[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 47 (Wednesday, March 18, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H3631-H3638]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       THE FEAR OF GLOBAL WARMING

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) is recognized for 
60 minutes.
  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, tonight and today we have been hearing 
a lot about the economic crisis throughout the globe. Parallel to the 
concern about the economic crisis is another concern that we have been 
told about, and that is the fear of global warming. It preoccupies much 
of what we do here in this House, and it preoccupies much of what is in 
the media, not only in the United States but throughout the world.
  I would like to read a portion of a Newsweek article, Mr. Speaker. It 
says:
  There are ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun 
to change dramatically, and that these changes may bring a drastic 
decline in food production with serious political implications for just 
about every nation on this earth. The drop in food output could begin 
quite soon, perhaps in only 10 years.
  The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing 
lands of Canada and Russia in the north, along with a number of 
marginally self-sufficient tropical areas, parts of India, Pakistan, 
Bangladesh, Indo-China and Indonesia, where the growing season is 
dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoons. The evidence in 
support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively 
that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it.
  In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by 2 weeks 
since 1950, with the result overall loss in grain production estimated 
up to 100,000 tons every year. During this same time, the average 
temperature around the equator has arisen by a fraction of a degree, a 
fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation.
  Last April, the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 
148 twisters, killed more than 300 people and caused one-half billion 
dollars worth of damage in 13 States in the United States.
  To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the 
advanced signs of a fundamental change in the world's weather. The 
central fact--and you note here, Mr. Speaker, it is a fact. It says: 
The central fact is that after three-quarters of a century of 
extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth's climate is beginning to 
cool down. That is right, Mr. Speaker, this article says the world is 
cooling down.
  Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of this cooling 
trend as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions, 
but they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will produce 
agricultural productivity for rest of the century. If the climate 
change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting 
famines could be catastrophic. A major climate change would force 
economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale, warns a recent 
report by the National Academy of Science.
  This article goes on and on, Mr. Speaker, to talk about the new Ice 
Age affecting the world; how we are going to have a new Ice Age that 
will come to the United States, all parts of the world, how our whole 
attitude about the world will change because it will be a cold place. 
Basically, Mr. Speaker, Newsweek in 1975, April 28, said we are all 
going to freeze in the dark.
  Now the people who said this--and I remember all of this taking place 
back in the seventies, and I believed this nonsense, that we are all 
going to freeze, that the Earth is getting colder, and that we can't do 
anything about it and that it will never correct itself. I believed all 
that, as did a lot of other Americans, because it was based on, as this 
articles says, scientific fact that the earth is getting colder. And 
these same people in 1975 that predicted that the earth was going to 
get colder are the same people today, in the year 2009, saying just the 
opposite: That the earth is getting hot. We are all going to roast. It 
is the same global warming crowd.
  The difference is a few years have passed. And our attention span is 
so short as Americans, and other people in the world, we forget these 
predictions that occurred just 33 years ago. And that is unfortunate.
  The people in the weather business, meteorologists, for example, who 
predicted the global warming and some that predicted the earth getting 
colder are the same people who can't predict tomorrow's weather. You 
know, these folks are the only people that I know of in our culture 
that can be consistently wrong and keep their jobs, but they do. They 
can't predict tomorrow's weather, but they are telling us, we are all 
going to roast because of global warming. I am not so sure that that is 
true.
  The article goes ahead and points out that the earth is already one-
sixth of the way toward the new Ice Age. And, of course, history proved 
the experts in 1970 wrong; that we did not all freeze. Now, in fact, 
they are predicting the opposite.
  Mr. Speaker, last week we had the global warming crowd here in 
Washington, D.C., protesting how we provide energy for this building. 
Now I have nothing against folks who want to peaceably assemble and 
talk about issues. That is great. That is part of the American way. But 
it is interesting, they showed up on a day, March 2, where we had 10 
inches of snow and one of the coldest days in recorded history in 
Washington, D.C., 18 degrees, and they were here protesting the way we 
find energy for this Capitol. And it is how inconsistent the global 
warming crowd is. They are against everything that produces energy, 
especially those bad, nasty oil companies.
  They were wearing, and I thought this was interesting, green hard 
hats. Which is fine. I asked one of the young ladies that was with the 
group, do you know what that hard hat is made out of? And she said, 
plastic. And I said, what do you think plastic is made out of? And she 
said, well, plastic is made out of plastic.
  Contrary to what some people believe, plastic is not an element. It 
is not a mineral. Plastic, like many things that we see every day, is a 
derivative of crude oil. I told her that, and she didn't understand it 
or believe it, but whatever. The problem they see is the fact that 
humans are the problem; that we use energy, and that they wish to, I 
guess, eliminate humans on this earth because we are the problem, they 
say, in global warming.
  Well, first of all, global warming is not a scientific fact even 
though some

[[Page H3632]]

say that it is. There are other scientists who say we are not having 
global warming. Unfortunately, we have been basically told here in the 
House of Representatives that global warming is a scientific fact, and 
all of our legislation is going to be based upon the absolute fact of 
global warming. That is unfortunate. We should still continue the 
debate on, first, whether or not global warming is occurring; and, 
second, and most importantly, is it man's fault that there is a climate 
change? Scientists certainly disagree.
  I think the bottom line in global warming and those that advocate 
that we are having global warming is it is real basic: It is all about 
money.
  You see, those who advocate that we have global warming want more 
Federal dollars to study that issue to convince us that there is global 
warming, and they get those Federal dollars. Those meteorologists and 
scientists on the other side who say maybe we are not having global 
warming. Maybe climate change does occur, but man is not the fault; 
see, there is no money in saying that. There is only Federal dollars in 
saying, yes, there is global warming. It seems like those people who 
advocate global warming are just saying that because they are getting 
paid by the Federal Government.

  Of course, the second issue is man, the culprit. I am not so sure man 
is the culprit. The jury is still out on that, and I think we should 
not be so fast to rush to judgment.
  The last thing I wanted to point out is that, in the name of global 
warming, it really means more government control over our personal 
lives. That is what it is about, it is about money and it is about the 
fact that there is personal control over our lives by the Federal 
Government.
  For example, soon the Federal Government is going to tell us all the 
type of light bulbs we can have in our homes. We have to go to those 
Chinese-only-made light bulbs that have mercury in them, because it 
soon will be the law that you can't buy any light bulbs except these 
energy-efficient light bulbs. The Federal Government wants to tell us 
what the kind of cars to use. The Federal Government wants to tell us 
what kind of energy to use, all in the name of global warming. But it 
is really control of our personal liberty in the name of global 
warming.
  So the jury is still out on that issue, and I think we have an 
obligation to the American people to debate the issue of climate 
change, global warming, whether the earth is getting warmer or hotter, 
whether there is a climate change, and whether man is the culprit. I 
think that we should do that.
  At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield such time as he 
wishes to consume to my good friend, Mr. Rohrabacher, from California.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. And I will be amplifying on 
some of the points that you have made.
  I would just like to suggest that, as a 20-year veteran of the 
Science Committee, this issue has been before me, and I have been 
through many hearings and many actual examinations of this particular 
issue.
  Last week, President Obama pledged that during his administration he 
would see, and I quote, that scientific data is never distorted or 
concealed to serve a political agenda, and that we make scientific 
decisions based on facts, not ideology. End of quote.
  Viewing this commitment through the lens of global warming gives us 
some hope that President Obama will break from the ranks of the 
lockstep conformity that is demanded of the politicized scientists 
concerning the issue of global warming. Perhaps now we can get on with 
discovering the truth through science, not chicken little science, but 
real science, and leave the political pressure out of it.
  Unfortunately, up to today politicians like Vice President Al Gore 
have done their best to silence the rational voices of scientists who 
have been skeptical of Mr. Gore's agenda.
  Let no one forget, Vice President Al Gore's first act as Vice 
President was to insist that Dr. William Happer be fired as chief 
scientist for the Department of Energy. Dr. Happer apparently had 
uttered words indicating that he was open-minded to the issue of global 
warming. So: Off with his head. Out the door. They wanted someone who 
was going to provide grants only to scientists whose would verify this 
man-made global warming theory. Dr. Happer was relieved in 1993, the 
first year of the Clinton-Gore administration. So for over a decade all 
we have heard is a one-sided drumbeat.
  Dr. William Gray, now emeritus professor of atmospheric science at 
the Colorado State University, and a fellow of the American 
Meteorological Society, verified this. Quote: I had NOAA money for 30 
years, Gray recounted. And when the Clinton administration came in and 
Gore started directing some of that environmental stuff, I was cut off. 
I couldn't get any money from NOAA. They turned me down 13 straight 
proposals. End of quote.
  This man is one of the most prominent hurricane experts in the world 
who before received grants for study and scientific grants, but after 
Clinton-Gore he was turned down 13 straight times.
  This gross intimidation of other scientists was done to lay the 
foundation; because if it could happen to this prominent scientist, it 
was going to happen to them. But it was done to lay down a foundation 
for a radical agenda that would change our life. The first thing he had 
to do was to have hand-picked scientists create fear that the planet 
was in jeopardy. Then these hand-picked scientists had to lie about 
everybody agreeing to that type of prediction.

                              {time}  2015

  Unfortunately, for all those scientists who went along with this 
scheme, now over a decade later, there is a big problem. The claim that 
the science is clear and there is a consensus that humans are directly 
responsible for global warming is now as clearly wrong as it is 
dishonest. Why is it clearly wrong? Because it has not been getting 
warmer for the last 8 years. It is harder for everybody to ignore that 
fact, especially as more and more scientists are stepping up and 
pointing it out. It is not getting any warmer. In fact, it hasn't been 
getting warmer for 8 years.
  In January, a U.S. Senate minority report stated over 650 dissenting 
scientists from around the globe challenged manmade global warming 
claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
Change as well as disagreeing with former Vice President Al Gore. The 
esteemed scientists being referred to come from a wide range of 
disciplines. Several are Nobel Prize winners. And many work at the most 
respected scientific institutions in the world. They totally disagree 
with the theory. They call it into question, this manmade global theory 
claim.
  Finally, just last year the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine 
released the names of some 31,478 scientists who signed a petition 
rejecting the claims of human-caused global warming. Of those 31,000, 
9,029 have Ph.D.s. Many currently work in climatology, meteorology, 
atmospheric, environmental and geophysical studies, as well as 
astronomical studies, as well as the biological fields that directly 
relate to the climate change controversy.
  So, there is no consensus. Thousands of scientists are disagreeing 
with what has been foisted upon us. Yet, we are bombarded by radical 
environmentalists and the media hype with the common refrain, ``case 
closed, the global warming is real.'' It is repeated over and over 
again. ``Case closed, global warming is real.'' Well, it is repeated as 
if it were a mantra by religious zealots. It was pounded into the 
public consciousness over the airwaves, in print and even in 
congressional hearings. Case closed. Well, this was obviously a brazen 
attempt to end open discussion and to silence differing views, 
dismissing the need to explore legitimate contrary arguments on both 
sides of the issue.
  Again, there are hundreds of prominent scientists and meteorologists 
and heads of science departments at major universities, Nobel Prize 
winners and others who are highly skeptical and highly critical of this 
manmade global warming theory. But case closed. We shouldn't even 
listen to their arguments. There is Dr. Richard Lindzen, for example, 
of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He has been adamant in 
his opposition, as has Dr. William Gray, whom I mentioned a moment ago, 
a world-renowned hurricane expert and fellow at the American 
Meteorological Society. He recently pointed out that the 15-year 
prediction

[[Page H3633]]

by global warming activists that the Earth would by now be suffering 
many more and much more severe hurricanes, that that prediction was 
dead wrong. It doesn't come from me. It comes from Dr. William Gray, 
one of the most renowned hurricane experts in the world, who could not 
get a research grant during the Clinton-Gore administration.
  So, let us note, the planet is not getting warmer. Hurricanes are at 
a 30-year low. But these views, and the views of so many more prominent 
scholars and scientists who also agree with these views, their views 
don't matter. The debate is over. Al Gore has his Nobel Prize, and the 
film ``An Inconvenient Truth'' has its Academy Award. So shut up and 
get your mind in lockstep with the politically correct prevailing 
wisdom, or at least what the media tells us is the prevailing 
wisdom. And no questions, please. The case is closed.

  We have heard this dozens and dozens of times. Don't people who are 
advocating global warming, who are honest people, doesn't that cause 
them reason to pause and think, why are people trying to shut down the 
discussion? Okay, the science has been skewed by heavy-handed 
intervention in the awarding of research grants. It is clear now, 
evidenced by a propaganda barrage that would make George Orwell blush. 
This propaganda barrage has been aimed at the American people. So what 
is this theory that is now so accepted that grants were denied, the 
debate is deliberately stifled and that a barrage of propaganda is 
aimed at the American people to get them just to accept it? The manmade 
global warming theory is presented as scientific truism.
  So, let's see, is it really? It is, let's say, specifically, it is a 
disturbing theory that the Earth began warming, a warming cycle 150 
years ago. This was a warming cycle that differed greatly from all the 
other warming and cooling cycles that had gone on on this planet for 
millenniums. For as long as the Earth has a geologic history, there 
have been warmings and coolings. But this warming cycle of 150 years 
ago, we keep being told, is not like all the other cycles. This one is 
tied directly to mankind's use of fossil fuels, basically coal and oil. 
These so-called fossil fuels that have powered our industries and made 
civilization possible are, we have been told, causing a global-warming 
catastrophe. The weather is changing. It is getting hotter and hotter. 
After all, former Vice President Al Gore now said that, and I quote, 
``humanity is sitting on a time bomb. The vast majority of the world's 
scientists are right. We have just 10 years to avert a major 
catastrophe that could send our entire planet's climate system into a 
tailspin of epic destruction, involving extreme weather, floods, 
droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever 
experienced, a catastrophe of our own making.'' Al said that, not 
acknowledging that when his statement was made, the world temperature 
had already ceased to climb in the previous 5 years. But he should be 
excused because he was so sure, really sure, that global warming would 
come back and then validate his warnings.
  Why was he so sure? Because fossil fuels, people like Al tell us, put 
an ever-increasing level of so-called greenhouse gases into the 
atmosphere. The most prevalent is carbon dioxide, CO2. This 
increase in CO2, we are told, causes the warming that we are 
supposedly experiencing. Of course, we know that ended 8 years ago, but 
supposedly we are still experiencing it. We will just ignore that it 
hasn't been getting warmer for these last 8 years.
  This manmade warming cycle, according to the theory, is rapidly 
approaching a tipping point, as we have just heard from Al, when the 
world's temperature will abruptly jump and accelerate with dire and 
perhaps apocalyptic consequences for the entire planet. If one accepts 
this as fact, then manmade global warming is overwhelming our planet 
even as we speak. If we believed that, then we would be expected to 
accept controls, regulation, taxation, international planning and 
enforcement, mandated lifestyle changes, lower expectations, limits on 
consumer choice, as well as personal and family sacrifices. All of this 
we would be expected to accept as necessary to save our planet from--
well, from us.
  What are the costs of these controls? According to the Wharton 
Economic Forecasting report, complying with the Kyoto treaty alone 
would reduce our country's national output by $300 billion annually and 
would result in the loss of 2.4 million jobs. The cap-and-trade 
legislation, now being considered in Washington, would cost American 
industry $600 billion. This, of course, will simply be passed on to 
consumers in the price of the goods that we purchase.
  By the way, when President Obama said there will be no new taxes for 
anyone with less than a $250,000 annual income, did he include all of 
this money that was going to be added to the price of the goods that we 
are paying by federal regulations that are trying to deal with global 
warming? I wonder who is going to pay that $600 billion. Is it just the 
people who make over $250,000 a year? Well, promise or no, this 
economically oppressive medicine will be shoved down our throats at a 
time of incredible hardship and economic chaos in our country. We can't 
afford to lose millions of jobs.
  To charge the American taxpayer billions more in the price of the 
goods they buy, which is little more than a thinly disguised tax, is 
unconscionable. We can't afford to increase the electric costs as much 
as 129 percent, which is predicted. And significantly, they would like 
to raise the price of gasoline once more. They want it to stay at $4 a 
gallon.
  It really takes a lot to frighten people into accepting such 
economically destructive and personally restrictive mandates that would 
result from the implementing of a global warming-based agenda. That is 
why the debate has been stifled. The case is closed. The phony claims 
of consensus. That is why the proponents of this theory have been so 
heavy-handed, heavy-handed enough to interfere with the unbiased 
issuances of research grants. How else, except for dishonest tactics, 
can they frighten people to accept the huge changes in their lives that 
they will be required to make by the global warming community? And 
these are not changes that are being made, changes for the better in 
their lives, otherwise they would make them gladly and voluntarily. 
Inexpensive air travel, for example, the global warming alarmists 
believe that jet aircraft should be considered among the worst 
CO2 polluters. Jet travel, therefore, must be restricted. 
People are expected to give up the freedom to use cheap air fares. So 
how many people are aware of that? If the global warming fanatics have 
their way, there will be no more discounted airline tickets, which of 
course means fewer visits to see our loved ones and fewer visits to 
explore the world.
  Better known, however, is the global warming movement's commitment to 
severely restrict the use of private automobiles. The rich will still 
have their limos and of course their private jets. Carbon offsets will 
see to that. Certainly Al and the others will be let off the hook 
because of these carbon offsets which, of course, Al will also profit 
from by organizing them in the private sector. The rest of us will not 
be able to travel by plane and will be stuck sitting at home or sitting 
next to a gang member on public transportation.
  If we are just staying at home, what does that leave us? Is that a 
better life? Outlandish global warming predictions, then, are designed 
to strike fear into the hearts of those malcontents who just won't be 
willing to accept giving up those low-priced air fares and will not 
accept government mandates in their lifestyle. They just won't stay at 
home. Those changes, we are told, are needed to save the planet. Well, 
if proponents have their way, people are just going to have to accept 
things like higher food prices and, importantly, less meat in their 
diet. That's right. They want to wean us away from meat. A 2006 report 
entitled ``Livestock's Long Shadow'' to the United Nations mentions 
livestock emissions and grazing, and it places part of the blame for 
global warming squarely on the hind parts of cows. Cows are to be added 
to the list of greenhouse-emitting machines. So, not only are we going 
to be forced to cut our personal air travel and our ground 
transportation, as I say, which keeps us at home, but then when we stay 
home, we can't even have a barbecue. And heck, they won't even let us 
have a hamburger.

[[Page H3634]]

                              {time}  2030

  I point out that before the introduction of cattle to the United 
States, millions upon millions of buffalo dominated the Great Plains of 
America. They were so thick you could not see where one herd began and 
the other ended. One can only assume that the anti-meat manmade global 
warming crowd must believe that buffalo farts have some redeeming value 
that is better than the flatulence emitted by cattle.
  Underscoring this dishonesty of the global warming fanatics, in my 
attempt to make light of the argument that cattle production is an evil 
element of our world, I once suggested, in jest, that perhaps 
dinosaurs' flatulence changed the climate in those days which may have 
ended the time of the dinosaurs. Well, it was widely reported that I 
was serious when I said that. Anyone who could suggest that I was 
serious and not making light of the other person, and I say 
respectfully making light of the other person's argument, anybody who 
reports that I was serious, that I really believed that dinosaurs were 
extinct because of flatulence is intentionally portraying something 
that they know not to be true, or they are just ignorant. But I believe 
we are not talking about ignorant people, we are talking about people 
who are portraying things that they know not to be true as if it were 
true.
  What we have here is steely-eye fanaticism by those on the other side 
of the global warming debate; people clearly blinded by fanaticism and, 
thus, are unable to grasp nuance, unable to grasp a bit of humor added 
to a debate, and certainly unable to honestly examine an opposing 
argument.
  But let's look at the proof these zealots give us to back up their 
claim of global warming that is threatening our planet. Let's be honest 
enough to be open minded to what they are presenting us.
  First, let's note that the baseline used to prove global warming is 
1850. I have been through hearing after hearing in the Science 
Committee. And 1850, by the way, is the year in which they judge 
whether the planet is getting warmer or cooler. And 1850 also marks 
something else: it marks the end, the bottom end, the final end of a 
500-year decline in the Earth's temperatures called the Mini Ice Age. 
Yes, it was a cycle trending down for about 500 years, and it all got 
down to about 1850 when it started trending up. So 1850 is the baseline 
for judging warming of our planet? Does that make any sense? They are 
making comparisons against a temperature that was the bottom end of a 
500-year decline in temperature. I pointed that out at numerous hearing 
and in numerous debates, and the issue continues to be ignored.
  So if anyone out there is listening and is honest, please give us an 
answer: Isn't 1850 a dishonest date to use as a baseline to prove that 
the Earth is getting warmer? Isn't the statistical base clearly flawed 
when you start at a low point?
  Then there are, of course, the predictions that we have heard. In 
testimony before Congress 20 years ago, NASA's James Hansen predicted 
CO2 would shoot up and global temperatures would shoot up by 
more than one-third of a degree Celsius during the 1990s, and the trend 
would then escalate. A rise in temperature was predicted, and it would 
lead to what: rising sea levels, cities underwater, droughts and 
famines and an increase in tropical diseases; yes, tropical diseases.
  Sometimes it is difficult for me when radical environmentalists use 
that as an example considering that tropical diseases, especially 
malaria, have killed millions of children in the Third World because 
radical environmentalists have been successful in banning DDT; but that 
is another issue.
  It has been awhile since the apocalyptic predictions by global 
warming fanatics were made. Were these predictions correct? Mr. Hansen 
said the temperature would rise by a third of a degree just a little 
over a decade ago, and the answer is that the predictions turned out to 
be dramatically wrong. Temperatures during that decade rose only one-
third of what was predicted by Mr. Hansen, a modest increase to the 
point that it would alarm nobody and would be of little difference than 
any of the other many cycle changes that we have seen on our planet 
over our planet's millions of years of history.
  Again, over the past 8 years there hasn't even been a modest rise of 
temperature, again as differentiated from what Mr. Hansen predicted.
  We shouldn't be surprised. Climate modeling, which is the basis of 
almost all alarmist predictions, is not an exact science. No weather or 
climate model has ever been accurate to the point the alarmists would 
have us believe. This was stunningly clear when Dr. Hansen called for 
an anti-global warming protest here in Washington 2 weeks ago that the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) just talked about. The day the 
demonstrators arrived coincided with the worst snowstorm in a year and 
the coldest March 2 in more than a decade.
  So let's look at the other predictions. He was dead wrong to try to 
call a global warming demonstration on the coldest day of the year 
because he didn't think it would be cold. Numerous and powerful other 
hurricanes were forecast by the National Hurricane Center for NOAA and 
others. Okay, that is what we were going to have. The last decade, the 
global warming people said we would have more and more hurricanes. 
Well, for the last 8 years it hasn't been getting warmer, and we 
haven't seen more hurricanes. Yes, as I stated earlier, the number of 
hurricanes is at a 30-year low.
  During the Clinton administration, scientists produced a study and 
then another study and another study predicting the horrific impact of 
the unstoppable onslaught of manmade global warming: droughts, fires, 
polar ice caps melting, mass extinctions, all of this, report after 
report, what I call Chicken Little science. We were led to believe this 
nightmare would be overwhelming us by now. Of course, if there was even 
a hint that the conclusion wouldn't back up this global warming theory, 
the scientists who applied wouldn't have seen one red cent of Federal 
research money.
  And just recently Tom Knutsen, research meteorologist for NOAA, the 
ones who ended up not being able to give Dr. Gray any research grants, 
this gentleman, Mr. Knutsen, now says that he has reviewed the evidence 
and totally changed his mind and now admits that he was wrong about 
global warming and the increase of hurricane activities. So here is a 
scientist with integrity. Such scientific integrity did not always rise 
to the occasion.
  Contrary to what all of those scientists living on their Federal 
research grants predicted, the world hasn't been getting warmer. In 
fact, in the last 8 years there has been no warming at all. Global 
snowfall is at record levels, and there are fewer, not more hurricanes. 
And yes, there is some melting in the Arctic. We hear about it over and 
over again. In fact, NBC did a special on the melting of the Arctic and 
how bad it is, showing penguins sitting on diminished pieces of ice in 
the Arctic. The problem is that penguins don't live in the Arctic. 
There are no penguins in the Arctic. They live in the Antarctic. So NBC 
had it wrong. Somebody must have told them that the penguins from the 
Arctic were being victimized by global warming.
  In fact, the Antarctic where the penguins live, there is a buildup of 
ice going on. It is getting colder in the Antarctic. In the Arctic, of 
course, we recognize there has been some rise in temperatures; that 
due, which many experts tell us, to ocean currents that have changed in 
the last few years. But emphatically, it is not due to CO2 
that comes from somebody's SUV. The Arctic is in fact returning to the 
temperature levels of the 1940s.
  And what about the disappearing polar bears? Are the polar bears 
really disappearing? Dr. Mitchell Taylor from the Department of 
Environmental Studies under the Canadian territory of Nunavut, and 
other experts suggest that all but two types of polar bears are 
flourishing. So yes, two types of polar bears out of 13 different 
types, two of those types are in decline. The rest of the polar bears, 
the population is expanding. So there are more polar bears. Let me say 
that again: more polar bears. But here we are, understanding there are 
more polar bears in the world, we are treated with a spectacle of polar 
bears being put onto the endangered species list with a caveat that 
they really aren't endangered now, but with global warming, they are

[[Page H3635]]

expected to dwindle. Never mind that the global warming trend stopped 8 
years ago.
  Unfortunately, the debate on this case is not closed. So emerging 
obvious differences between reality and theory needs to be addressed by 
people who have been advocating the global warming theory. Even without 
going outside and checking the thermometer, it is easy to tell that the 
predictions of manmade global warming were wrong. How can you tell they 
were wrong? Because they don't even use the words ``global warming'' 
anymore. The words ``climate change'' have now replaced the words 
``global warming.'' Get that? Every time you hear the words ``climate 
change,'' it is evidence of error that they were wrong to begin with, 
or of deceit on the part of radical environmentalists.
  So no matter what happens from now on, climate change has replaced 
global warming, and whether it is hotter or cooler, it can be presented 
as further indication that humans have caused the change that is taking 
place. No, there have been changes in our weather forever. You have 
always had adjustments up and down, trends and cycles.
  We just need to ask ourselves, if a salesman gives a strong pitch and 
makes claims about something that is later to be found out to be wrong, 
totally wrong, when do you stop trusting the salesman? Then if he 
starts playing word games and changing the actual words he is using 
about the same product, and rather than just admitting that he was 
wrong, he just changes the words he is using but he is talking about 
the same product, isn't it reasonable to stop trusting this person?
  Yes, Al Gore and company, we have noticed that you are now saying 
climate change rather than global warming. They tried to slip it in, 
but we have noticed.
  So, why the alteration? Why are they doing that? That is because the 
world has not been getting warmer in the last 8 years as predicted, and 
everybody is beginning to notice it. So we actually see a beehive of 
activity because of this. Those federally funded scientists who were 
sucked into this are now trying to save themselves some modicum of 
credibility, this even as more and more scientists speak up and 
publicly disassociate themselves with the scientific claims of global 
warming that have been foisted upon us.
  To understand all of this nonsense, you have to go back and look at 
the basic scientific assumptions that are being used by the global 
warming alarmists. They claim that excessive amounts of manmade 
CO2 are being deposited in the air which causes a greenhouse 
effect that warms the atmosphere. They call this increase in 
CO2 mankind's carbon footprint. The global warming analysts 
want us to judge everything by its carbon footprint. What that means is 
how much CO2 is being released as a result of that specific 
activity is a carbon footprint. They adamantly believe that it is 
CO2 that causes our planet to warm and that more 
CO2, the hotter it will get, and an increasing 
CO2 problem. And why is CO2 increasing, according 
to these folks, that is due to us. And although mankind is responsible 
for significantly less than 10 percent of all CO2 in the 
Earth's atmosphere, we are told climate change is our fault.
  Can one huge volcano spew more CO2 into the atmosphere 
than all of the people of the world? Yes, but that is still our fault.
  Can one huge fire, like the one we had recently in Australia, throw 
just as much CO2 into the air? Yes, but it is still our 
fault.
  Rotting trees in the Amazon and the by-product of rot and termites 
may cause even more CO2 than what people put into the air, 
all of the people on the planet? Well, yes, but again, it is our fault 
that CO2 is rising.
  This concept, just like the extrapolations from their computers is 
wrong, dead wrong. Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic 
ice core researcher, slammed the U.N. IPCC, and this is the report that 
has been used to justify all of this monstrous and very dangerous 
global warming agenda, well this Russian ice core researcher suggests 
it is ``the biggest scientific fraud'' in 2008. ``The Kyoto theorists 
have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers 
higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way 
around.''

                              {time}  2045

  Furthermore, he went on to point out, ``A large number of critical 
documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. Conference in Madrid vanished 
without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily 
biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact. 
We found out that the level of CO2 had fluctuated greatly 
over the period, but at any given time increases in air temperature 
preceded higher concentrations of CO2.'' This is exactly 
opposite from what is the basis of the whole global warming argument.
  So this is the challenge; many prominent scientists including the 
head of the Russian Academy of Science--who I recently met with, I 
might add, talking about this issue--are now confirming that the rise 
in CO2 comes after global temperatures increase, not before. 
This has been observed in ice cores, yet this has been again ignored by 
those who were screaming their warnings at us.
  Please, give us an answer to this challenge. Why ignore it? How can 
the American people just accept the validity of the argument that's 
being presented to us when they just ignore challenges to the validity 
of their argument? If the increase in CO2 is not the cause 
of any warming cycle the world may experience, how can there be any 
validity at all to any of the demands made upon us?
  We have had many warming cycles in the past, but what these 
scientists are telling us is CO2 increase did not cause 
those warming cycles. In fact, Dr. Claude Allegre, the scientist who 
first postulated the theory that CO2 increase was spiking 
the world's temperature, has now changed his mind. Officially, he says 
he was wrong. He told Al Gore he was wrong. Al Gore won't listen.
  So what is the cause of the world's warming and cooling cycles? If 
it's not CO2, if the global warming crowd refuses to deal 
with that issue and look at that specifically and deal with that 
challenge, okay, well, I assume they're wrong. But what is it that we 
really believe causes these changes that have gone on for millenniums 
in the Earth's temperature? It's called sun spots. Yes, solar activity. 
That explains why one sees similar temperature cycles on Mars and 
Jupiter to the cycles that are happening on this planet. That's why 
icecaps on those planets, like on ours, expand and contract. It's the 
sun, stupid.
  So take note that the very argument upon which global warming is 
built has proven to be false, and that manmade global warming activists 
will not address this issue. This is the most supreme arrogance that I 
have witnessed in my 30 years in Washington. After all, the case is 
closed. We don't need to discuss any more details. Yet, expert after 
expert keep pointing to the flaws in their central argument.
  And Mr. Gore's mumbo-jumbo notwithstanding, the predictions have been 
wrong. And the CO2 premise is wrong. The methodology that 
has been used has been wrong. The observations have been wrong. The 
attempt to shut up those people who disagree with them has been wrong.
  Now, I remember when I chaired the Subcommittee on Research and 
Science in the House back when the Republicans controlled this body. I 
insisted that both sides be present and that expert witnesses be 
expected to address each other's points and contentions. This 
methodology led Al Gore to refer to me as a ``Stalinist.'' I would 
suggest that the propaganda campaign of the manmade global warming 
alarmists has much more in common with Stalinism than does insisting 
that both sides of an issue be heard at a congressional hearing. One 
has to really believe that he or she has a corner on the truth to make 
such a complaint that Stalinism is having both sides presented and 
addressing each other's points.
  Of course, Al Gore's documentary, ``An Inconvenient Truth,'' suggests 
by its title that what he says should be taken as truth. Well, I won't 
go into the numerous debatable points and outright errors in that film, 
but there is something far worse in that film. This pseudoscientific 
documentary--what I call Chicken Little science--presented numerous 
film segments of climate and environmental incidents similar to those 
footages that you would see from National Geographic.

[[Page H3636]]

This added to the credibility of the points being made. Specifically, 
the film portrays a dramatic cracking and breaking away of a huge 
portion of the polar icecap. The scene is awesome and somewhat 
overwhelming, and leaves the audience with the feeling that they have 
witnessed a massive historic occurrence. Unfortunately, it's all a 
fake. This is not grand, firsthand photographic evidence. It's not 
National Geographic footage of a huge breaking away of a portion of the 
icecap. Instead, what the audience is looking at is a deceptive use of 
special effects. It's not the icecaps, it's Styrofoam. That's right, 
Styrofoam special effects trying to fool us into thinking we're 
observing an occurrence by nature. By the way, isn't Styrofoam an oil-
based product or something? Isn't there some sort of carbon footprint 
with Styrofoam? Well, Mr. Gore has not commented on this depiction. 
Maybe it is ``inconvenient'' for him to comment because it may hurt his 
credibility. After all, it's not getting warmer, as he predicted; so 
maybe his, let's say, theories that are based on Styrofoam are 
inaccurate as well.

  The first time I met Al Gore was in my first term in Congress back in 
1989 and `90. Al Gore was then a United States Senator, and he marched 
into the science room, followed by a platoon of cameras and reporters. 
He sat in front of our committee demanding that President Bush--that's 
George W.'s father--declare an ozone emergency. He waved a report in 
his hand as evidence that there was an ozone hole opening up right over 
the northeast of the United States. A few days later, the report touted 
by Senator Gore was found to have been based on faulty data, data 
collected by one so-called researcher flying a single-engine Piper cub 
with limited technology and no experience. The emergency declaration 
the Senator called for would have had severe negative consequences on 
the people who live in the northeast part of the United States.
  Now, does anybody detect a pattern here? Such a scare tactic--as I 
say, Chicken Little-ism--based on false information? Well, it isn't 
new. We have had many examples, not just of Al Gore, but of others 
playing this sort of tactic in order to get their way.
  In 1957, the FDA recalled 3 million pounds of cranberries. A few 
years later, the FDA admitted it was a total mistake. Sorry. Of course, 
there was a tremendous price to be paid; a large number of our farmers 
went out of business. They went broke because nobody had their 
cranberries for Thanksgiving and Christmas.
  Then, of course, there was the scare over cyclamate, used in everyday 
items like sodas, jams, ice cream. It was very sweet and extremely low 
in calories. In the early 1970s, the FDA banned cyclamate as a cancer 
hazard. Well, come to find out, the rats in their study had been force-
fed the equivalent of 350 cans of soda a day, and only eight of the 240 
rats that they had crammed all this soda in actually got sick. It was a 
faulty test. And eventually, years later, the truth finally prevailed, 
and it was officially recognized that cyclamate does not cause cancer. 
Canada, by the way, never banned cyclamate. Our northern buddies, I 
guess, just couldn't get themselves to force-feed those rats.
  Well, the FDA did take back its negative finding. It came up with the 
truth, finally. However, great damage was done. This episode had 
serious consequences. It was the cyclamate ban that led to the 
introduction of high-fructose corn syrup, with the obesity and health 
problems that have come with high-fructose corn syrup. So, yes, another 
scare tactic, another American industry--cyclamate--decimated, another 
rotten theory with unintended consequences foisted upon us.
  The next example of fearmongering with pseudoscience came in February 
of 1989. On the evening of February 26, Americans tuned in to ``60 
Minutes'' and heard Ed Bradley say, ``The most potent cancer-causing 
agent in our food supply is a substance sprayed on apples to keep them 
on the tree.'' He went on to warn that children were being put at risk 
by eating Alar-dusted apples. The story snowballed out of control, 
climaxing with actress Meryl Streep's testimony before Congress. 
Frantic parents tossed apples out the window, schools removed apple 
sauce from the cafeteria and replaced those apples and that apple sauce 
with more safe and nutritious substances, like ice cream and pudding. 
Well, there is only one small problem; Alar, which is what was on the 
apples, didn't cause cancer. A study later found out that that was 
wrong. Twenty thousand apple growers in the United States suffered 
enormous harm.
  Then, of course, there was Three Mile Island; another fake, another 
situation where people were stampeded. And what we ended up with that, 
no one was hurt at Three Mile Island, but instead, what it did was it 
created a political momentum that destroyed our ability to utilize 
nuclear energy in the United States. Instead, we are still dependent on 
coal and other fuels. We are dependent on oil and other fuels that we 
now have to buy from people overseas. Jane Fonda's movie, ``China 
Syndrome,'' helped create the scare. It has had an enormously negative 
impact. Ironically, today radical environmentalists still make attempts 
to stop the expansion of nuclear energy for producing electricity, even 
as we remain dependent on foreign oil and continue to use coal-fired 
plants.
  Then we know about the ozone hole in Latin America, which was 
supposed to be around for decades, and then mysteriously it just 
naturally closed up after just a few years. Again, another cycle of 
nature presented to us as if there was some major problem with human 
activity.
  Of course, what we've got is an example of--and we have already been 
presented this by my colleague--where people, just a few years ago, 
were talking about global cooling in the same way that they now talk 
about global warming.
  Then there was, of course, acid rain. Ronald Reagan, thank God, stood 
firm. Instead of putting controls on our economy to stop so-called 
``acid rain,'' he insisted on long-term scientific research. And when 
that research came out, it verified that acid rain was not caused by 
people, and it was not the problem that it was being portrayed as. So 
we have seen these tactics over and over again.
  What we should be doing, when we hear people trying to scare us into 
accepting controls, accepting higher taxes, what we need to do is make 
sure that their science is challenged, and that we do so with an open 
mind. Our goal should not be to end global warming because it doesn't 
exist. We should be focusing on global pollution, not CO2, 
but the pollutants that will hurt our people.
  One of the great damages that the global warming people are doing to 
us today is focusing our attention on CO2 when we should be 
focusing our attention on the other pollutants that threaten the health 
of our people. We don't need to save the planet by utilizing certain 
energy, we need to save the human beings on this planet. And the 
CO2 focus of the global warming crowd is causing the great 
damage to the well-being of our people by focusing us on the wrong 
enemy.
  I would ask that the rest of my statement be made part of the Record.
  Then there's the so-called nuclear disaster at Three Mile Island. 
This incident put an end to expanding the use of nuclear energy for the 
production of America's electricity. It is the prime example of how 
devastating pseudo-science scare tactics can be. In this case, our 
country ended up heavily dependent on foreign oil, while France has 
developed a thriving nuclear infrastructure. The French learned how to 
reprocess uranium. We learned how to buy more energy from abroad. Three 
Mile Island also left us dependent on coal fired power plants and their 
pollution. Was this really better than the ``risk'' associated with 
nuclear power?
  An operational mishap at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant 
was portrayed as a deadly accident putting millions of people in 
jeopardy. Well, no one has yet to show me that one person's life was 
shortened by the Three Mile Island incident.
  Because the media hype was coupled with Jane Fonda's movie called 
``The China Syndrome,'' which had just been released, the Three Mile 
Island incident ``became'' in the public's mind a major disaster. The 
only kind of disaster that really happened was a major public relations 
disaster. The American people were terrified into rejecting nuclear 
energy as a means of producing clean, reliable, domestically fueled 
electric energy.
  Ironically, nuclear power is probably the most effective means of 
producing power with no carbon footprint, no CO2. Yet the 
radical environmentalists to this day still block attempts to expand 
the use of nuclear energy,

[[Page H3637]]

even as we expand our dependency on foreign oil, and continue to use 
coal fired plants. Again, it was a total con job and has had a horrible 
impact on our lives.
  And what about that ozone hole over the Antarctic? We were told it 
would continue to grow and grow and it would take decades to get it 
under control. Boyce Rensberger, director of the Knight Fellowship at 
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, now points to evidence that 
the ozone concentration is a cyclical event, expanding and contracting 
the ozone throughout the eons of time. It's just part of a natural 
cycle according to this scientist from MIT.
  So here is a scientist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology 
telling us the current ozone depletion is simply part of a recurring 
cycle, not the result of chlorofluorocarbons, as we were told. In 
layman terms, he's telling us that the gigantic expense of shifting 
away from aerosol was a waste for America. We're talking about billions 
of dollars here. The ozone hole closed on its own. It was just part of 
a cycle. If it wasn't, it would be much different than it is today.
  Then there is acid rain. Who can forget the frightening threats that 
acid rain posed to us just 20 years ago? Acid rain was supposed to 
decimate our forests, destroy fresh water bodies, and erode our 
buildings and sidewalks. Well, what ever happened to acid rain? Well, 
that theory, too, proved to be an extreme stretch.
  President Reagan was pummeled without mercy for his unwillingness to 
take monstrously costly action aimed at thwarting acid rain. He 
insisted on waiting for an in-depth study to be completed, and he was 
vilified for his insistence on legitimate scientific verification.
  Well, a 10-year study by the National Acid Precipitation Assessment 
Project was submitted to Congress in 1990. It minimized the human 
impact of acidity of water in the northwest and the northeast of the 
United States. The issue then died quickly and quietly, and no one ever 
apologized to Ronald Reagan. We haven't heard about acid rain. If they 
were right, we should have been hearing about it all this time.
  Instead, of course we've been hearing about something else which is 
much easier to scare people with, global warming. And of course, the 
last one before global warming that I'd like to mention is the most 
pitiful of all. Yes, an alarmist scheme which made the cover of Time 
magazine 30 years ago.
  Just 3 decades ago, scientists and politicians were frantic about 
global cooling. We were told the Earth was entering a new ice age. 
Unfortunately for the scaremongers, the temperature did not plummet and 
the oceans did not freeze. In fact, it was getting a bit warmer during 
the 1980s and 1990s. It was part of the Earth's on-going up-and-down 
cycles, as has always been the case.
  Well, some of those people, some of those scientists, and others who 
were talking about global cooling, changed their words, and, you 
guessed it, global cooling became global warming. Almost overnight 
global cooling was rejected, and then global warming was in vogue. And 
now, of course, global warming is changing to climate change.

  So, scare tactics are nothing new; it's a tried and true method. 
Those pushing an agenda know people can be frightened and stampeded; 
and then policies can be foisted on a hysterical public. Unfortunately, 
this time around, the long-term consequences will be very, very 
damaging for the next generation.
  I often ask students visiting from my southern California district 
whether they think that 45 years ago, when I went to high school in 
southern California, whether the air was cleaner or dirtier than it is 
now. A huge percentage believe that the air quality 45 years ago in 
southern California was dramatically better than it is today. When I 
tell them that what they believe is 100 percent wrong, that the air is 
dramatically cleaner today in southern California, you can see the 
frustration in their eyes; they have been lied to in a big way.
  The big lie their generation has been fed is that the environment is 
going the wrong way and that they have to give up their freedom, and 
that they have to give up their expectations of certain things in their 
life because the future is bleak. They are told the lie that we have to 
give up our national sovereignty, because it's a global crisis--
everything about the environment--the air, the water, the land--is all 
getting worse. In fact, there's been tremendous progress in cleaning up 
the pollution that not that long ago was found in our air, water and 
soil.
  And let me tip my hat to the environmentalists. This progress has 
been as a result of government regulations, often pushed by liberal 
Democrats. For anyone not to admit that would be disingenuous.
  But the fact is that our children are now being told that this man-
made global warming will devastate our whole planet.
  Dr. John Christy, a professor of Atmospheric Science at the 
University of Alabama at Huntsville, has a different perspective, ``I 
remember as a college student at the first Earth Day being told it was 
a certainty that by the year 2000 the world would be starving and out 
of energy.'' Dr. Christy goes on to say, ``Similar pronouncements made 
today about catastrophes due to human-induced climate change sound all 
too familiar and are all too exaggerated for me, as someone who 
actually produces and analyzes climate information.''
  So, we are told that polar bears are dying, but they aren't. We are 
told that the polar ice caps are melting, but now we know that in the 
Antarctic, ice is actually growing.
  Hurricane Katrina, we were told would only be the first of many 
horrendous hurricanes to hit the United States in the next few years 
but, of course, there has been no significant rise in the number or 
strength of hurricanes. Recently it was pointed out that a hurricane 
just as strong as Katrina hit the United States 100 years earlier, long 
before the effects of ``global warming.''
  Katherine Richardson, one of the organizers of the Copenhagen 
Conference, an ``emergency summit'' established to forward the next 
Kyoto Protocol, advertised the event not as ``a regular scientific 
conference. This is a deliberate attempt to influence policy.'' It was, 
she admitted, ``Explicitly designed to stoke up the fear of global 
warming to an unprecedented pitch.''


                         THERE IS NO CONSENSUS

  What we have is calculated alarmism at its worst, and the 
consequences will be very, very severe if we let such fanatics 
determine policy that will shape the lives of our children. I would 
submit a list of 650 members of the scientific community, who I 
mentioned earlier; who do not agree that human activity is causing an 
unprecedented global warming trend.
  People like me have been labeled with the epithet ``skeptics.'' Let 
me suggest something--science is skepticism. A scientist doesn't 
``believe'' something to be true. Nor does he negotiate a solution with 
his colleagues. He does not reach consensus. A scientist doubts, tests, 
verifies, and repeats. A scientist engages in a search for answers by 
forming a theory and trying to tear it apart. He invites his colleagues 
to prove him wrong and encourages other points of view. A scientist 
will do everything he can to prove a theory wrong. Only then, when he 
and his colleagues are unsuccessful at disproving a concept, will he 
accept it.
  Dr. William M. Briggs, a climate statistician and professor at 
Cornell, explained that his colleagues described ``absolute horror 
stories of what happened to them when they tried getting papers 
published that explored non-`consensus' views.''
  Nobel Prize Winner for Physics in 1973, Ivar Giaever, a fellow of the 
American Physical Society, declared himself a dissenter in 2008. ``I am 
a skeptic,'' Giaever announced in June 2008. ``Global warming has 
become a new religion,'' Giaever added.
  UN IPCC award-winning environmental physical chemist Dr. Kiminori 
Itoh of Yokohama National University, a contributor to the 2007 UN IPCC 
AR4 (fourth assessment report) as an expert reviewer, publicly rejected 
man-made climate fears in 2008, calling the promotion of such fears 
``the worst scientific scandal in the history.''
  Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the 
founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, who has more than 150 
published articles said, ``Creating an ideology pegged to carbon 
dioxide is a dangerous nonsense . . . The present alarm on climate 
change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major 
businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is 
concerning.''
  Dr. William Happer, award-winning Princeton physicist, said that 
``much of the current warming occurred before the levels of carbon 
dioxide in the atmosphere were significantly increased by the burning 
of fossil fuels.''
  Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and 
Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan, said CO2 
emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another. . . . Every 
scientist knows this, but it doesn't pay to say so . . . Global 
warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver's seat 
and developing nations walking barefoot.''
  Cleaning our air and water from real pollutants is very important to 
Americans. It's important to us, to our children and our grandchildren. 
If we fail to leave a world clean of real pollutants because we were 
focused on CO2, then we will have done a major disservice to 
future generations. Let me emphasize that the issue should be global 
pollution, not global warming or climate change or any other phrases 
made up to scare people.
  So with this said, we need to ask: what is the negative impact of all 
of this lack of truthful information? What could possibly happen? What 
is the big deal if someone is making a claim that global warming exists 
and it is caused by humankind and in reality it is just

[[Page H3638]]

the pollution that we are both trying to get at? Well, it just doesn't 
work that way.


                               conclusion

  The fact is if we accept this theory of man-made global warming, we 
will be focusing our activities on trying to eliminate CO2 
rather than on eliminating toxic substances from our air, land and 
water. I am concerned about my children, my three triplets, Christian, 
Anika and Tristan; I am concerned about their health, which is 
something that I think I share with every parent. Their health is not 
in any way threatened by CO2.
  Carbon dioxide is, in fact, like the penguins and the Styrofoam ice 
caps. It's being falsely pictured. It is being portrayed as a 
pollutant; in fact, it makes things grow, and it is not toxic to 
humans. In the distant past the earth had much more CO2 in 
the air, perhaps as a result of volcanoes, but at that time we had 
abundant animal life, dinosaurs and lots of plants for them to eat. 
CO2 is today pumped into greenhouses to make tomatoes grow 
bigger and better.
  Nevertheless, we are now presented with ideas like sequestration or 
carbon credits that serve only to enrich the alarmists and impoverish 
our people. This is only possible with a public that has been 
frightened into accepting totally false information about 
CO2. Let me state that I do support efforts that reduce 
pollution, particulates that do have a negative impact on the 
environment and human health. I support technologies that reduce these 
materials. If we are to save the environment for the people of the 
planet, that is what we should be focusing on.
  Mr. Speaker, this old world has had many cycles of warming and 
cooling, influenced by solar activity, volcanoes, even forest fires and 
many other natural factors. The ice caps on Mars and Jupiter go back 
and forth, just as glaciers have gone back and forth. But such a 
powerful and mysterious force as the weather can be frightening. We 
need not fear the thunder, and we need not fear climate cycles.
  We need not be frightened, hoodwinked into giving away our own 
freedom. Not to our own government, much less the U.N. or a global 
power--the power to control our lives in the name of man-made global 
warming, or climate change, or whatever they want to call it. We cannot 
allow the alarmists to take this country down the wrong path. Let us 
pass on to the children of this country and the planet, let us give 
them the freedom and prosperity we enjoyed. We must not allow our 
future to be stolen by hucksters who would frighten us into giving up 
our birthright in the name of saving the planet. It sounds good and 
noble, as most scams do, but it is just a trick, a hoax. Let's not get 
taken in by the greatest hoax of all.
  Mr. POE of Texas. I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Rohrabacher) for his insightful evaluation of the entire global warming 
concept, and I appreciate the research that he has done.
  It is important that we have a debate on this issue because our 
entire energy policy under this administration is based upon the myth 
that there is global warming. It has been pointed out that the Earth 
goes through cycles of different climate changes--it gets cooler, it 
gets warmer--and whether man is at fault or not, I think not.
  I would like to enter into the Record the Newsweek article I referred 
to earlier from April 28, 1975, the article that says we are all going 
to freeze in the dark.

                     [From Newsweek, Apr. 28, 1975]

       There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns 
     have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may 
     bring a drastic decline in food production--with serious 
     political implications for just about every nation on Earth. 
     The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 
     10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact 
     are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and Russia in 
     the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient 
     tropical areas--parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, 
     Indochina and Indonesia--where the growing season is 
     dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.
       The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun 
     to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-
     pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen 
     their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, 
     with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated 
     at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the 
     average temperature around the equator has risen by a 
     fraction of a degree--a fraction that in some areas can mean 
     drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating 
     outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more 
     than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of 
     damage in 13 U.S. states.
       To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents 
     represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the 
     world's weather. The central fact is that after three 
     quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the 
     earth's climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists 
     disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as 
     well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. 
     But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will 
     reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. 
     If the climatic change is as profound as some of the 
     pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. 
     ``A major climatic change would force economic and social 
     adjustments on a worldwide scale,'' warns a recent report by 
     the National Academy of Sciences, ``because the global 
     patterns of food production and population that have evolved 
     are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present 
     century.''
       A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the 
     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a 
     drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the 
     Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to 
     George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos 
     indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere 
     snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released 
     last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of 
     sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. 
     diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.
       To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature 
     and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the 
     University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth's average 
     temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven 
     degrees lower than during its warmest eras--and that the 
     present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way 
     toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a 
     reversion to the ``little ice age'' conditions that brought 
     bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 
     1600 and 1900--years when the Thames used to freeze so 
     solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when 
     iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New 
     York City.
       Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages 
     remains a mystery. ``Our knowledge of the mechanisms of 
     climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,'' 
     concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. ``Not only 
     are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in 
     many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key 
     questions.''
       Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term 
     results of the return to the norm of the last century. They 
     begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that 
     produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper 
     atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds 
     over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way 
     causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as 
     droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed 
     monsoons and even local temperature increases--all of which 
     have a direct impact on food supplies.
       ``The world's food-producing system,'' warns Dr. James D. 
     McQuigg of NOAA's Center for Climatic and Environmental 
     Assessment, ``is much more sensitive to the weather variable 
     than it was even five years ago.'' Furthermore, the growth of 
     world population and creation of new national boundaries make 
     it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their 
     devastated fields, as they did during past famines.
       Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will 
     take any positive action to compensate for the climatic 
     change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some 
     of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting 
     the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or 
     diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater 
     than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that 
     government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the 
     simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the 
     variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections 
     of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the 
     more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change 
     once the results become grim reality.

                          ____________________