how our temperature increases, it is
1 degree in the northern hemisphere, and I do not think that that is
such a big calamity.
Furthermore, let us say that the worst calamity comes true, which is
we are being told perhaps over the next 100 years we could face a 5-
degree rise in temperature. That is their wildest scenario. Well, that
may or may not be a bad thing.
I certainly do not believe that this is happening, but let us just
suggest it is not bad enough for us to give away our freedom and lower
the standard of living of our people and do many of the other dramatic
things that global warming theorists are trying to push off on us.
People in the northern hemisphere, like us Americans, well, you know,
we might not be so bad off. Maybe there will be a longer growing period
in Canada and places like that. However, do not get your shorts on yet
or sell your winter boots. There probably is no global warming.
Having said what I just said, the Earth tends to adjust itself
naturally, and even if there is global warming, the Earth may just well
adjust for it. It may be some water vapor that is warmed off the ocean,
and that tends to cool off the Earth. The scaremongers do not want to
tell us that the Earth has an ability to adjust if things get a little
warmer; that it is affected by different things and then it gets a
little cooler.
{time} 2230
What instead the scaremongers want to do is make sure that we believe
their global baloney. That is what I consider it, global baloney.
There are a number of reasonable scientific explanations for a
situation that would have us a few degrees hotter or a few degrees
cooler. It is not that humankind is living too well.
The Earth's orbit is elliptical, and there are times when we are
closer and sometimes when we are further from the sun. That small
difference of several thousand miles equates to a tremendous difference
in the amount of energy that reaches the Earth. So where is the data in
terms of the analysis of this in relationship to global warming? Where
is that analysis?
The ancient Mayans and Aztecs observed a 208-year solar cycle where
solar activities increase for 104 years, followed by 104 years of
declining activity. We have all seen these solar storms. Modern science
has confirmed their observations. We are now at a halfway point between
the cycles of solar activity. Can we expect, and we maybe can expect,
50 more years of solar activity being on the increase, which would mean
a moderate warming trend. That is before the temperatures begin to
fall. A one-degree increase in the global temperature, even if that is
there, might be explained by these solar storms.
We know the ancient Mayans and Aztec observations about this solar
phenomenon have been confirmed. But have the global warming alarmists
brought this into their calculations?
How about water? Water comprises three-quarters of the world. Given
the sheer volume of water on this planet, it surely has a tremendous
impact on the temperature of the air. However, there are no accurate
global ocean temperature readings that go back more than 10 years, and
those that do are primarily based on satellite observations of surface
temperatures. Those readings do not include deep water. In fact, we
have absolutely zero understanding of deep water temperatures, and
almost no understanding of deep water ocean currents. How can we
possibly ignore that data when trying to calculate something as
overwhelming as global warming?
Global warming studies did not take into consideration the ocean
temperature, and sometimes when they did it did not give them the right
facts, so they just went on to something else.
It also did not take into consideration the clouds. Much less the
oceans, it does not take into consideration the clouds, which are even
more important to determining the Earth's temperature. Clouds, of
course, have everything to do with cooling things off.
Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT has proven that as temperatures rise, more
clouds are formed. This is part of the natural way the Earth reacts. If
there is a little more warming, there would be more clouds, and it
would cool the Earth off. More clouds in turn reflect more heat back
into space, and thus it cools the Earth.
It is cooler when there are clouds out. If Members do not believe it,
I ask them to stand outside on a hot summer day and see what happens
when a cloud passes overhead.
Let me tell Members an interesting thing that happened to me. I have
been in Congress now 13 years, but a few years ago, a Federal
administrator of an agency came into my office. He made me promise not
to disclose what my source was. He then went on to tell me that all the
global warming studies were flawed because they never took into account
how cloud cover affected the temperature readings that they were
recording.
How do we determine whether or not it was a cloudy day when the
temperature readings were taken in various
[[Page H3055]]
parts of the world 100 years ago? Give us a break. They cannot even
tell us how those temperatures were taken, who was taking the
temperatures. Were they people who were trained? Were the instruments
calibrated? Much less they cannot tell us was it a cloudy day that time
they took the temperature.
Global temperature records either do not exist or are absolutely
flawed, and they are flawed to such a degree for 100 years ago that
they might as well be useless in trying to calculate something like
global warming. Actually, most of the records do not go back any
further than 50 years in our urban areas, which of course the urban
areas tend to be much warmer than rural areas because they have all
that concrete and cement.
There are few records that extend beyond 100 years, and there is no
way of determining those records. Even the 50-year records are in
question, because most of them are in the cities and not spread
throughout the planet. And these people who are telling us about global
warming, we are going to say they have a scientific basis for what they
are talking about?
Although we talk about global temperatures rising, that in itself may
mean little because the temperature is not the only measure of heat.
Humidity is an important measure in terms that are just as important as
heat. Southern California is a lot easier to live in at 100 degrees
than if we are down in New Orleans in that humid weather.
So even when our local weatherman gives the heat index based on
temperature, he also gives us one that is based on temperature and
humidity. These things are not being calculated by people talking about
global warming.
Finally, let us talk about climate models touted by global warming
advocates. They do not take into account the Earth's orbital change, as
we have said. They do not take into account solar activity cycles. They
do not take into account the temperature of the oceans. They do not
take into account the cloud covers. They do not take into account the
accuracy of long-term temperature readings, as I just said, for 100
years and 50 years back. They do not take into account humidity.
What they do take into account is a theoretical calculation of
manmade CO2 content, and lots of hypothetical data about other manmade
pollutants. But most of the sources of CO2, and that is what they are
claiming is causing this global warming, that humans are putting CO2
into the atmosphere, well, most of the sources for CO2 and the other
so-called greenhouse gases are naturally-occurring and not manmade.
Let us make sure everybody understands that. Global warming is a
problem, but mankind is actually one of the smaller contributors of
CO2. It is overwhelmingly true that the CO2 being put into our
atmosphere comes from natural sources. The contributions made by human
beings to these gases that are turned loose in our atmosphere are less
than 10 percent of the total.
Volcanic activity, for example, can add more to the atmosphere in a
few weeks than all the internal combustion engines on this planet over
the last decade. Termites and other insects, for example, are such a
large source of CO2, and it is a larger source of CO2 than all of the
industrial plants in the civilized world. Rotting wood is another
offender that dwarfs any human contribution to this so-called threat.
I do not hear many calls coming from the people talking about global
warming to bulldoze the rain forests. If they really believe in global
warming, the rain forests, the rotting wood and the insects in those
rain forests are the worst contributors. They are the most evil forces
in this planet in putting global warming out, so we would want to
bulldoze the rain forests. We would also want to clearcut old growth
trees and plant new young trees, because the new young trees take the
CO2 out of the atmosphere and replace it with oxygen.
Mr. Speaker, we do not hear many people who are global warming
activists calling for the bulldozing of our rain forests. We do not
hear many of them calling for the cutting down, the clearcutting, of
old growth trees, or advocating nuclear energy, which is a tremendous
source of energy which puts no CO2 into the atmosphere.
What is most frightening about the public acceptance of the global
warming theory is that the solutions are not to clearcut old growth,
they are not to tear down these rain forests. Instead, the solutions we
are being offered to global warming are policies that would
dramatically reduce the standard of living of hundreds of millions of
people, especially the people of the United States.
President Bush was 100 percent right in rejecting the Kyoto Protocol
and demanding further scientific research for any drastic government
policies to be put into place.
The most frightening element of the global warming debate is that
intelligent people, backed up by so-called experts, are advocating that
we Americans give up our way of life, our standard of living, and yes,
our freedom. Global warming advocates would have us give authority to
unelected international officials. No one who has ever been elected
will ever be the one who will be calling the shots if we give up all of
our authority and the power to run our lives and our economies to
people in the United Nations or other worldwide authorities that are
run by unelected environmental bureaucrats.
These bureaucrats, government officials, will have power over our
lives if these global warming fanatics get their way. That is the
purpose of the global warming steamroller that is coming down the
political road. They are trying to force us to give up our freedoms in
the name of some threat that does not exist.
Americans, of course, are the bad guys. We are being portrayed as the
bad guys to the whole world. Thank goodness we have a President that is
standing up for us, because here in the United States even poor people
have a decent standard of living. If the Kyoto Protocol was implemented
and is implemented, within a generation we would be living as Chinese
peasants, knee deep in sewage and fighting for grains of rice in order
to fend off imminent starvation.
What is not mentioned by these global warming advocates is mentioned
here, that Americans have maintained a higher standard of living in the
world for the last century than any other country in the world. That is
what they are trying to bring down. That is the enemy, our high
standard of living.
They have based their analysis on global warming based on units of
wealth, and when they do, if they base it on units of wealth, the
United States is one of the smallest polluters, because in terms of the
amount of wealth we are producing for our people to enjoy a good life,
we actually produce so much wealth and little pollution per amount of
wealth. But the Kyoto Protocol is based on CO2 emissions per capita,
not on given units of wealth.
This approach by its very nature is aimed at dooming America's high
standard of living by mandating that we give up this high standard of
living in order to eliminate the CO2s that are going into the air, when
in fact we live in a country that has done more to improve the
environment and to bring in cleaner sources of energy than any country
of the world, especially third-world countries like China.
By the way, the Kyoto Protocol exempts China and other so-called
developing countries from the severe regulatory restraints that will be
necessary to sustain and to fulfill the Kyoto Protocol. What we will
have is manufacturing companies closing up in droves in the United
States to move to the Third World. What it means is our children and
our grandchildren will suffer tremendously. They will have a lower
standard of living. We will have a world market dominated, of course,
by WTO, World Trade Organization regulators who come from third-world
countries who do not have free elections, who probably are going to be
bribed by countries like China.
So we are going to give up our sovereignty, we are going to give up
our authority, to run our lives as is envisioned by the Kyoto Protocol
and the WTO and the rest of these folks? We are going to do that?
What will that mean? That will mean the American middle class will be
crushed. The working poor in America will see their standard of living
go down dramatically. As Ross Perot said, that giant sucking sound is
our money, our jobs, and our future going right down the drain.
[[Page H3056]]
But that is what global warming is all about. They have not proven
it. It has not been proven to us that global warming even exists, much
less that mankind has caused it. But they have got to keep us believing
that that is what these scientific reports claim so we will go along
with this plan to give up our rights and our freedom and to lower the
standard of living of the American people.
The Kyoto treaty never went to the Senate because President Clinton
knew he could not even get one vote for this monstrously misguided
proposal, but thank goodness, President Bush is standing up for us and
against that steamroller.
{time} 2245
Al Gore, of course, was one of the world's strongest advocates for
the Kyoto Protocol and of global warming restrictions being placed on
the American people.
Now, this is not the first time the American people, that people have
tried to frighten us into accepting some kind of cockamamie idea. I
remember when I was a kid, I went to Thanksgiving one day, and what do
you know, my mom did not have any cranberries on the table.
She did not have any cranberries on the table. I said, mom, you know,
this is Thanksgiving, where is the cranberries? Cranberries cause
cancer. And so for 2 years at Thanksgiving, my family, and I might add
hundreds of millions of other families, did not have cranberries for
Thanksgiving.
Then you know what? We found out that it was all just like global
warming, it was all baloney. Those cranberries did not cause cancer at
all. But what do those scaremongers manage to do? It lowered this
festival. It lowered the festivities and the joyous occasion of having
Thanksgiving by taking away cranberries. And, yeah, guess what? It put
hundreds of cranberry farmers out of business, drove them out of
business. People lost their family farms and their lives were destroyed
for many, many years ahead. Oh, sorry, we were wrong.
I also remember Dr. Meryl Streep, remember when she came here to
Congress to testify that alar in apples was the threat to people's
health. And for one year, the apple industry in our country and other
countries was destroyed.
Hundreds of families who owned those apple orchards were put out of
work. Their families gone forever. Their family fortune gone forever.
They could not make their payments because for a full year the American
people were frightened about that and, of course, what did we find out,
no, alar does not cause cancer, sorry.
I even remember as a young man when I was told that cyclamates cause
cancer. The American soda pop industry had invested hundreds of
millions of dollars to develop a new sweetener cyclamates in order to
make sure that, number one, we would be able to use it and it would be
used in drinks, and we did not have to depend on sugar, it was
healthier for you, et cetera, et cetera. But all of a sudden some
people began claiming that it was causing cancer. Cyclamates cause
cancer.
Well, guess what? Canada never took cyclamates out of their soda pop,
and then after about 10 years or 12 years of having the cyclamates
forced out at a cost of again hundreds of millions of dollars that just
evaporated from our economy, what happened is the Food and Drug
Administration quietly moved forward and said, oh, by the way we were
mistaken, cyclamates do not cause cancer after all.
This is the type of nonsense our young people are being fed in their
schools every day. They are being told that their environment is
getting worse and worse and worse, and they might as well give up
because they can give up their freedoms, trust in the government, trust
in international organizations, trust in people who have all this
hoopla on about global warming, and about how the environment is
getting worse. They are being lied to in the very same way.
Our young people today, and let me tell my colleagues one other
incident that happened to me as a young person. Most people know that I
am one of the few surfers in Congress. And, in fact, I am a scuba
diver. I am a surfer, and I am an ocean person.
I was scuba diving just a few months ago, and I will tell you that 3
days ago I was in the ocean surfing off of my district off of
Huntington Beach. It was in the Bolsa Chica area and I was surfing
there for 2 hours. It was a great day of surfing.
When I was a young reporter and that is how I got into this world of
politics, I was assigned to cover Jacques Cousteau who happened to be
one of my heroes. I mean I was a scuba diver and I loved the ocean and
I went to UCLA, and there he was speaking at UCLA.
Jacques Cousteau was speaking to these college students, and he was
very pessimistic and I said, gee, I just do not feel right about being
so pessimistic about things in the ocean.
So when I came up to him afterwards to do a short radio interview,
some other students stood around and listened and I said, Mr. Cousteau,
is not there some possibility that perhaps the oceans will be used as a
source of food for us in the future beyond just catching fish, like
aquaculture and growing oysters and clams and things and lobsters, and
is that not a possibility? And he just came right up to my face and he
said, Did you not hear me? Within 10 years, the oceans will be black
goo, totally dead, destroyed. The oceans will be lifeless. Did not you
hear me?
Of course, I never will forget that, because this guy got right in my
face and he was screaming in my face and he put on a pretty good show
for those kids. And it has been about 30 years since that happened,
maybe 25, maybe 25 years since that happened. And guess what? Jacques
Cousteau is dead, but the oceans are alive.
I was out surfing a few days ago and I could not help but notice the
porpoises swimming by, and when they swim up to you, you can rub the
bottom of your surf board and they will come up to you. And it is a
wonderful, wonderful experience. The birds were flying and diving into
the ocean nearby catching little fish.
I was in the water for 2 hours, and I was not covered with black goo.
Now, that person, Jacques Cousteau, was a fine man. He obviously is a
hero to many people like he was to me.
Why did he feel he had to lie to such a degree? Was it that he did
not know that he was lying, that he did not know that the oceans were
not going to be black goo within 20 years or 10 years is what he said.
No. Jacques Cousteau was part of a movement, part of a movement that
feels they have a right to lie and they have a right to frighten
people, because they have a higher calling; their higher calling is to
save the environment.
They do not have a right to lie, and they should be honest about it.
And there are environmental challenges and the environmental challenges
we face can be corrected and could be met with better technology,
better machines, better equipment, better energy sources, but, instead,
what we have had is people lying to us in order for us to give away our
freedom, to agree to things like the Kyoto Protocol, which would have
extracted from people of the United States their right to make their
own economic decisions.
It would have left us vulnerable to a major assault on the economic
well-being of our middle class and our poorer people. Yeah, $5 a gallon
of gasoline would not much hurt millionaires or people with limousines.
It would hurt some of the people who do not have limousines, but it
would be a catastrophe to the lower, middle-class and to the working
people of our country.
The Kyoto Protocol, the environmental restrictions that we have heard
from many, many corners quite often are not based on truth, and tonight
that is what this speech is all about. This speech is nothing more than
saying that we, as a Congress, and as a people and the American people
should demand, whether we are talking about the environment, whether we
are talking about other potential threats to our national security or
our economics, that all we demand is let us talk about it frankly and
honestly, and that the environmental movement has not done that.
I am out surfing, like I say, a few days ago. There are offshore
wells off of my district, and for 25 years, we have had offshore oil
drilling in my district. Not once has there been a major spill from
those wells. But there has been a tanker, an oil tanker, that split
apart and we had a major oil spill in our
[[Page H3057]]
area. But yet for years, I have been fighting with environmentalists
trying to get them to admit that if we do not have offshore oil wells,
which are relatively safe, that means we are going to have to get our
oil from tankers which are a hundred times more likely to have a spill.
Yet, these environmental activists continue to try to negate every
attempt to exploit our offshore natural resources.
In California today, we have an electric shortage, a horrible
electric shortage. It is going to cause a major decline in the standard
of living of many of our citizens. It is going to put a lot of our
citizens in jeopardy. Our economy in jeopardy. It has already eaten
billions of dollars that should have been going into education, our
health care, or other places. Instead, what we have is a shortage of
energy in our State, even though we have lots of energy, we have not
been permitted to utilize it.
Offshore in Santa Barbara there is enough natural gas to provide the
energy we need to produce all the electricity we would need to make up
for our shortage of electric in California. We could make up for that
shortage for 2 decades, but, yet, those people in Santa Barbara who own
the offshore oil wells that are already there have not been permitted
even to slant drill from existing platforms to tap in to the natural
gas that is a huge natural gas deposit right off of Santa Barbara.
This is the kind of nonsense. This is the type of antitruth that
brings down economies, but it exemplifies many of the arguments that
have been presented to us about global warming and other so-called
environmental challenges.
Again, I do not want to end this tonight suggesting that there are no
environmental challenges, because there are, and there are ways that we
can do it and we can solve these problems and we can make America
cleaner.
Today's young people have cleaner water, because today when you look
down at the Potomac River, when I was a kid, you could not put your
finger in that water. It is clean today, people are fishing out there.
We have soil. We have ways to clean the soil in my own district. I
helped a company develop a system and got them permission and I think
it ended up about a $300,000 contract to take soil that had been made
toxic because it used to be an old oil sludge pit, 10 acres of this
land that was unusable to the citizens of our community, and I got this
business going.
We went down there, and this new technology, within a 60-day time
period, was able to make that soil totally clean and those 10 acres of
California real estate perfectly clean and available if they wanted to
for houses, instead they are going to use it as a park.
They did not have that technology available 10 years and 20 years
ago. This is the best time for young people to be alive. They have more
chance of cleaning up the environment as long as we let people do it at
a profit. That man who built that machine did not want to do it just
because he had a social conscience.
He did it because he wanted his company to make a profit, and the
people that will finance it will be financing him, cleaning the soil
because they want that land to be used by families for homes, for their
children and they will make a profit in building those homes for those
families.
This is a wonderful time to be alive. This is not a time for the
American people to be frightened by scaremongers and people who are not
telling the truth about global warming and other environmental
challenges into giving up our freedom and to doing things that will
result in a lower standard of living for our people.
Again, every time we do, every time we give into this type of
nonsense, it is the people at the bottom rung who are hurt the most. It
is the people at the bottom rung. So as we are finding out in
California, we need to base our decisions on honesty.
If offshore oil drilling and gas drilling is going to help our State
have the energy it needs, we need to move forward with that.
Let me say, I have a new bill that I am proposing and I will be
dropping within 2 weeks, a new piece of legislation that will see to it
that all new oil and gas reserves, offshore oil and gas reserves that
are brought online by offshore oil and gas development, that one half
of all the tax revenue from all of this new oil and gas reserves and
deposits that are being brought online, half of the tax revenue will be
put into a trust fund that will be used just for coastal purposes, for
water quality and other coastal projects.
{time} 2300
Ten percent of that new revenue will go directly to the counties
inland from that development. That way we can develop energy and that
way we can have cleaner water.
All up and down California and all throughout our country, people do
not know how they are going to take care of urban runoff. Perhaps my
legislation will help provide the resources for that.
But let us be realistic. Let us not fight offshore oil drilling
because they say, out of some hysterical nonsense, that it is a threat
to the ocean, because it is not. I have gone SCUBA diving off the
offshore oil wells in my district, and that is where all the fish
congregate. Believe me, if there was some problem, those fish would go
elsewhere. Their natural instincts would tell them to go.
So we have a chance. But what has been happening is we have been
prevented from that because, in the back of the mind of these
environmental activists, they want the earth to be free from dependence
on carbon-based energy, on CO2. That is all based on what?
That there is a global warming taking place that is in some way going
to jeopardize and put in peril the earth.
It is time to quit talking nonsense. Let us talk the truth. I am
open-minded. The people here are open-minded. Let us try to find a way
to meet the environmental challenges with better technology and in a
way that will preserve the freedom of the people of the United States,
which is the most important component to developing a better world.
Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions
The following are the key uncertainties highlighted by the
report released by the National Research Council on June 6,
2001. All items are taken directly from the report.
Summary
The changes observed over the last several decades are
likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out
that some significant part of these changes are also a
reflection of natural variability.
Because there is considerable uncertainty in current
understanding of how the climate system varies naturally and
reacts to emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols, current
estimates of the magnitude of future warming should be
regarded as tentative and subject to future adjustments
(either upward or downward).
Reducing the wide range of uncertainty inherent in current
model predictions of global climate change will require
advances in understanding and modeling of both (1) the
factors that determine atmospheric concentrations of
greenhouse gases and aerosols, and (2) the so-called
``feedbacks'' that determine the sensitivity of the climate
system to a prescribed increase in greenhouse gases. There
also is a pressing need for a global observing system
designed for monitoring climate.
Black carbon aerosols are end-products of the incomplete
combustion of fossil fuels and biomass burning (forest fires
and land clearing). They impact radiation budgets both
directly and indirectly; they are believed to contribute to
global warming, although their relative importance is
difficult to quantify at this point.
The stated degree of confidence in the IPCC assessment is
higher today than it was ten, or even five years ago, but
uncertainty remains because of (1) the level of natural
variability inherent in the climate system on time scales of
decades to centuries, (2) the questionable ability to models
to accurately simulate natural variability on those long time
scales, and (3) the degree of confidence that can be placed
on reconstructions of global mean temperature over the past
millennium based on proxy evidence.
Climate change simulations for the period of 1990 to 2100
based on the IPCC emissions scenarios yield a globally-
averaged surface temperature increase by the end of the
century of 1.4 to 5.8+C (2.5 to 10.4+F)
relative to 1990. The wide range of uncertainly in these
estimates reflects both the different assumptions about
future concentrations of greenhouse gases and aerosols in the
various scenarios considered by the IPCC and the differing
climate sensitivities of the various climate and models used
in the simulations.
The increase of global fossil fuel carbon dioxide emissions
in the past decade has averaged 0.6% per year, which is
somewhat below the range of IPCC scenarios, and the same is
true for atmospheric methane concentrations. It is not known
whether these slowdowns in growth rate will persist.
[[Page H3058]]
In addition, changes in cloud cover, in the relative
amounts of high versus low clouds, and in the mean and
vertical distribution of relative humidity could either
enhance or reduce the amplitude of the warming. Much of
the difference in predictions of global warming by various
climate models is attributable to the fact that each model
represents these processes in its own particular way.
These uncertainties will remain until a more fundamental
understanding of the processes that control atmospheric
relative humidity and clouds is achieved.
The full WG I report and its Technical Summary are not
specifically directed at policy. The Summary for Policymakers
reflects less emphasis on communicating the basis for
uncertainty and a stronger emphasis on areas of major concern
associated with human-induced climate change.
Making progress in reducing the large uncertainties in
projections of future climate will require addressing a
number of fundamental scientific questions relating to the
buildup of greenhouses gases in the atmosphere and the
behavior of the climate system. Issues that need to be
addressed include, (a) the future usage of fossil fuels, (b)
the future emissions of methane, (c) the fraction of the
future fossil-fuel carbon that will remain in the atmosphere
and provide radiative forcing versus exchange with the oceans
or net exchange with the land biosphere, (d) the feedbacks in
the climate system that determine both the magnitude of the
change and the rate of energy uptake by the oceans, which
together determine the magnitude and time history of the
temperature increases for a given radiative forcing, (e)
details of the regional and local climate change consequent
to an overall level of global climate change, (f) the nature
and causes of the natural variability of climate and its
interactions with forced changes, and (g) the direct and
indirect effects of the changing distributions of aerosols.
1. Climate, climate forcings, climate sensitivity, and
transient climate change
The responses of atmospheric water vapor amount and clouds
probably generate the most important global climate
feedbacks. The nature and magnitude of these hydrological
feedbacks give rise to the largest source of uncertainty
about climate sensitivity, and they are in area of continuing
research.
However, the true climate sensitivity remains uncertain, in
part because it is difficult to model the effect of cloud
feedback. In particular, the magnitude and even the sign of
the feedback can differ according to the composition,
thickness and altitude of the clouds, and some studies have
suggested a lesser climate sensitivity.
2. Natural climatic variations
It is more difficult to estimate the natural variability of
global mean temperature because large areas of the world are
not sampled and because of the large uncertainties inherent
in temperatures inferred from proxy evidence.
3. Human caused forcings
How land contributes, by location and processes, to
exchanges of carbon with the atmosphere is still highly
uncertain, and is the possibility that the substantial net
removal will continue to occur very far into the future.
About two-thirds of the current emissions of methane are
released by human activities. There is no definitive
scientific basis for choosing among several possible
explanations for these variations in the rates of change of
global methane concentrations, making it very difficult to
predict its future atmospheric concentrations.
The study of the role of black carbon in the atmosphere is
relatively new. As a result it is characterized poorly as to
its composition, emission source strengths, and influence on
radiation.
Because of the scientific uncertainties associated with the
sources and composition of carbonaceous aerosols, projections
of future impacts on climate are difficult.
Figure 1 summarizes climate forcings that have been
introduced during the period of industrial development,
between 1750 and 2000, as estimated by the IPCC. Some of
these forcings, mainly greenhouse gases, are known quite
accurately, while others are poorly measured. A range of
uncertainty has been estimated for each forcing, represented
by an uncertainty bar or ``whisker''. However, these
estimates are partly subjective and it is possible that the
true forcing falls outside the indicated range in some cases.
These estimates account for the non-linearity caused by
partial saturation in some greenhouse gas infrared absorption
bands, yet they are only approximate because of uncertainty
about how efficiently the ocean and terrestrial biosphere
will sequester atmospheric CO2.
The growth rate of atmospheric methane has slowed by more
than half in the past 2 decades for reasons that are not well
understood.
Climate forcing by anthropogenic aerosols is a large source
of uncertainty about future climate change. On the basis of
estimates of past climate forcings, it seems likely that
aerosols, on a global average, have caused a negative climate
forcing (cooling) that has tended to offset much of the
positive forcing by greenhouse gases. Even though aerosol
distributions tend to be regional in scale, the forced
climate response is expected to occur on larger, even
hemispheric and global, scales. The monitoring of aerosol
properties has not been adequate to yield accurate knowledge
of the aerosol climate influence.
The conclusion is that the black carbon aerosol forcing is
uncertain but may be substantial.
The greatest uncertainty about the aerosol climate
forcing--indeed, the largest of all the uncertainties about
global climate forcings--is probably the indirect effect of
aerosols on clouds. . . . The great uncertainty about this
indirect aerosol climate forcing presents a severe handicap
both for the interpretation of past climate change and for
future assessments of climate changes.
It is not implausible that solar irradiance has been a
significant driver of climate during part of the industrial
era, as suggested by several modeling studies.
4. Climate system models
However, climate models are imperfect. Their simulation
skill is limited by uncertainties in their formulation, the
limited size of their calculations, and the difficulty of
interpreting their answers that exhibit almost as much
complexity as in nature.
They also exhibit plausible analogues for the dominant
modes of intrinsic variability, such as the El Nino/Southern
Oscillation (ENSO), although some important discrepancies
still remain.
5. Observed climate change during the industrial era
Because of the large and still uncertain level of natural
variability inherent in the climate record and the
uncertainties in the time histories of the various forcing
agents (and particularly aerosols), a causal linkage between
the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the
observed climate changes during the 20th century cannot be
unequivocally established. The fact that the magnitude of the
observed warming is large in comparison to natural
variability as simulated in climate models is suggestive of
such a linkage, but it does not constitute proof of one
because the model simulations could be deficient in natural
variability on the decadal to century time scale.
This result is based on several analyses using a variety of
proxy indicators, some with annual resolution and others with
less resolved time resolution. The data become relatively
sparse prior to 1600, and are subject to uncertainties
related to spatial completeness and interpretation making the
results somewhat equivocal, e.g., less than 90% confidence.
Achieving greater certainty as to the magnitude of climate
variations before that time will require more extensive data
and analysis. Because of the large and still uncertain level
of natural variability inherent in the climate record and the
uncertainties in the time histories of the various forcing
agents (and particularly aerosols), a causal linkage between
the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the
observed climate changes during the 20th century cannot be
unequivocally established. The fact that the magnitude of the
observed warming is large in comparison to natural
variability as simulated in climate models is suggestive of
such a linkage, but it does not constitute proof of one
because the model simulations could be deficient in natural
variability on the decadal to century time scale.
6. Future climate change
Projecting future climate change first requires projecting
the fossil-fuel and land-use sources of CO2 and
other gases and aerosols. How much of the carbon from future
use of fossil fuels will be seen as increases in carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere will depend on what fractions are
taken up by land and the oceans. The exchanges with land
occur on various time scales, out to centuries for soil
decomposition in high latitudes, and they are sensitive to
climate change. Their projection into the future is highly
problematic.
IPCC scenarios cover a broad range of assumptions about
future economic and technological development, including some
that allow greenhouse gas emission reductions. However, there
are large uncertainties in underlying assumptions about
population growth, economic development, life style choices,
technological change, and energy alternatives, so that it is
useful to examine scenarios developed from multiple
perspectives in considering strategies for dealing with
climate change.
Scenarios for future greenhouse gas amounts, especially for
CO2 and CH4, are a major source of
uncertainty for projections of future climate. Successive
IPCC assessments over the past decade each have developed a
new set of scenarios with little discussion of how well
observed trends match with previous scenarios. The period of
record is now long enough to make it useful to compare recent
trends with the scenarios, and such studies will become all
the more fruitful as years pass. The increase of global
fossil fuel CO2 emissions in the past decade,
averaging 0.6% per year, has fallen below the IPCC scenarios.
The growth of atmospheric CH4 has fallen well
below the IPCC scenarios. These slowdowns in growth rates
could be short-term fluctuations that may be reversed.
However, they emphasize the need to understand better the
factors that influence current and future growth rates.
On the regional scale and in the longer term, there is much
more uncertainty.
Changes in storm frequency and intensity are one of the
more uncertain elements of future climate change prediction.
Whereas all models project global warming and global
increases in precipitation, the
[[Page H3059]]
sign of the precipitation projections vary between models for
some regions.
7. Assessing progress in climate science
After analysis, the committee finds that the conclusions
presented in the SPM and the Technical Summary (TS) are
consistent with the main body of the report. There are,
however, differences. The primary differences reflect the
manner in which uncertainties are communicated in the SPM.
The SPM frequently uses terms (e.g. likely, very likely,
unlikely) that convey levels of uncertainty; however, the
text less frequently includes either their basis or caveats.
This difference is perhaps understandable in terms of a
process in which the SPM attempts to underline the major
areas of concern associated with a human-induced climate
change. However, a thorough understanding of the
uncertainties is essential to the development of good policy
decisions.
Climate projections will always be far from perfect.
Confidence limits and probabilistic information, with their
basis, should always be considered as an integral part of the
information that climate scientists provide to policy- and
decision-makers. Without them, the IPCC SPM could give an
impression that the science of global warming is ``settled,''
even though many uncertainties still remain. The emission
scenarios used by IPCC provide a good example. Human
decisions will almost certainly alter emissions over the next
century. Because we cannot predict either the course of human
populations, technology, or societal transitions with any
clarity, the actual greenhouse gas emissions could be either
greater or less than the IPCC scenarios. Without an
understanding of the sources and degree of uncertainty,
decision-makers could fail to define the best ways to deal
with the serious issue of global warming.
The most valuable contribution U.S. scientists can make is
to continually question basic assumptions and conclusions,
promote clear and careful appraisal and presentation of the
uncertainties about climate change as well as those areas in
which science is leading to robust conclusions, and work
toward a significant improvement in the ability to project
the future. In the process, we will better define the nature
of the problems and ensure that the best possible information
is available for policy makers.
Predictions of global climate change will require major
advances in understanding and modeling of (1) the factors
that determine atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases
and aerosols and (2) the so called `feedbacks' that determine
the sensitivity of the climate system to a prescribed
increase in greenhouse gases. Specifically, this will involve
reducing uncertainty regarding: (a) future usage of fossil
fuels, (b) future emissions of methane, (c) the fraction of
the future fossil fuel carbon that will remain in the
atmosphere and provide radiative forcing versus exchange with
the oceans or net exchange with the land biosphere, (d) the
feedbacks in the climate system that determine both the
magnitude of the change and the rate of energy uptake by the
oceans, which together determine the magnitude and time
history of the temperature increases for a given radiative
forcing, (e) the details of the regional and local climate
change consequent to an overall level of global climate
change, (f) the nature and causes of the natural variability
of climate and its interactions with forced changes, and (g)
the direct and indirect effects of the changing distributions
of aerosol. Because the total change in radiative forcing
from other greenhouse gases over the last century has been
nearly as large as that of carbon dioxide, their future
evolution also must be addressed. A major limitation of these
model forecasts for use around the world is the paucity of
data available to evaluate the ability of coupled models to
simulate important aspects of past climate. In addition, the
observing system available today is a composite of
observations that neither provide the information nor the
continuity in the data needed to support measurements of
climate variables.
____
Key Statements on Understanding of the Climate System and Forecasting
Ability
``Because there is considerable uncertainty in current
understanding of how the climate system varies naturally and
reacts to emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols, current
estimates of the magnitude of future warning should be
regarded as tentative and subject to future adjustments
upward or downward.'' (Page 1 of the NRC Report)
``If a central estimate of climate sensitivity is used,
about 40% of the predicted warming is due to the direct
effects of greenhouse gases and aerosols. The other 60% is
caused by feedbacks. . . . Much of the difference in
predictions of global warming by various climate models is
attributable to the fact that each model represents these
processes in its own particular way.'' (Page 4 of the NRC
Report)
``The study of the role of black carbon in the atmosphere
is relatively new. As a result, it is characterized poorly as
to its composition, emission source strengths, and influence
on radiation.'' (Page 13 of the NRC Report)
``Climate forcing by anthropogenic aerosols is a large
source of uncertainty about future climate change.'' (Page 13
of the NRC Report)
``There is the possibility that decreasing black carbon
emissions in the future could have a cooling effect that
would at least partially compensate for the warming that
might be caused by a decrease in sulfates.'' (Page 13 of the
NRC Report)
``The greatest uncertainty about the aerosol climate
forcing--indeed, the largest of all the uncertainties about
global climate forcings--is probably the indirect effect of
aerosols on clouds.'' (Page 14 of the NRC Report)
``The great uncertainty about this indirect aerosol climate
forcing presents a severe handicap both for the
interpretation of past climate change and for future
assessments of climate change.'' (Page 15 of the NRC Report)
``While climate models have many uses, the NRC observes
that ``However, climate models are imperfect. Their
simulation skill is limited by uncertainties in their
formulation, the limited size of their calculations, and the
difficulty of interpreting their answers that exhibit almost
as much complexity as in nature.'' (Page 15 of the NRC
Report)
``Projecting future climate change first requires
projecting the fossil-fuel and land-use sources of
CO2 and other gases and aerosols. . . . However,
there are large uncertainties in underlying assumption about
population growth, economic development, life style choices,
technological change and energy alternatives, so that it is
useful to examine scenarios developed from multiple
perspectives in considering strategies for dealing with
climate change.'' (Page 18 of the NRC Report)
``Scenarios for future greenhouse gas amounts, especially
for CO2 and CH4 are a major source of
uncertainty for projections of future climate. Successive
IPCC assessments over the past decade each have developed a
new set of scenarios with little discussion of how well
observed trends match with previous scenarios.'' (Page 18-19
of the NRC Report)
``The range of model sensitivities and the challenge of
projecting the sign of the precipitation changes for some
regions represent a substantial limitation in assessing
climate impacts.'' (Page 21 of the NRC Report)
Key Statements of Human Causation of Observed 20th Century Climate
Changes
``Despite the uncertainties, there is general agreement
that the observed warming is real and particularly strong
within the past twenty years. Whether it is consistent with
the change that would be expected in response to human
activities is dependent upon what assumptions one makes about
the time history of atmospheric concentrations of the various
forcing agents, particularly aerosols.'' (Page 3 of the NRC
Report)
``Because of the large and still uncertain level of natural
variability inherent in the climate record and the
uncertainties in the time history of the various forcing
agents (and particularly aerosols), a causal linkage between
the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the
observed climate changes during the 20th century cannot be
unequivocally established.'' (Page 17 of the NRC Report)
``The fact that the magnitude of the observed warming is
large in comparison to natural variability as simulated in
climate models is suggestive of such a linkage, but it does
not constitute proof of one because the model simulations
could be deficient in natural variability on the decadal to
century time scale.'' (Page 17 of the NRC Report)
Key Statements on Research Needs
``Reducing the wide range of uncertainty inherent in
current model predictions of global climate change will
require major advances in understanding and modeling of both
(1) the factors that determine atmospheric concentrations of
greenhouse gases and aerosols, and (2) the so-called
`feedbacks' that determine the sensitivity of the climate
system to a prescribed increase in greenhouse gases.
Specifically, this will involve reducing uncertainty
regarding: (a) future usage of fossil fuels, (b) future
emissions of methane, (c) the fraction of fossil fuel
carbon that will remain in the atmosphere and provide
radiative forcing versus exchange with the oceans or net
exchange with the land biosphere, (d) the feedbacks in the
climate system that determine both the magnitude of the
change and the rate of energy uptake by the oceans, which
together determine the magnitude and time history of the
temperature increases for a given radiative forcing, (e)
the details of the regional and local climate change
consequent to an overall level of global climate change,
(f) the nature and causes of the natural variability of
climate and its interactions with forced changes, and (g)
the direct and indirect effects of the changing
distributions of aerosol.'' (Page 23 of the NRC Report)
Key Statements on the IPCC Process, Scientific Representation, and
Political Influence on the Summary for Policymakers
``The committee finds that the full IPCC Working Group 1
(WGI) report is an admirable summary of research activities
in climate science, and the full report is adequately
summarized in the Technical Summary. . . . The Summary for
Policymakers reflects less emphasis on communicating the
basis for uncertainty, and a stronger emphasis on areas of
major concern associated with human-induced climate change.
This change in emphasis appears to be the result of a summary
process in which scientists work with policy makers on the
document.'' (Page 5 of the NRC Report)
[[Page H3060]]
Changes to the Summary for Policymakers are only approved
by ``a fraction of the lead and contributing authors,'' not
the full body of authors of the WGI report. (Page 5 of the
NRC Report)
``The committee's concerns focus primarily on whether the
process is likely to become less representative in the future
because of the growing voluntary time commitment required to
participate as a lead or coordinating author and the
potential that the scientific process will be viewed as being
too heavily influenced by governments which have specific
postures with regard to treaties, emission controls and other
policy instruments.'' (Page 5 of the NRC Report)
``The body of the WGI report is scientifically credible and
is not unlike what would be produced by a comparable group of
only U.S. scientists working with a similar set of emission
scenarios, with perhaps some normal differences in scientific
tone and emphasis.'' (Page 22 of the NRC Report)
``After analysis, the committee finds that the conclusions
presented in the Summary for Policymakers and the Technical
Summary are consistent with the main body of the report.
There are, however, differences. The primary differences
reflect the manner in which uncertainties are communicated in
the Summary for Policymakers. The Summary for Policymakers
frequently uses terms (e.g., likely, very likely, unlikely)
that convey levels of uncertainty; however, the text less
frequently includes either their basis or caveats.'' (Page 22
of the NRC Report)
``However, a thorough understanding of the uncertainties is
essential to the development of good policy decisions.''
(Page 22 of the NRC Report)
``Confidence limits and probabilistic information, with
their basis, should always be considered as an integral part
of the information that climate scientists provide to policy-
and decision-makers. Without them, the IPCC SPM could give an
impression that the science of global warming is `settled,'
even though many uncertainties still remain.'' (Page 22 of
the NRC Report)
``Without an understanding of the sources and degree of
uncertainty, decision-makers could fail to define the best
ways to deal with the serious issue of global warming.''
(Page 23 of the NRC Report)
The NRC exposes the reality that the technical elements of
the WG1 report are modified after the fact to make it match
up with the Summary for Policymakers. While ``most'' of these
changes were acceptable to the chapter authors, the NRC
suggests that ``Some scientists may find fault with some of
the technical details, especially if they appear to
underestimate uncertainty.'' (Page 23 of the NRC Report)
``The IPCC process demands a significant time commitment by
members of the scientific community. As a result, many
climate scientists in the United States and elsewhere choose
not to participate at the level of a lead author even after
being invited.'' They go on to point out that ``As the
commitment to the assessment process continues to grow, this
could create a form of self-selection for the participants.
In such a case, the community of world climate scientists may
develop cadres with particularly strong feelings about the
outcome: some as favorable to the IPCC and its procedures,
and others negative about the use of the IPCC as a policy
instrument.'' (Page 23 of the NRC Report)
``In addition, the preparation of the SPM involves both
scientists and governmental representatives. Governmental
representatives are more likely to be tied to specific
government postures with regard to treaties, emission
controls, and other policy instruments.'' (Page 23 of the NRC
Report)
____________________