[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 183 (Tuesday, December 8, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H13620-H13625]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     MASSIVELY EXPENSIVE AND ECONOMICALLY DESTRUCTIVE CAP-AND-TRADE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2009, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) is 
recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Let me agree with the distinguished ranking member 
that global warming is something other than what has been presented. He 
said it's a theory. I would suggest that as we go on with my speech, 
you will learn that it is a fraud.
  Madam Speaker, not too long ago I stood here on the floor of the 
House and remarked that I have expected Rod Sterling to appear from 
behind a curtain and announce, ``This is the twilight zone.''
  Well, since then this body has continued on an agenda fit only for 
the most bizarre episode of that program. In the last month, Congress 
has passed bailouts, rescues and stimulus packages, dumping trillions 
of dollars of debt onto the backs of the American people and, yes, onto 
our children's backs, and their children's backs.
  Congress passed a massively expensive and economically destructive 
cap-and-trade bill, moved toward a government takeover of our health 
care system, and now Congress appears ready to support President 
Obama's request to dig ourselves even deeper into the mire of 
Afghanistan. Optimism over the election of a new President promising 
change has turned into despair as the American people are realizing 
what kind of changes being imposed on our country. It's going from bad 
to worse.
  This week marks the beginning of the United Nations framework 
convention on climate change in Copenhagen. It started yesterday, 
December 7, Pearl Harbor Day. How very appropriate. President Obama and 
Democrat leaders of Congress are planning to attend.
  This conference could well bind the American people to a series of 
international agreements that will be a boon to globalist bureaucracy, 
and, yes, their power-elite allies, while at the same time picking the 
pockets of the American taxpayer and shackling us to restrictions, 
mandates, and controls inconsistent with our free society and enforced 
by governing bodies we have never voted for.
  According to the conference's Web site, the conference in Copenhagen 
is a turning point in the fight to prevent what they claim will be a 
climate disaster, and I quote. ``The science demands it, the economics 
support it, future generations require it,'' proclaims the Web site.
  Well, Madam Speaker, I am here to explain why that aggrandizing 
postulation is complete and utter nonsense, and to warn of the danger 
that lurks behind this high-sounding rhetoric. The Copenhagen 
conference is the culmination of efforts that began in earnest back in 
1992. That was the year our ``New World Order'' President, George H. W. 
Bush, submitted the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change to the 
Senate. It was quickly adopted by a voice vote.
  For the most part, that 1992 framework treaty was filled with 
grandiose yet vague principles. It asked for long-term CO2 
reductions from the 192 nations which signed that contract, yet few of 
the obligations were spelled out, and there was no enforcement or 
penalties written into that treaty. It stated objectives, and that was 
step number one.
  Step two came in 1997 when the Kyoto Protocol established enforceable 
mandates, mandates stating those objectives that were started in the 
earlier network agreement that was sent on to the Senate by President 
Bush. The 1997 protocol was different than the earlier one because it 
had enforceable mandates to meet the objectives that were stated 
earlier. This clearly would have meant a fundamental altering of our 
economy, with a dramatic negative impact on the lives of our people. 
With the Republicans in control of the Senate at that time, President 
Clinton never submitted the Kyoto treaty for ratification.
  Then in 2001 President George W. Bush said that we would not sign the 
Kyoto treaty due to the enormous cost and economic dislocation 
associated with complying with the Kyoto mandates, and that was the end 
of what would have been step number two.
  Here we are at step number three, and while a Kyoto-like agreement is 
not likely, Copenhagen may well lay the foundations for the future that 
the globalists who are pushing this agenda envision for us, what they 
envision for the United States, U.S., us. The threat to us is there, 
and it is real.
  A few months ago, H.R. 2454, the so-called cap-and-trade bill, passed 
the House and is now awaiting action in the Senate. That far-reaching 
legislation seeks to put in place taxes and regulatory policies that 
exactly parallel what the Copenhagen crowd would mandate and can be 
traced back to that same alliance between our domestic, radical 
environmentalists and a globalist elite.
  This unholy alliance has already had an impact. It is no accident 
that for over the past 20 years America has built no hydroelectric 
dams, no nuclear power plants, no oil refineries and has brought into 
production a pitifully small amount of new domestic oil and gas.

                              {time}  2000

  In essence, our economy has been and is now being starved of 
traditional energy development. Even the much acclaimed solar energy 
alternative has been strangled in its cradle. The Federal Bureau of 
Land Management, which is unduly influenced by radical 
environmentalists, has prevented the building of solar-powered electric 
generating facilities in America's vast deserts. This supposedly to 
protect the habitat of lizards and insects, which are obviously more 
important to these elitist decision-makers than the quality of life of 
human beings. Our quality of life, us.
  Again, the forces behind the undermining of America's domestic energy 
development know exactly what they're doing. Treaty obligations or not, 
they want to change our way of

[[Page H13621]]

life to remake America whether we like it or not. This isn't about 
green power; it's about raw political power exercised over our lives.
  A few decades ago, the globalist radical environmental alliance 
latched onto an apocalyptic theory to justify their power grab. The 
theory is that the world is dramatically heating up because of how we 
human beings live, especially us Americans. So controlling us must be 
the answer to saving the planet from heating up and up and up.
  When they geared up their crusade, our planet was in one of its many 
warming cycles. But the illusion that they were trying to create began 
to disintegrate about 9 years ago when the Earth quit warming and now 
may be in a cooling cycle. Undaunted, the fanatic claims and their 
predictions of global warming have now been transformed into a new, 
all-encompassing warning. So ``global warming'' was the phrase that was 
yelled and screamed at us for almost a decade, but now that has 
miraculously been changed into ``climate change.''
  Do they think that the American people are stupid? Do they think that 
we'll just forget about their predictions of rapid rises in 
temperatures and that those predictions have been proven 100 percent 
wrong?
  Even the much-touted melting of the Arctic ice cap has reversed 
itself in the last 2 years and is now refreezing and enlarging. The 
warming has ended, but the power grab continues. What we now are 
finding out is exactly how ruthless and, yes, how deceitful this power 
grab has been. It is becoming ever more apparent that during the 1990s, 
many scientists who refused to go along with the global warming 
paradigm were denied research grants. Prominent scientists like Dr. 
William Gray, former president of the American Meteorological 
Association, found themselves repeatedly rejected for research grants 
despite their careers of distinguished research excellence and 
accomplishments.
  The liberal press ignored those transgressions, ignored that 
repression of opposing views. Yet the same press made it a huge 
controversy when during the Bush administration NASA asked Richard 
Hansen, who was NASA's most vocal global warming activist staffer, 
simply to note when being published that the opinions that he was 
publishing were his opinions and not necessarily endorsed by NASA. 
Well, the press made that into a horrible attack on his rights.
  This was censorship. There were hearings in Congress about that, 
simply asking this man to acknowledge that it was his opinions and not 
the official opinions of NASA. Well, how does that compare with the 
coverage and the outrage over outright repression and denial of 
research grants to prominent scientists? How does that compare with 
Vice President Gore's firing of Dr. William Happer as the lead 
scientist at the Department of Energy? This because Happer was open 
minded on the issue of global warming. Not that he opposed it, but that 
he was open minded about it. The double standard in the reporting of 
this issue has been appalling.
  Zealots can usually find high-sounding excuses for their 
transgressions. This abusive attack on Happer and so many others, so 
many other prominent scientists, of course, was perpetrated in the name 
of protecting all of us from a climate calamity: man-made global 
warming that we were repeatedly warned was going to fry the planet.
  We can still hear alarming claims of a disastrous upward jump in 
temperatures, rising sea levels, Arctic meltings, forest fires, 
hurricanes, acid seas, dying plants and animals. Every climate-related 
disaster that a Federal research grant can conjure up we're hearing 
about because that's how they get their government grants. That's how 
they qualify.
  Professional figures in white coats with authoritative tones of voice 
and lots of credentials repeatedly dismissed specific criticism of what 
they were proposing by claiming that their so-called scientific 
findings had been peer reviewed, verified by other scientists. Rather 
than honestly discussing the issues that were being raised, they 
portrayed themselves as beyond reproach. They've been peer reviewed. So 
why even discuss any specific criticism? Just dismiss it.
  They gave each other prizes as they selectively handed out research 
grants. Those who disagreed no matter how prominent were treated like 
nonentities, like they didn't exist, or they were personally 
disparaged, labeled deniers, you know, like Holocaust deniers. How much 
uglier can you get?
  But such tactics won't work forever. It's clear their steamroller 
operation is beginning to fall apart. We know that, because we hear 
scientists who have been clamoring for subservient acceptance of their 
theory of man-made global warming, we now can find out and we now 
understand that those very same scientists, they themselves were making 
a sham out of scientific methodology and were indeed repressing dissent 
and destroying peer review.
  I'm speaking, of course, about the over 1,000 emails and 3,000 other 
documents that were purloined from one of the foremost global warming 
research institutes in the world, the Climate Research Institute at 
East Anglia University in the United Kingdom. Let me acknowledge, yes, 
a hacker or possibly a whistleblower may have been responsible for 
making this information public, but contrary to the frantic attempt to 
distract attention away from the clear wrongdoing and arrogance that 
was exposed in these communications, contrary to that, how those 
documents were obtained is not what's relevant. It's the truth of these 
emails that counts, not how the information was obtained.

  What do these formerly private and now exposed communications say? 
One email is from Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section 
at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado. 
In it he describes his utter frustration with studies that reach 
conclusions contrary to his clique's predictions of a looming global 
warming disaster. Even more frustrating, the temperatures being 
recorded, contrary to his august observations and predictions, contrary 
to them, things were getting colder, much colder than usual.
  And here, folks, is the clincher: Trenberth laments in this email, in 
this formerly secret communication, ``The fact is we can't account for 
the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we 
can't.'' Rather than reconsidering his position, he is complaining. He 
can't find a cover thick enough to hide his errors.
  So what do you do if those gosh darn numbers show that there is no 
warming? Well, you fudge the numbers of course. There is a 1999 email 
from Phil Jones, the center's director, talking about a ``trick'' in 
the presentation of data intended ``to hide the decline.'' What does 
``decline'' mean when he says ``hide the decline''? A decline in global 
temperatures, of course. These people who are touting global warming 
are talking about hiding the decline in temperatures that would prove 
that there is no global warming going on at this time.
  To those who have followed this issue closely, this is nothing new. 
We have seen it before. There was a famous graph produced by Michael 
Mann, one of the most prominent global warming advocates. His famous 
graph, as well as his highly touted lectures, deleted the existence of 
a warming period in the Middle Ages and the 500-year decline in the 
Earth's temperature, which ended in about 1850, known as the Little Ice 
Age. Those very real temperature cycles were left out of his graphs. 
And many of the newly revealed emails detail that this was intentional 
deception.
  Mann's graph indicated centuries-long stability instead of two 
distinct climate cycles going up and down. And then after presenting a 
graph that just had centuries-long stability, then we were shown a jump 
in temperature that looked like a hockey stick, the end of a hockey 
stick. Stability and then a big jump forward. That graph was a fake, 
and the jump in temperature he predicted didn't happen.
  So now the climate elite has simply deleted the hockey stick graph 
from their presentation even though it was a distinct part of their 
presentation for years, just as Mann had deleted the preceding warming 
and cooling cycles when he analyzed modern temperature trends and put 
them into his graph.
  As more honest and level-headed scientists from around the world 
raised serious questions, well-funded global warming alarmists were 
hard pressed

[[Page H13622]]

to answer critics. So what is a true believer to do when you hear 
criticism? Well, shut up the opposition of course. No, don't consider 
what the opposition is saying. Don't try to have an honest dialogue. 
No, shut them up.
  Here's Phil Jones again, this time about censoring criticism: ``I 
can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report.''
  Let's stop right there. So here he is trying to leave out of the IPCC 
report papers that were contrary in view; yet they tout over and over 
again that the IPCC is the basis for their credibility. It's all the 
time talking about the IPCC report. Yet here we have a quote talking 
about how they're trying to censor what goes into that report.
  Quoting further: ``Kevin and I will keep them out,'' meaning this 
information out of the IPCC report, ``even if we have to redefine what 
the peer-review literature is.'' And these are the same people who were 
proclaiming that their credibility came from the IPCC and peer-reviewed 
research.
  Well, let's look at what happened next when an editor of an academic 
journal does not buckle under to this kind of pressure and actually 
publishes the work of a skeptical scientist. Here's what Jones says: 
``I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more 
to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.'' 
This guy is conspiring to get the editor of a research publication 
fired. And what was it for? For publishing a contrary review.
  Is this science? These emails are filled not with answering critics 
but with the effort to stifle the right to question what these people 
were advocating.
  Significantly, man-made global warming alarmists have continually 
countered criticism by arrogantly dismissing tangible questions and 
asserting that peer reviews backed them up. Well, now we can see the 
evidence that these self-righteous snobs who saw themselves as above 
criticism were manipulating, if not destroying, the peer review process 
so no one with other points of view could actually participate. Get 
that?

                              {time}  2015

  They say you can't question our material because ours has been peer 
reviewed and your criticisms haven't, but they themselves were 
undermining the ability of those critics to have their criticisms 
published in a peer-reviewed publication. Have they no shame? But 
there's more than this.
  Jones again, this time to Professor Michael Mann of Pennsylvania 
State University, the same guy with the phony hockey-stick graph, is 
talking about hiding information from critics:
  ``If they ever hear there is a freedom of information act now in the 
U.K., I think I'll delete the file rather than sending it to anyone.''
  Let's read that again:
  ``I think I'll delete the file rather than sending it to anyone.''
  Madam Speaker, this is not only arrogant, it's criminal. We have been 
and continue to be the victims of outright lies, and victims of an 
effort to focus our people on some kind of created and mythical 
scientific findings in order to scare and force our people into 
accepting draconian economic and regulatory policies.
  Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma has called for an investigation in 
the Senate. There should be one in the House as well. Certain 
scientists receiving Federal research grants are betraying the 
standards of their own profession. And, yes, as I say, perhaps breaking 
the law. Countless numbers of our own people will suffer job losses and 
a decline in their standard of living if policies based on phony 
science, bad practices, the suppression of dissent and outright lies 
are put in place and enforced. Before any action is taken by this 
Congress on cap and trade legislation, a full inquiry into this 
horrific abuse of science should be conducted.
  Wake up, America. They are trying to steal our freedom with lies and 
scare tactics. The Good Book says, ``The truth shall set you free.'' A 
caveat might be, ``And a lie can destroy your freedom.'' Perhaps the 
most perplexing of all, the global warming elite continues to herald 
their projections of man-made gloom and doom. They try to ignore the 
uproar that we've had with these emails. They ignore it, or they just 
change the subject. But this recent revelation of these emails 
seriously calls into question the basic science that these man-made 
global warming fanatics claim to be irrefutable. Well, let's look at 
this so-called ``irrefutable science'' that is the basis of the man-
made global warming advocates.
  I in fact--and I would make this very clear at this moment--would 
challenge any Member of Congress to come here and debate me in the 
future on the science of this issue. Let me make that clear. This 
Congressman, I am a senior member of the Science Committee, I challenge 
any of the advocates of man-made global warming to come here and debate 
me on the science of the issue. We shouldn't be dismissing our 
opposition's arguments any more than those scientists should have been. 
We are here to make policy and to determine truth. Let's have an honest 
debate on this.
  First, let's talk about the so-called global warming cycle that's 
being used as an excuse, or as a reason to look at human activity, the 
global warming cycle that's being caused by human activity. That's 
fundamental to this whole issue. We know that there have been weather 
and climate cycles throughout the long history of our planet. That's 
going back to prehistoric times. There has been cycle after cycle. One 
of the more recent of these cycles, the one ignored by Dr. Michael 
Mann, a cooling cycle that reduced temperatures on this planet for 500 
years. That was between 1300 and about 1850. It's called the Little Ice 
Age. Amazingly, with a straight face, the global warming alarmists are 
using the low point in a 500-year cooling cycle as the baseline for 
determining if humankind is making the planet hotter at this time. Get 
that. We should declare an emergency because, according to the 
alarmists, the Earth is a tiny bit, perhaps 1 degree warmer than it was 
at the bottom of a 500-year decline in temperature. Professor Mann 
can't wipe that out. He may try to delete it from his graphs and 
pretend it didn't happen, but this has been well documented. I remember 
there was a History Channel report going through the entire time of 
this mini Ice Age.
  Our current climate cycle is no different than the other numerous 
cycles that preceded it. It is dishonest to create hysteria by using 
the end of a cycle known as the Little Ice Age at a 500-year low in the 
Earth's temperatures as a baseline for apocalyptic claims that it is 
now getting extraordinarily warmer. On top of that, as people, the 
alarmists are claiming that it's our fault. It's the people's fault. 
It's us. We're the bad guys. We're the ones making the climate go up so 
much warmer than it normally is and they're using as a baseline a 500-
year low in the Earth's temperatures.
  So science question challenge No. 1: Are man-made global warming 
advocates using an unrealistically and unreasonably cooler moment as 
the baseline for their analysis? Question No. 2: What are the causes of 
the climate cycles that we've been talking about? The alarmists claim 
it's us. It's people. There were such cycles, of course, in the Earth's 
temperatures and climate even before prehistoric man existed. If there 
were such cycles, then there must be some explanation other than human 
activity, because this was before humans existed, there must be some 
other explanation for the weather and temperature trends of those days.
  Well, then what is the other explanation? Many scientists believe 
cycles of climate have resulted from solar activity. After all, the sun 
is the biggest source of energy on our planet. The biggest. Everything 
else pales in comparison. Some of the revealed emails are specifically 
aimed at debunking this explanation by altering graphs and distorting 
data. The solar explanation is consistent with the fact that climate 
cycles on Earth parallel cycles taking place on other planetary bodies. 
That's right; like Mars, or the moons of Jupiter which have similar and 
simultaneous cycles to those on our Earth. But the global warming gang 
is intent on blaming us.
  In recent years, for example, human activity has been declared the 
culprit causing the melting of the Arctic ice cap. Who hasn't seen 
pictures of sad-looking polar bears stranded there on an ice floe, 
obviously a victim of man-made global warming? Such nonsense plays on 
our emotions, but it is presenting a distorted and dishonest picture of 
reality. Yes, until recently the

[[Page H13623]]

Arctic ice cap has been retreating. There is no doubt about that. But 
what about the ice cap on Mars? Yes, at the same time our Earth's ice 
cap was retreating, the ice cap on Mars was retreating; mirroring, 
paralleling what was going on on Earth. Does that indicate that the 
cycle that we're talking about might have been caused by the sun and 
not by too many people driving SUVs or using modern technology? So 
maybe it's the sun that has affected the habitat of the polar bears, 
just as other cycles have affected the habitat of the plants and 
animals living in the time when those cycles kicked in.

  By the way, there's something to keep in mind when one hears for the 
umpteenth time that the polar bears are becoming extinct. The polar 
bears are not becoming extinct. In fact, the number of polar bears on 
this planet has dramatically expanded. There are four to five times the 
number of polar bears in the world today than there were in the 1960s. 
And I have spoken before groups of students and they have been given 
this lie over and over again and they are crestfallen to hear that 
maybe what they've been told are lies. Yes, lies. The extinction of the 
polar bear is about as real as the film footage of dissipating ice caps 
in former Vice President Gore's movie An Inconvenient Truth. That, too, 
was a scam. A special effect made of Styrofoam was presented to us, 
especially to our impressionable children, to create the illusion that 
this was documenting the melting and breaking off of the Arctic ice 
cap. It was Styrofoam. Styrofoam. It was phony, just as many of the 
arguments presented in that movie were phony; were false.
  So here's another scientific challenge, challenge No. 2: If there 
have been many other cycles and if the ice cap is melting on Mars just 
as it is here, how can this climate cycle be a result of human activity 
rather than solar activity? Which brings us to the theory of just what 
man does that supposedly creates global warming. Well, this allegation 
is based on the well-promoted theory that greenhouse gases--and 
according to the alarmists CO2 is by far the worst culprit--
these greenhouse gases and, thus, CO2, the worst one of all, 
are trapping heat in the atmosphere and the increase of CO2 
levels is thus leading to a disastrous jump in the Earth's temperature.
  So let's look at this theory. I don't dismiss it. Let's look at it. 
Let's answer it. I wish the American people and the rest of us were 
paid an equal amount of respect by those people, the alarmists, who are 
advocating the man-made global warming theory. So let's look at this. 
Let's look at their theory now and give it an honest look. With all the 
hoopla about CO2, nonscientists might believe that it is a 
huge part of the atmosphere. I want everyone here, my colleagues and 
everyone listening, to ask themselves: What percentage do you think 
that CO2 is of the atmosphere? Well, most people think it's 
a huge part. Some people I've asked have actually suggested it was 
between maybe 40 and 60 percent of the atmosphere.
  Well, that's wrong. Wrong. People have been given a false impression. 
CO2, carbon dioxide, is a minuscule part of our atmosphere. 
And, as I say, most of the people I've talked to, even the highly 
educated ones, have thought that CO2 makes up maybe 25, 
maybe 40, one guy even said 60 percent of the atmosphere. In reality, 
CO2 is less than .04 percent of the atmosphere. So 
CO2 is not even one-half of one-tenth of 1 percent of the 
atmosphere. Not even one-half of one-tenth of 1 percent. This is a 
minuscule part of the atmosphere that we have been led to believe is 
having this dramatic impact on weather patterns.
  And where did the minuscule amount of this CO2, even 
though it's as small as it is, one half of one-tenth of 1 percent of 
the atmosphere, where did that minuscule amount come from? With all the 
hoopla, one would assume that most of the atmosphere's CO2 
can be traced to human activity. No. At least 70 percent of the 
CO2 in our atmosphere has a natural source and has nothing 
to do with human activity.

                              {time}  2030

  I have been in Science Committee hearings where very prominent 
scientists have suggested that it might be 80 or 90 percent of the 
CO2 in the atmosphere coming from natural sources. But let's 
say, okay, at least 70 percent.
  So the part of the atmosphere that is CO2 generated by man 
is even less than miniscule. It is a minor part of a miniscule 
component, and if we suppress our standard of living enough to 
eliminate even one-tenth of man's contribution, then one big volcano, 
or maybe some forest fires could totally undo this supposed reduction 
in CO2. And to get a 10 percent reduction means a dramatic 
attack on the standard of living of our people and the reallocation of 
trillions of dollars. We are to give up our own freedom and prosperity, 
and hand over such power as I have just mentioned to a global 
government or even to a centralized Federal Government here in the 
United States? All for that, for something for a step forward that 
could be erased by a big volcano or perhaps a series of forest fires? 
That's insane.
  Well, undaunted, the alarmists point to increases in CO2, 
which they label as alarming, of course. That's why they're alarmists; 
they call it alarming. Starting from such a miniscule level, however, 
it's like using a phony temperature baseline, like they did with the 
end of the mini ice age. But using that as their baseline, with the 
miniscule level of CO2, this can distort the importance of, 
when someone says that there's been a rise in the amount of 
CO2, because it's, to begin with, it's a very, very, 
miniscule amount or part of our atmosphere. So if there's an increase 
in that, it's not going to have the same impact as what most people 
have led to believe, the people who believe that it's 40 percent of our 
atmosphere.
  But this increase, of course, no matter, has been described to us in 
such sinister terms that we are supposed to believe that it is making 
the world hotter, and so it's mankind, by increasing CO2, 
making the world hotter. When trying to pull this off, they don't 
mention that in recent times, CO2 levels, yes, have 
increased, but contrary to the alarmists' theory, the Earth's 
temperatures have gone down. Remember, we are being told that the rise 
of CO2, which is a miniscule part of our thing, but the rise 
of the CO2 in our atmosphere is causing the atmosphere to 
warm. Again, there are clearly times when CO2 has been going 
up but the temperature has gone down.
  So science challenge number 3, if manmade CO2, which is a 
miniscule part of a miniscule element of the atmosphere, if that causes 
warming, then why is it that when mankind has been emitting more and 
more CO2, like in the 1940s, the fifties and the sixties, 
and at a time, at that same time when CO2 levels in general 
were rising, why was there an actual cooling going on in our climate? 
This is true today, too. We have an increase in CO2, but 
there's been a cooling going on, or at least there hasn't been a 
warming for the last 10 years. Remember, no matter how they've tried to 
hide it--and that attempt to hide it is very clear in the emails that 
have just been exposed. No matter how they try to hide it, global 
temperatures have not gone up for almost a decade.
  It should be noted that scientific ice core specialists now tell us 
that historically, over a course of 500 years, CO2 increases 
followed temperature increases. It would appear that when it gets 
warmer, the Earth produces more CO2. The alarmists have it 
totally backwards, and they're using that as an excuse to dramatically 
increase their power to control our lives. It is a flawed theory. It is 
the warmer Earth that creates the CO2 increase, not the 
other way around. But that would mean, of course, human beings, if they 
accept that it's the Earth and it's the warming of the Earth that 
creates more CO2, that would mean that us human beings, that 
we're off the hook, and the globalists would have no excuse for their 
power grab and no excuse to control us, to tax us, and to regulate away 
our livelihood.
  Well, it's not getting any warmer, and contrary to those trying to 
frighten us into giving up our freedom, CO2 is not a threat 
to the planet and is not a pollutant. It is not harmful to human beings 
or animals. It is food for plants which then give us oxygen. Throughout 
the world, greenhouses, sometimes they're called hothouses, are growing 
vegetables by pumping CO2 to feed the plants. And they end 
up, after pumping CO2 into these hothouses, they end up with 
bigger, juicier tomatoes, berries, and other crops.

[[Page H13624]]

  CO2 is not a threat to human health or a threat to the 
planet. During ancient times, before human beings, there were much 
higher levels of CO2 in the air, and life on this planet 
flourished. Even in the oceans, which were, yes, more acidic, ocean 
life was robust and abundant at that time. All of this makes the 
announcement yesterday that the EPA will treat CO2 as a 
pollutant all the more astounding and, yes, repugnant. It is an example 
of the heavyhanded power grab we are up against.
  By declaring CO2 a pollutant, a threat to human health, 
they have empowered the EPA to issue orders, mandates, regulations, 
controls, and fines which will be put in place and enforced even 
without a vote of Congress, unelected officials declaring themselves as 
having this enormous power over us. This bypassing of the authority of 
Congress is a manifestation of tyranny. I don't care if they think that 
they are saving the world. This is tyranny. If there are changes in the 
law that are required by some climate theory, let us debate them, have 
an honest debate. Let's not impose this on the American people without 
having elected officials be held accountable for that decision. And, of 
course, we know now the theories that we're talking about are all based 
on the cooked books and phony science, which makes it all even worse.
  So now on to challenge number 4, which focuses on the accuracy of the 
statistics being used to justify manmade global warming. Importantly, 
the alarmists who are raising all of this ruckus, they're doing it 
about less than 1 degree of an increase in the global temperature. So 
we hear all of this ruckus, but it's only increased, even by what 
they're claiming, less than 1 degree, or just about 1 degree over 150 
years. So small inaccuracies can have huge implications to this 
process.

  Well, an investigation has found accuracy problems with 80 percent of 
America's National Weather Service stations which collected the data 
here in the United States. And worse, our system, even with 80 percent 
of the stations not meeting reliable standards, we've been heralded as 
the best in the world.
  But what about the statistics gathered in the rest of the world, in 
the developing countries and in other countries? What about the 
statistics that were gathered here and abroad 100 years ago or 150 
years ago? Does anyone have faith in those figures? Remember, that's 
what was fed into the computer. Let's remember also, garbage in, 
garbage out is a truism when it comes to computers. The whole basis for 
this so-called irrefutable evidence of global warming rests on computer 
models that were based on data collected from faulty systems.
  Perhaps just as troubling, the data fed into these computers is no 
longer available for reassessment. Yep, the data was deleted by the 
research institutes. Deleted, just like they talked about in these 
hacked emails. And a close reading of the recently exposed emails 
reveal that alterations were made in the raw data being fed into 
computers. They were called adjustments of the data. In short, they 
cooked the books, and that data is no longer available. It was deleted 
by the research institutes and can not be looked over again for 
accuracy. Oh, well, I guess we should just trust them.
  Fortunately, the ground-based sensors that fed those infamous 
computer models are not the only source of temperature data. 
Information is also available from research and observation satellites 
and weather balloons, and, you guessed it, that source is in conflict 
with the ground-based data. Of course, no one is certain of that, 
because all of this we're talking about was the data before adjustments 
were made and before it was all deleted.
  So how is this for a scientific challenge? Defend the scientific 
integrity of the manmade global warming data collection process. It's 
got more holes in it than a spaghetti strainer. And this manmade global 
warming theory is the greatest scam in history. This, of course, is 
only one of many scams designed to frighten us into draconian solutions 
for fictitious problems.
  I remember when I was a kid, they said cranberries cause cancer. Two 
years later, after the cranberry industry was decimated, Oh, sorry, we 
made a mistake. Then you remember cyclamates were supposedly causing 
cancer. That cost the American industry hundreds of millions of 
dollars. It destroyed a sugar substitute which was perfectly fine, and 
it ended up getting America and perhaps the rest of the world hooked on 
high fructose corn syrup, only to be found out later on that cyclamates 
are not carcinogenic at all. And, in fact, Canada never banned them at 
all, and now its cyclamates are free to be consumed here in the United 
States.
  Well, then we remember Dr. Meryl Streep, a prominent scientist and 
movie actress who warned us about Alar, only to find out that that was 
fictitious. We remember Three Mile Island and Jane Fonda, a 
presentation which stopped the building of nuclear power plants and 
made us even more dependent on foreign oil. So what did we do? We now 
depend more on oil and coal for our electricity because Jane Fonda 
created the impression that nuclear energy was not safe.
  And then during the Reagan administration there was a furor about 
acid rain, which was presented to us, again with a phony baseline. They 
said that the lakes in the Northeast and everything were becoming more 
acidic, and they used as their baseline the time immediately in the 
years that were after a massive number of fires in that area turned 
those lakes into a base and, thus, the acidity was not the natural 
acidity that they normally were at. And they were going back to the 
natural acidity. It was a phony baseline, and it totally distorted the 
so-called problem.
  The topper of them all, many of the very same gang now agonizing over 
manmade global warming, they were the same people who were warning us 
with similar intensity about the coming ice age. And then, of course, 
we have to remember, there's a big price to pay for all of this, big 
price to pay for lies. Like, for example, the report that bird shells 
were thinning, which resulted in a global ban on DDT. Millions of 
children in the Third World have subsequently lost their lives to 
malaria because of that ban. Apparently, birds were more important to 
those who made policy than those millions of poor and struggling 
children in the Third World who lost their lives to malaria, a disease 
that we had controlled before we banned DDT.
  The cap-and-trade bill, rammed through the House by deceit and 
alarmist propaganda, awaits the U.S. Senate. If it becomes law, as I 
said on the floor, the debate, our economy will go to hell and our jobs 
will go to China. And yes, it will affect all of us big time. And 
that's what this is all about, changing our lives big time.
  What are some of the long-term changes these steely-eyed fanatics 
behind cap-and-trade and global warming and behind the Copenhagen 
gathering want to make in our lives? It's a long run, but here's some 
of the things they want.
  They want gas to at least double in price, probably triple, maybe 
more. Parking prices need to go up. Parking permits need to go way up. 
Air travel will be out of reach for ordinary people by elimination of 
frequent flier miles and discount tickets and simply dramatically 
raising the price of airplane tickets. Only the rich and powerful in 
their private jets and limousines will be free to travel as they 
please.
  Yes, and there will be restrictions on our diet. Embedded in the 
manmade global warming movement is a contingent of power freaks who 
want to restrict our meat consumption by limiting production. This is 
based on the idea that methane from cow flatulence threatens the 
stability of the planet's climate. This is insane. So hamburgers are 
out, much less backyard barbecues.
  The prices of electricity, just like every energy source, would be 
pushed sky high, as will the price of almost everything that we consume 
because everything manufactured or farmed depends on energy. The goal 
is to put limits on human activity, especially human consumption. To 
these fanatics, anything used or consumed that is not essential is a 
waste of resources.

                              {time}  2045

  Ronald Reagan used to say about this crowd, They won't be satisfied 
until we're all living in a bird's nest.
  So why is Congress on the verge of passing this monstrous legislation 
which will bolster the competitiveness

[[Page H13625]]

of China and India while undercutting our own economy and our way of 
life? This is a product of a radical environmentalist-globalist 
coalition. They want to build a whole new world based on benevolent 
control by people like themselves. They have a vision of a harmonious 
and balanced world, and they don't mind scaring us into accepting it or 
imposing it upon us.
  And that is where the real threat comes in. This is not just the EPA 
pushing democracy aside to centralize power and controls in Washington, 
D.C., which is, in and of itself, contrary to what America is supposed 
to be all about. This is about centralizing power into the hands of 
global government. That is what Kyoto and Copenhagen are all about. 
That's what the radical environmentalist and globalist alliance is all 
about.
  Wake up, America. We still have time to turn this around. We must 
fight the globalist clique that is trying to shackle future generations 
of Americans to a burden of economy-killing debt. They are chains that 
will be hard to break, but we must have the strength and the commitment 
to do so.
  We will not give up our freedom, and we are not powerless. We will 
stand together, Americans of every race and religion, of every ethnic 
group and social status. We will fight as united patriots, and we will 
win. Members of Congress need to hear from angry constituents, and I 
predict they will.
  Yes, we need to overcome this power grab. We need to overcome this 
alliance between radical environmentalists and the globalists. But most 
of all, in order to win, we need to overcome apathy among the American 
people. It is when the American people rise up in a righteous rage that 
our freedom will be secure. This is a power grab that is aimed at 
destroying our freedom.
  Wake up, America. We should not be giving more power to United Nation 
panels or anybody else or any other institution internationally that is 
composed of governments that are controlled by gangsters and thugs that 
we would never dream of electing here in the United States, countries 
that don't have any freedom of press. We're going to give authority to 
enforce environmental laws and rules that we've never voted on to 
bodies like that? Or we're going to go along with the EPA and push the 
Congress aside and elected officials aside and let that be imposed upon 
us by people who have never been elected to anything? No. We must stand 
up and defeat this power grab.
  Wake up, America. Your freedom and prosperity are at stake.
  I have three children at home: little Christian, Anika and Tristan. 
We owe it to them and the children of this country to pass on freedom 
and opportunity that has been passed on to us. The sacrifice, the 
sacrifice of generations of Americans to provide us the democracy that 
we have, the democratic way of fighting these battles that we have. We 
will not see that destroyed.
  We will instead use the democratic process in this fight and hold 
true to the principles, and what was passed on to us by generations of 
Americans, and we will also be true to future generations of Americans. 
But now it's up to us. If we don't act, this conspiracy of lies, of 
distortions in the scientific community coupled with an alliance with a 
globalist who would centralize power in global government. No. We must 
defeat them, or we will not be living up to our responsibility, not 
living up to what we should be asked to do as Americans, and that is to 
pass on this freedom.
  We are united patriots, and we will win.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________