[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 39 (Thursday, April 7, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3346-S3349]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    FOUR PILLARS OF CLIMATE ALARMISM

  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I am returning to the floor, as I have 
many times in the last few years, to further address what I have 
considered to be probably the greatest single hoax ever perpetrated on 
the American people, and that is this thing called global warming. As I 
noted in my last speech, there is a perception, especially among the 
media and the environmental elitists, that the scientific community has 
reached a consensus on global warming. As Sir David King, the chief 
science adviser to the British Government, recently said:

       There is a very clear consensus from the scientific 
     community on the problems of global warming and our use of 
     fossil fuels.

  Those problems amount to rising sea levels, floods, tsunamis, 
droughts, hurricanes, disease, and mass extinction of species--all 
caused by the ever-increasing greenhouse gas emissions. The alarmists 
confidently assert that most scientists agree with this, and they 
vehemently dispute claims of uncertainty about whether catastrophes 
will occur.
  It is interesting that most of the people who are talking about gloom 
and

[[Page S3347]]

doom on global warming are the same ones, just a few years ago, in the 
1970s, who were talking about global cooling, saying that a little ice 
age is coming and we are all going to die. But today, to question the 
science of catastrophic global warming is considered illegitimate. 
Consider Dr. Daomi Oreskes, who wrote in the Washington Post last 
December:

       We need to stop repeating nonsense about the uncertainty of 
     global warming and start talking seriously about the right 
     approach to address it.

  Global warming, then, is no longer an issue for scientific debate. It 
appears to have soared into the realm of metaphysics, reaching the 
status of revealed truth.
  Madam President, this is absurd. Since 1999, almost all scientific 
data has shown that this whole thing is, in fact, a hoax. More then 
17,000 scientists have signed the Oregon Petition--ironically, after 
listening to the two Senators from Oregon who had excellent 
presentations--stating that fears of catastrophic global warming are 
groundless. These and other scientists who do not subscribe to the so-
called consensus are condemned as skeptics and tools of industry. Now, 
in order to avoid professional excommunication, one must subscribe to 
the four principal beliefs underlying the alarmist consensus. I am 
going to call these the four pillars of climate alarmism, all of which, 
it is said, provide unequivocal support for that consensus view.
  What I am going to do is talk about all four pillars, but mainly only 
one today, and then wait a week and let that soak in and then maybe 
come back and talk about the other three. The four pillars are as 
follows: The 2001 National Academy of Sciences report summarizing the 
latest science of climate change, requested by the Bush administration. 
Pillar No. 2, which we will be talking about later, is the scientific 
work of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 
the IPCC--we have heard a lot about that, most especially its Third 
Assessment Report, released in 2001. The third pillar is the recent 
report of the international Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. No. 4 is 
the data produced by climate models.
  I will show over the next several weeks that none of these pillars 
support the consensus view. Today I will begin my four pillars series 
with the NAS.
  Before I delve into the NAS report, some historical CBO context is in 
order.
  Back in 2001 the Kyoto Treaty was on the verge of collapse. President 
Bush announced his rejection of the Kyoto Treaty, calling it ``fatally 
flawed in fundamental ways.'' Our friends in Europe expressed outrage, 
even shock, though it was never in doubt where the United States stood. 
We have not changed our position.
  In 1997, here on the floor of the Senate, we passed by a vote of 95 
to nothing the Byrd-Hagel resolution. Primarily, the Byrd-Hagel 
resolution said if you come back from Kyoto with something that treats 
developing nations differently from developed nations, then we will 
reject it, we will not ratify it. Of course, that is exactly what 
happened. So we are supposed to do all these things, but not China and 
not Mexico, not the other countries--yet that passed 95 to nothing. 
There was not one dissenting vote.
  On June 11, 2001, President Bush delivered a speech detailing Kyoto's 
flaws. He also provided an overview of the current state of climate 
science as described in a report, which he requested, by the National 
Academy of Science. Although the report offered very modest conclusions 
about the state of climate science, as described in a report, which he 
requested, by the National Academy of Sciences. Though the report 
offered very modest conclusions about the state of climate science, 
alarmists repeatedly invoke it as ironclad proof of their consensus. So 
let's take a closer look at what the NAS had to say.

  The 2001 NAS report was wide-ranging and generally informative about 
the state of climate science. It stated that, ``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).''
  Let me repeat that: ``Considerable uncertainty in current 
understanding.'' ``Estimates should be regarded as tentative and 
subject to future adjustments.'' Does this sound like solid support for 
the consensus view? Surely there must be more. Well, in fact there is.
  Under the headline ``The Effect of Human Activities,'' the NAS 
addressed the potential impact of anthropogenic emissions on the 
climate system. Here's what it said:

       Because of the large and still uncertain level of natural 
     variability inherent in the climate record and the 
     uncertainties in the time histories of various forcing agents 
     (and particularly aerosols), a causal linkage between the 
     buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the 
     observed climate changes in the 20th century cannot be 
     unequivocally established.

  Again, that's worth repeating:

       Because of the large and still uncertain level of natural 
     variability . . . [u]ncertainties in the time histories of 
     various forcing agents . . . cannot be unequivocally 
     established.

  I read numerous press accounts of the NAS report, yet I failed to 
come across reporting of this quote. Is this what the consensus 
peddlers have in mind when they assert that everything is ``settled''?
  The NAS also addressed the relationship between climate change and 
aerosols, which are particles from processes such as dust storms, 
forest fires, the use of fossil fuels, and volcanic eruptions. To be 
sure, there is limited knowledge of how aerosols influence the climate 
system. This, said the NAS, represents ``a large source of uncertainty 
about future climate change.''
  By any conceivable standard, this and other statements made by NAS 
cannot possibly be considered unequivocal affirmations that man-made 
global warming is a threat, or that man-made emissions are the sole or 
most important factor driving climate change. It certainly cannot 
provide the basis for the United States Congress to adopt economically 
harmful reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.
  It would be a grand folly to do that, especially considering what the 
NAS had to say about global climate models. The NAS believes much of 
the uncertainty about climate change stems from those models, which 
researchers rely on to make projections about future climate changes. 
These models, as the NAS wrote, contain serious technological 
limitations that cast doubt on their ability to simulate the climate 
system:

     [the models] simulation skill is limited by uncertainties in 
     their formulation, the limited size of their calculations, 
     and the difficulty of interpreting their answers that exhibit 
     as much complexity as in nature.''

  Model projections, as the NAS pointed out, rest on a raft of 
uncertain assumptions.

       Projecting future climate change first requires projecting 
     the fossil-fuel and land-use sources of CO2 and 
     other gases and aerosols,

the NAS found. ``However, there are large uncertainties''--please note 
the phrasing again, ``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.

  For this reason, simulations produced by climate models provide 
insufficient proof of an absolute link between anthropoenic emissions 
and global warming.

       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, [according to 
     NAS] 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.

  That last point demands further elaboration and emphasis. The NAS 
thinks climate models could be off by as much as a decade, or perhaps 
100 years. Why is this important? Global climate models constitute one 
of the Four Pillars. Alarmists frequently point to computer-generated 
simulations showing dramatic, even scary, pictures of what might happen 
decades from now: more floods, more hurricanes, more droughts, the Gulf 
Stream shutting down. In many cases, the media eagerly report what 
these models produce as pure fact, with little or

[[Page S3348]]

no explanation of their considerable limitations.
  The NAS also addressed the work of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel 
on Climate Change, another of the Four Pillars. The IPCC's 2001 Third 
Assessment Report, particularly its Summary for Policymakers, is 
frequently cited as proof of the consensus view. But the NAS disagrees. 
``The IPCC Summary for Policymakers,'' the NAS wrote,

       could give an impression that the science of global warming 
     is settled, even though many uncertainties still remain.

  Here again, the NAS is saying the science is not settled.
  The NAS also addressed the IPCC's future climate scenarios. These 
scenarios are the basis for the IPCC's projection that temperatures 
could increase to between 2.7 to 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100. The 
NAS said:

       The 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, life style choices, technological change, 
     and energy alternatives.

  Once again, the NAS says ``there are large uncertainties in 
underlying assumptions.''
  The same is true, the NAS said, about future projections of 
CO2 emissions. As the NAS stated:

       Scenarios for future greenhouse gas amounts, especially for 
     CO2 and CO4, are a major source of 
     uncertainty for projections of future climate.

  To bolster the point, the NAS found that actual CO2 
emissions contradicted the IPCC, stating that:

       The increase of global fossil fuel CO2 emissions 
     in the past decade, averaging 0.6% per year, has fallen below 
     the IPCC scenarios.

  There are those troublesome words again: ``Large uncertainties in 
underlying assumptions.'' ``Major source of uncertainty.''
  The NAS also expressed clear reservations about the relationship 
between carbon dioxide emissions and how they interact with land and 
the atmosphere:

       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 by 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.

  Let me offer one final quote from the study before I turn to the 
media. Taking stock of the many scientific uncertainties highlighted in 
the report, the NAS issued explicit advice to guide climate research--
advice, by the way, that alarmists reject:

       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.

  I am concerned about the media. I will talk about that in a minute.
  People are trying to say that the release of CO2 is the 
cause of climate change. These people have to understand that 
historically it doesn't work out that way. We went into a time right 
after World War II when we had an 85-percent increase in CO2 
emissions. What happened there was that precipitated not a warming 
period but a cooling period. Again, that is too logical for some of the 
alarmists to understand. They want so badly to feel a crisis is upon 
us.
  It is kind of interesting. There is a well-known author, Michael 
Crichton, who wrote a book, ``State of Fear.'' I recommend that 
everyone read that. He is a scientist and a medical doctor who wrote 
this about how horrible things could happen with global warming. After 
he researched it, he came to the conclusion that it is a hoax. I 
recommend everyone read that book. It is very revealing. It is very 
accurate in the way the media and Hollywood are treating things.
  It's not surprising that the media distorted and exaggerated the NAS 
report. The public was told that the NAS categorically accepted that 
carbon dioxide emissions were the overwhelming factor causing global 
warming, and that urgent action was needed. One factually challenged 
CNN reporter said the NAS study represented ``a unanimous decision that 
global warming is real, is getting worse, and is due to man. There is 
no wiggle room.'' The New York Times opined that the report reaffirmed 
``the threat of global warming, declaring fearlessly that human 
activity is largely responsible for it.'' Of course, as the preceding 
quotes from the report show, this is not true.
  This is the report we are talking about with all of the 
qualifications they have. Of course, the proceedings from this report 
show it is not true. It is an outrageous lie.
  Unfortunately, the media wasn't burdened with any actual knowledge of 
the report. Rather, it seized on a sentence fragment from the report's 
summary, and then jumped to conclusions that, to be charitable, cannot 
be squared with the full report. That fragment from the summary reads 
as follows: ``Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed 
over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human 
activities. . .'' There's the smoking gun, we were told then and even 
now, proving a global warming consensus.
  However, the second part of the sentence, along with much else in the 
report, was simply ignored. The second part of the sentence reads: ``We 
cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a 
reflection of natural variability.''
  And as we have seen, it is amazing how one could conclude that the 
NAS ``left no wiggle room'' that ``global warming is due to man.'' Dr. 
Richard Lindzen, a professor of meteorology at MIT, and a member of the 
NAS panel that produced the report, expressed his astonishment in an 
editorial in the Wall Street Journal on June 11, 2001. Dr. Lindzen 
wrote that the NAS report showed ``there is no consensus, unanimous or 
otherwise, about long-term climate trends and what causes them.'' Yet 
to this day, the media continues to report exactly the opposite.
  As I noted earlier, raising uncertainties or questioning basic 
assertions about global warming is considered ``nonsense.'' I wonder if 
the same applies to the NAS. For on just about every page of the 2001 
report, the NAS did exactly that.
  But for the alarmists, global warming has nothing to do with science 
or scientific inquiry. Science is not about the inquiry to discover 
truth, but a mask to achieve an ideological agenda. For some, this 
issue has become a secular religion, pure and simple.
  Dr. Richard Lindzen has written eloquently and powerfully on this 
point, so I will end with his words: ``Science, in the public arena, is 
commonly used as a source of authority with which to bludgeon political 
opponents and propagandize uninformed citizens. This is what has been 
done with both the reports of the IPCC and the NAS. It is a 
reprehensible practice that corrodes our ability to make rational 
decisions. A fairer view of the science will show that there is still a 
vast amount of uncertainty--far more than advocates of Kyoto would like 
to acknowledge--and that the NAS report has hardly ended the debate. 
Nor was it meant to.''
  This is Dr. Lindzen. No one will question his credibility and his 
background.
  We know the economic damage that will be done to America. We have all 
talked about the report on the econometrics survey. That survey showed 
how much energy would increase, should we have to comply with the Kyoto 
Treaty. It shows it would cost the average American family of four 
$2,175 a year. So we know how expensive that is. That is all 
documented.
  You might say, Wait a minute. If this is true, if the science is not 
established and there is that much economic damage to the United 
States, why are we doing this? I think the answer to that could be 
given from quoting two individuals. One is not exactly an American 
hero, Jacques Chirac from France, who said:

       Kyoto represents the first component of an authentic 
     governance.

  Then some of you may have heard of Margo Wallstrom, the Environmental 
Minister of the European Union. She said:

       Global warming is not about climate. It is about leveling 
     the economic playing field worldwide.

  I hope the first pillar has been discredited, and next week we will 
start with pillar No. 2 in hopes that we can have a wake-up call for 
the American

[[Page S3349]]

people--that these same alarmists who were concerned about global 
cooling two decades ago will quit worrying so much about their own 
agenda and start looking at the science.
  I feel an obligation as chairman of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee to look at the science. Certainly the Presiding Officer is a 
valued member of that committee. We have a commitment to look at sound 
science, as unpopular as it may be.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeMint). The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I was pleased to hear the thought-provoking 
comments of the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. 
I thank him much for the work he has done there. Some of the things he 
said reminded me of an analogy to a totally different situation. When 
somebody was misusing some scientific facts, the comment was, They used 
the facts like a drunk uses a light post--for support rather than for 
illumination.
  But I look forward to reading the book ``State of Fear'' by Dr. 
Crichton.
  We appreciate the ongoing discussions that we will have.

                          ____________________