[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 165 (Monday, October 29, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13505-S13507]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             GLOBAL WARMING

  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, let me, first of all, say it would be 
very difficult to, in only 30 minutes, refute everything that was just 
said. Interestingly enough, I was honored to have about 2 hours 10 
minutes on the floor last Friday to tell the truth about this subject 
of global warming. I have had a chance to do that. I have very 
carefully written down all the points that were made by my good friend 
from California, and I am going to try to get through these as quickly 
as I can within that 30-minute period of time.
  First of all, on the wildfires in California--this is interesting 
because everything that is out there that is distasteful is blamed on 
global warming. People say: Oh, it must be true; that is what I read in 
the newspapers.
  I believed, 4\1/2\ years ago, it was true. We all know that the 
Northern Hemisphere has been going through a period--up until about 7 
years ago--where it was warming. That has stopped. But it was true at 
that time. So I assumed it had something to do with manmade gases until 
we started looking at it and realizing the science just isn't there.
  On wildfires out in California, just real quickly, it is interesting, 
the Los Angeles Times headline was ``Global warming not a factor in 
wildfires.'' An excerpt from the article reads: Are the massive fires 
burning across southern California a product of global warming? They 
say no. Scientists--almost unanimously--say that has nothing to do with 
it.
  In fact, it is kind of interesting; it is reported: The Santa Ana 
winds, which typically have gusts of up to 45 miles per hour, were 
recorded at more than 80 miles per hour several times this week--strong 
but inside the range of normal variability.
  Meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo said this past Friday:

       The unfortunate fires can be explained very nicely by 
     natural factors.

  Environmentalists would not allow brush clearing. He goes on to talk 
about the prohibition against clearing up accumulated brush from the 
areas surrounding housing developments that was instituted at the 
insistence of the Sierra Club and other environmental organizations.
  Climatologist Patrick Michaels debunks the wildfire-global warming 
link. Do not blame this on global warming. There is no trend whatsoever 
in the frequency of heavy-rainfall years and so forth. He goes on and 
on. So that just flat is not true.
  Now, the Senator from California has claimed, on several occasions, 
it would be cheaper in the long run to immediately enact regulatory 
policies aimed at controlling the Earth's global temperatures. The 
claim is clearly wrong. Of the half dozen major bills introduced in the 
Senate, all will harm the economy, yet none will put a dent in global 
warming, even if the worst fears were well founded.
  Earlier this month, the Environmental Protection Agency concluded 
that over the long run each bill before Congress, including those that 
would reduce U.S. emissions by 70 percent--70 percent--would only 
reduce global concentration of greenhouse gases by 4 percent--just 4 
percent.
  Here is something that is interesting. When former Vice President Al 
Gore was in office, he went to Tom Wigley, who at that time was a very 
renowned scientist and one of his top advisers. He said: What would 
happen if all developed nations--not the developing nations such as 
China and other countries where they do not have any control over what 
can be done there, but if developed nations all signed on to the Kyoto 
treaty and lived by their emissions, how much would it reduce the 
Earth's temperature in 50 years? The result was 0.07 degrees Celsius. 
Now, that is if everybody did this and inflicted all the damage.
  In June of this year, China--this is something which is kind of 
interesting; they try to blame America and our emissions on greenhouse 
gases--they were projecting we would be the No. 1 greenhouse gas 
emitter by 2040. We were shocked to find out that just recently China 
already passed us. So they are increasing their emissions of greenhouse 
gases at a real rapid rate. As a matter of fact, we went through the 15 
years prior to 2005 by having no new coal-fired generating plants. 
China is now cranking out one every 3 days. This is kind of interesting 
because as we lose jobs to China, because we do not have the energy 
here, they are going to be using technologies that are not nearly as 
ecologically refined as ours. So it is going to end up having the 
effect of even more and more greenhouse gases.
  Now, when Time magazine named the Model T Ford the 20th century's 
worst environmental product because it brought mobility and prosperity, 
it was clear that common sense has been turned on its head in this 
country. Almost a century ago, when the first Model T was rolling off 
the assembly line, the average American could expect a lifespan of 53 
years and an inflation-adjusted income of only $5,300 a year. Now that 
the automobile is here and we can take people long distances--to 
hospitals and that type of thing--we are now looking at an average 
lifespan at 78 years as opposed to 53 years and an annual income, 
adjusted for inflation, of $32,000. Yet, despite this, some are still 
making the claim it will not be all that harmful to the economy to take 
drastic action in trying to do something about this. They keep 
insisting that China and other countries will mimic us. I think it is 
pretty reasonable that when China's Deputy Director General for 
Environmental Affairs makes such uncompromising, clear statements of 
China's policies to pursue an economic growth agenda first and 
foremost, we would be wise to take him at his word.
  Adopting these policies will only cost the country trillions of 
dollars over time on the naive belief that if China sees how serious 
our country is, it will decide, in the goodness of its heart, to do 
this. This is just not right. They made it very clear they do not have 
any interest in doing that at all.
  Now, when we talk about the Kyoto protocol--which is the first one 
that came along--I think it is interesting that of all 15 Western 
European countries that joined the Kyoto protocol, only 2 out of 15 
have lived within the emissions, have emitted the amounts that were 
acceptable by the protocol. One of those is Great Britain, and right 
now they are increasing their emissions of greenhouse gases.

  The facts above may be what prompted the journal Nature to publish an 
article declaring that Kyoto is dead and that we need a new approach, 
one remarkably similar to the Bush approach, and that is the Asian 
Pacific Partnership Act, which I talked about for quite a while last 
Friday, which I will not repeat now.
  The Senator from California relied on the 2006 Stern report from 
Britain to bolster her claim. Senator Boxer stated:

       This is a very important moment in time. The cost of doing 
     nothing, according to the leading economist on this topic in 
     the world, Nicholas Stern, is five times what the cost will 
     be to address this issue now.

  Now, I do think this is worth spending a little bit of time on 
because my good friend, the junior Senator from California, spent quite 
a bit of time on this subject.
  What did the experts say about the Stern report?
  Economist Richard Tol of Hamburg University, one of the world's 
leading

[[Page S13506]]

environmental economists, tore apart the Stern report on January 26, 
saying:

       If a student of mine were to hand in this report on a 
     Master's thesis . . . [it is] likely I would give him an 
     ``F'' for fail. There is a whole range of very basic 
     economics mistakes that somebody who claims to be a Professor 
     of Economics simply should not make.

  Tol said, according to the BBC:

       Stern consistently picks the most pessimistic for every 
     choice that one can make. He overestimates through cherry-
     picking, he double counts particularly the risks and he 
     underestimates what development and adaptation will do to 
     impacts.

  Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg critiqued the Stern report in a 
November 2, 2006, Wall Street Journal op-ed piece. He said:

       The report seems hastily put-together, with many sloppy 
     errors. As an example, the cost of hurricanes in the U.S. is 
     said to be both 0.13 percent of U.S. GDP and 10 times that 
     figure.

  Lomborg wrote:

       It seems naive to believe that the world's 192 nations can 
     flawlessly implement Mr. Stern's multi-trillion-dollar, 
     century-long policy proposal. Will nobody try to avoid its 
     obligations? Why would China and India even participate?

  Particularly when they stated they would not do it.
  Roger Pielke, Jr., the director of the University of Colorado's 
Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, also chided the 
Stern report for ``cherry picking'' data on October 30, 2006. Pielke 
wrote:

       The Stern Report's selective fishing out of a convenient 
     statement from one of the background papers prepared for our 
     workshop is a classic example of cherry picking a result from 
     a diversity of perspectives, rather than focusing on the 
     consensus of the entire spectrum of experts that participated 
     in our meeting.

  Quoting further, he said:

       To support its argument the Stern Report further relies on 
     a significantly flawed report from the Association of British 
     Insurers, which we critiqued here. Its presentation of the 
     future costs of disasters and climate change is highly 
     selective to put it mildly.

  Australian Paleoclimate scientist Dr. Bob Carter ridiculed the Stern 
report in a November 3, 2006, article:

       The Stern warning could join Paul Ehrlich's ``The 
     Population Bomb'' and the ``Club of Rome's Limits to Growth'' 
     in the pantheon of big banana scares that proved to be 
     unfounded.

  It goes on and on in some detail criticizing the report.
  Yale University's Sterling Professor of Economics William Nordhaus 
recently authored a study on the economic effects of climate change 
titled ``The Challenge of Global Warming: Economic Models and 
Environmental Policy.'' The study revealed that so-called global 
warming solutions would cost two or even three times the benefits they 
would theoretically achieve. Nordhaus was specifically critical of 
Stern's use of novel methodology, in which he assumes a near zero 
discount rate which dramatically increases the benefits of addressing 
global warming.

  The New York Times captured the views of mainstream economists in its 
February 21, 2007, article by David Leonhardt, when he cited Nordhaus's 
concerns, adding:

       This was fairly tame compared with the comments of another 
     Yale economist, Robert O. Mendelsohn. ``I was awestruck,'' he 
     said, comparing Sir Nicholas to ``The Wizard of Oz.'' But 
     ``my job is to be Toto.''

  It goes on and on and on.
  Even Alan Greenspan talks about spending quite a bit of time on this. 
He said: There is no effective way to meaningfully reduce emissions 
without negatively impacting a larger part of the economy.
  Now, if you look at the Wharton study--there it is, right there. If 
you look at this, I hope people understand there is no question that 
there are scientists who actually believe that manmade gases are a 
major contributor to climate change. I don't believe--and the 
scientists I outlined last Friday--one thing is sure and that is the 
cost to America, should we decide to take one of these steps. Keep in 
mind, all of this is pushed on us by the United Nations, similar to a 
lot of other things we have to live with. But if you look at the last 
four largest tax increases in the last three decades, the most recent 
one was a $32 billion tax increase in 1993 called the Clinton-Gore tax 
increase, a $32 billion tax increase. I can remember coming to the 
floor--it was an increase on all the rates, the rates of individuals, 
regardless of income range. There were all kinds of increases. Yet as 
bad as that was, and as we were talking about the huge tax increase--
$32 billion--the Wharton School of Economics estimates the Kyoto cost 
would have been over $300 billion; in other words, ten times the 
largest tax increase in modern history.
  I think people do have to understand that, because there have been 
all kinds of articles. The op-ed piece in the Financial Post by Wayne 
Weingarten said that the cost of reducing greenhouse gases through cap-
and-trade regulations are not trivial. If implemented, cap-and-trade 
policies would add significant costs to production and would likely 
have a severe negative impact on long-term growth and an estimated 
$10,800 per U.S. family--$10,800.
  Recently the MIT study which was referred to, I think, by Senator 
Boxer, the MIT study analyzed how energy producers would have to spend 
to buy allowances if they were auctioned, and the cost to energy 
producers to buy these allowances would be equal to $4,500 per 
household family. Now, all of these seem to be unanimous in terms of 
what it would cost, and I think we all understand that.
  For fear that I might lose--or run out of time, I am going to real 
quickly go over some of the things I did last Friday, talking about 
what has happened in 2007. In August of 2007, a peer-reviewed study 
published in the ``Geophysical Research Letters'' finds global warming 
over the last century linked to natural causes. The September peer-
reviewed study counters the global warming theory by finding carbon 
dioxide did not end during the last ice age. In October of 2007, the 
Danish National Space Study concluded the Sun still appears to be the 
main forcing agent.
  By the way, all the way through this, we have approximately 11 other 
quotes that I will submit for the record talking about how the 
scientists have come out and talked about how expensive it was.
  The geologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Dr. Giegengack, 
makes comments. He says:

       If we reduced the rate at which we put carbon into the 
     atmosphere, it won't reduce the concentration in the 
     atmosphere; CO2 is just going to come back out of 
     these reservoirs.

  He talked about natural reservoirs, which are oceans, soil, and 
permafrost.
  Going back to Dr. Giegengack, he says:

       In terms of global warming's capacity to cause the human 
     species harm, I don't think it makes it into the top 10.

  He said that in an interview at the University of Pennsylvania.
  Now, again, if we have time, we will come back and expand a little 
bit on that.
  What I have done is written down as quickly as I could the things the 
junior Senator came out with. She spent a lot of--let's put the polar 
bear back up there. People wonder why they always keep using polar 
bears. Everybody loves animals. This was a Time magazine top seller. 
They had this poor polar bear standing on this last cube of ice out 
there. It says: ``Be worried. Be Very Worried.'' That is the same 
publication that in 1975 said another ice age is coming; we are all 
going to die.
  Let's talk about the polar bear. I think this is kind of a classic 
case of reality versus unproven computer model predictions. The Fish 
and Wildlife Service estimates that the polar bear population is 
currently 20,000 to 25,000 bears; whereas, in the 1950s and 1960s, the 
estimates were 5,000 to 10,000 polar bears. We currently have an 
estimated four to five times more polar bears than we did 50 years ago.

  A 2002 U.S. Geological Survey of wildlife in the Arctic Refuge 
Coastal Plain noted that polar bear populations may now be near 
historic highs.
  Top biologists such as Canadian biologist Dr. Mitchell Taylor, the 
director of wildlife research, dismissed these fears about polar bears 
with evidence-based data on Canada's polar bear populations. He says: 
Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or 
increasing in number.
  There is only one that is dropping down, and that is in the western--
what was it, the Hudson Bay area. This is the one the junior Senator 
from California talked about, and that is going down in population, 
mostly because of the hunting rules that have been established in that 
area.
  The next thing she talked about was computer models. This is 
interesting because everyone now has debunked

[[Page S13507]]

the whole idea that computer models were accurate. Even the New York 
Times has been forced to acknowledge the overwhelming evidence that the 
Earth is currently well within natural climate variation. This 
inconvenient reality means that all the warming doomsayers have to back 
up their climate fears are unproven computer models predicting future 
doom. Of course, you can't prove a prediction of the climate in 2100 
wrong today, which reduces the models to speculating on what could or 
might or may happen 50 years from now or 100 years from now.
  But prominent U.N. scientists have publicly questioned the 
reliability of climate models. This is kind of interesting because it 
is the U.N. that started this whole thing. The IPCC, the scientists, 
Dr. Jim Renwick, a lead author of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report--
this is the United Nations--publicly admitted that climate models may 
not be so reliable after all.
  He stated in June:

       Half of the variability in the climate system is not 
     predictable, so we don't expect to do terrifically well.

  Let me repeat, a U.N. scientist admitted half of the variability in 
the climate system is not predictable.
  Also in June, another high-profile U.N. lead author, Dr. Kevin 
Trenberth, echoed Renwick's sentiments about climate models by 
referring to them as nothing more than story lines.
  Keep in mind, what we are talking about are the things that all this 
is based on and the distinguished junior Senator from California spent 
about 15 minutes of her 1 hour talking about--computer models. They 
have all been debunked.
  Now, as far as Greenland is concerned, this is kind of interesting 
because, in fact, current temperatures in Greenland--and Greenland has 
been the poster boy for climate alarmists--the current temperatures are 
cooler than the temperatures there in the mid 1930s and 1940s, 
according to multiple peer-reviewed studies. You heard me right. 
Greenland has cooled since the 1940s, a fact the media and global 
warming activists conceal. Greenland reached its highest temperatures 
in 1941, according to a peer-reviewed study published in the June of 
2006 issue of the ``Journal of Geophysical Research.'' Keep in mind the 
80 percent of manmade CO2 after these high temperatures.
  According to a July 2007 report from the Environment and Public Works 
Committee on Greenland:

       Research in 2006 found that Greenland has been warming 
     since the 1880s, but since 1955, temperature averages at 
     Greenland stations have been colder than the period between 
     1881 and 1995. Another 2006 peer-reviewed study concluded the 
     rate of warming in Greenland from 1920 to 1930 was about 50 
     percent higher than the warming from 1995 to 2005. One 2005 
     study found Greenland gaining ice in the interior higher 
     elevations and thinning ice at the lower elevations.

  So it has gone over and over again, the fact that it is factual, that 
it has actually been getting cooler in Greenland.
  By the way, I think it is also interesting when you talk about global 
warming, consistently through the last several decades, the Southern 
Hemisphere has actually been getting cooler. The last time I checked, 
the Southern Hemisphere was part of the globe.
  So I think if we want to talk about some of the changes in terms of 
the scientists that have been coming along, we could do that. I think 
one of the well-known--the scientist staff writer, Juliet Eilperin, 
from the Washington Post conceded that climate skeptics appear to be 
expanding rather than shrinking.
  Geologist Peter Sciaky echoes this growing backlash of leftwing 
activists about global warming. He describes himself as a ``liberal and 
a leftist'' and wrote on June 9:

       I do not know a single geologist who believes that global 
     warming is a man-made phenomena.

  I think that former Vice President Gore's biggest worry is becoming a 
reality right now, and that is that all these scientists who were on 
his side 10 years or so ago are now on the other side saying: Wait a 
minute, we thought we were right at that time.
  The 60 scientists who were advising the Prime Minister of Canada and 
advised him back in the middle 1990s to sign onto the Kyoto Treaty, 
after reevaluating, they said:

       If, back in the mid 1990s, we knew what we know today about 
     climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we 
     would have concluded it was not necessary.

  So you get back to the 60 scientists who advised the Prime Minister 
at that time to join in the Kyoto Treaty, and right now they have all 
signed a letter advising Prime Minister Harper not to join on or sign 
onto any successor of the Kyoto Treaty.
  So when we talk about Claude Allegra from France, David Bellamy from 
the U.K, and Nir Shaviv from Israel, these are people who were on the 
other side who have come over.
  I think that in my 2-plus-hour presentation I made last Friday, I 
covered most of the things--the objections that were given on the floor 
by my good friend, Senator Boxer. I see my friend from New Mexico is 
here. If he would like me to yield the remainder of my time to him, I 
say to Senator Domenici, I would be glad to do so.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator, how much time is that?
  Mr. INHOFE. I don't know.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). About 4\1/2\ minutes remain.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I appreciate that. First, I wish to thank the Senator. 
I wish to say to the Senate, I talked to Senator Lott, and I understand 
that when the 4\1/2\ minutes is up, the regular order will be that we 
return to Amtrak; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator indicated to me he was next with some 
amendments, but he would be willing to give me about 5 minutes. Now, we 
can do it either way. We can say, I would like 5 minutes before--what I 
have been given here, plus 5 before we go to the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator seek unanimous consent?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent to that effect.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. That means I can go up to 9\1/2\. I am not sure I will, 
but who knows. This is a favorite subject, so I might talk all night if 
you let me.

                          ____________________