[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 188 (Thursday, December 8, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H8309-H8314]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    THE SPECTER OF GLOBAL GOVERNANCE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 5, 2011, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) is 
recognized for 30 minutes.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  Before I go into my prepared remarks, I would like to point out that 
I personally have opposed all of the bailouts and the hundreds of 
billions of dollars that the Obama administration has channeled to 
different financial wheeler-dealers and cronies, like Goldman Sachs and 
the others that have received so much money as directed to them from 
this administration, just to put it on the record.
  Many of these so-called corporations that my colleague just pointed 
out, if

[[Page H8310]]

we take a look, when we say if we're going to increase taxes on them, 
these corporations' biggest stockholders happen to be pension funds. 
What we're really talking about by trying to say we're going to just 
tax these big corporations, what we're really doing is taxing the 
pension funds and are taxing the entities that provide the money for 
the pension funds for the rest of the citizens of this country. But 
that is another issue that I will discuss some other day.
  Today, Mr. Speaker, as a strong advocate of human progress through 
advancing mankind's understanding of science and engineering, I rise to 
discuss the blatant abuse and misuse of science. A few nights ago, I 
watched a video of President Eisenhower's 1961 farewell address. 
Unfortunately, his much-heralded warnings about the military industrial 
complex, which were right on target, I might add, that warning has 
unfortunately obscured another warning in that farewell address that is 
just as significant.

                              {time}  1630

  Eisenhower pointed to the danger ``of domination of the Nation's 
scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of 
money is ever present--and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding 
scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must 
also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could 
itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.''
  In my lifetime, there has been no greater example of this threat, 
which Eisenhower warned us about, than the insidious coalition of 
research science and political largesse--a coalition that has conducted 
an unrelenting crusade to convince the American people that their 
health and their safety and--yes--their very survival on this planet is 
at risk due to manmade global warming. The purpose of this greatest-of-
all propaganda campaigns is to enlist public support for, if not just 
the acquiescence to, a dramatic mandated change in our society and a 
mandated change to our way of life. This campaign has such momentum and 
power that it is now a tangible threat to our freedom and to our 
prosperity as a people.
  Ironically, as the crusade against manmade global warming grows in 
power, more evidence surfaces every day that the scientific theory on 
which the alarmists have based their crusade is totally bogus. The 
general public and decisionmakers for decades have been inundated with 
phony science, altered numbers, and outright fraud. This is the 
ultimate power grab in the name of saving the world; and like all 
fanatics, disagreement is not allowed in such endeavors.
  Prominent scientists who have been skeptical of the claims of manmade 
global warming have themselves been cut from research grants and have 
been obstructed when trying to publish peer-reviewed dissenting 
opinions. How the mainstream media or publications like the National 
Journal, for example, have ignored the systematic oppression that I 
speak about is beyond me.
  If you've heard the words ``case closed,'' it doesn't take a genius 
to figure out that the purpose of such a proclamation is to limit and 
repress debate. Well, the case isn't closed, so let's start with some 
facts about manmade global warming and the theory of manmade global 
warming.
  First and foremost, the Earth has experienced cooling and warming 
climate cycles for millions of years, which a significant number of 
prominent scientists believe is tied to solar activity--just like 
similar temperature trends have been identified on Mars and other 
bodies in the solar system--and that is the Sun.
  So how about those icecaps on Mars that seem to expand and recede, 
mirroring our own polar icecaps? Doesn't that point to the Sun rather 
than to human activity? After all, there are very few, if any, human 
beings around on Mars, and certainly millions of years ago, when we had 
other cycles in the world, there weren't very many human beings, if 
any, around. So where do the climate cycles come from? What causes 
climate cycles?
  Right off the bat, let's acknowledge that manmade global warming 
advocates, who I suggest are alarmists, do not believe the Sun has no 
impact on climate cycles. They just believe that the Sun has a minimal 
impact as compared to the increasing level of CO2 in the 
atmosphere. Basically, they believe that the Sun does have some impact 
but nothing compared to the increase in CO2 in the 
atmosphere. Today, they believe this increase in CO2 in the 
atmosphere has become very frightening because mankind is using fossil 
fuels, which they believe is causing this dramatic increase in 
CO2.
  Similarly, skeptics like me believe the solar activity of the Sun is 
the major factor in creating the Earth's climate cycles, including the 
one that we're currently in. We also believe that manmade 
CO2 buildup may have a minor impact. The debate isn't all 
Sun or all manmade CO2. It's over which of these factors is 
a major determinant or even the significant determinant.
  At this point, one other fact needs to be understood. Many 
intelligent people believe that CO2--carbon dioxide--
represents 10, 20, even 30 percent of the atmosphere. If anyone is 
reading this or is listening to this, answer this question:
  What do you think the percentage is after all we've heard, time and 
time again, of how CO2 is changing the climate of our 
planet?
  As I say, most people think it's 10, 20, even 30 percent of the 
atmosphere. In reality, CO2 is less--less--than one half of 
one-tenth of 1 percent of the atmosphere, and humankind's contribution 
to that one half of one-tenth of 1 percent is a small fraction of that. 
So to say that what we're talking about is minuscule, no, that's not 
smart enough. What it really is is microscopic.
  Frankly, I believe that CO2 is so irrelevant that it 
should not be the focus of air standards and regulations. After all, it 
is not harmful to human beings unless, of course, you stick it into 
your automobile in the garage and shut the door for hours and hours at 
a time. The CO2 that's in the atmosphere is not harmful. 
Other gases, like NOX, which are damaging to human health, 
should be a much higher priority than CO2. NOX is 
harmful to people's health. It's global pollution, not global warming, 
that we should be concerned about.
  Not making this distinction has cost us billions, maybe more. The 
temperature of this planet isn't manmade, and we can't do anything 
about it. Our energy challenges and the air quality that we have are 
man-influenced, if not manmade. We can do something about these 
maladies.
  But the alarmists are not interested in solving those problems. They 
are part of a coalition that wants to change our way of life, which 
requires us to acquiesce--or, better yet, to frighten us into 
submission. Make no mistake: The manmade global warming theory is being 
pushed by people who believe in global government. They have been 
looking for an excuse for an incredible freedom-busting centralization 
of power for a long time, and they've found it in the specter of 
manmade global warming.
  For the past 30 years, the alarmists have been spouting ``Chicken 
Little'' climate science. This campaign was turbocharged in the 1990s 
when the Clinton administration made it part of its agenda, thanks to 
Vice President Al Gore. One of the first actions that the 
administration took was to fire the top scientist at the Department of 
Education, Dr. William Happer, a professional who, at the time, dared 
to be open-minded about the global warming theory. Al Gore decided Dr. 
Happer just didn't fit in, and out he went. From there, the pattern 
became all too clear. In order to receive even one iota of Federal 
research funds, a scientist had to toe the line on manmade global 
warming.

  There is a biblical quote: ``The truth shall set you free.'' Well, 
this is a battle for the truth, and we are up against a political 
machine that has been yelling, ``Case closed,'' and restricting Federal 
research grants only to those who agree with them.
  That we have politicos who believe in centralizing power and are 
willing to use their own power certainly should surprise no one, but 
that a scientific-technological elite, the very group that President 
Eisenhower warned us against 50 years ago, has allied itself with such 
a political power play is totally contrary to what science and 
scientists are supposed to be all about.
  Because of the retaliation of those alarmists in charge of bestowing 
the

[[Page H8311]]

Federal research grants, opposition to this power grab has taken time 
to coalesce; but the opposition to the manmade global warming theory is 
now evident and won't be ignored.
  There have been major conferences here in Washington and at other 
locations around the Nation, with hundreds of prominent members of the 
scientific community. Individuals, many of whom are renowned 
scientists, Ph.D.'s and heads of major university science departments, 
including a few Nobel Prize winners, have all stepped up and spoken 
out.

                              {time}  1640

  Even with little news coverage, this group, who are accurately 
referred to as skeptics, are gaining ever more recognition and ever 
more influence. They face a daunting challenge, however, and they, as I 
say, have to fight for any attention, even though they have just as 
good credentials as those people who are advocating on the other side. 
For a list of some of these credentialed and very well-respected 
skeptics, one can visit my Web site. I'm Congressman Dana Rohrabacher 
from California.
  So what is this apocalyptic manmade global warming theory that the 
globalists and radical environmentalists would have us believe? It is 
that our planet is dramatically heating up because we human beings, 
especially Americans, put large amounts of CO2 into the 
atmosphere as a result of using oil, gas, and coal as fuel.
  The CO2 has an impact in that it entraps a certain amount 
of heat in the atmosphere, thus dangerously warming the planet. We have 
been warned about huge changes in our environment, including a 10-
degree jump in the overall temperature, and thus a serious rise in the 
level of the oceans of the world.
  Vice President Gore, in his movie, ``An Inconvenient Truth,'' showed 
what seemed to be a video of melting and breaking icecaps. 
Inconveniently, somebody squealed, the video was actually a special 
effect. It was Styrofoam made to look like melting and breaking 
icecaps. But that's no problem. People still listen to Al Gore.
  Over and over again, the alarmists have said that the Earth is 
dramatically heating up. Look closely at the data that they're talking 
about. Look closely at the date that was picked by these people as a 
baseline for comparing temperatures. It is 1850. And what is 1850? It's 
the end of a 500-year decline in the Earth's temperature. The Little 
Ice Age was ending in the 1850s. Skeptics say that a 1- or 2-degree 
increase in the planet's temperature is irrelevant if the basis of 
comparison is a 500-year low in the Earth's temperature. To skeptics, 
currently we are just in another natural climate cycle. That's what we 
as skeptics believe. This is another natural climate cycle, and it's 
been going on, as was the 500-year decline in the Earth's temperatures. 
If it's going up a little bit now, that is a natural climate cycle.
  To alarmists, however, the sky is falling. A couple of degrees warmer 
and the sky is heating, or it's falling, that is, or heating, and all 
of this is caused by mankind pumping CO2 into the air.
  This theory of manmade CO2 causing global warming emerged 
when scientists mistakenly believed that the data they were studying 
from ice cores indicated that a warming of our planet was happening 
after a major increase in CO2.
  However, later, it was found that the ice cores were misread. 
Nicholas Caillon pointed out in Science magazine in 2003 that the 
CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacierization warming by 
800 to 200 years, give or take 200 years. So the heating came first, 
and then the CO2 increased, not the other way around.
  Yes, when Earth heats up, there is more CO2. But we've 
been told the opposite over and over again, and we were told it was the 
CO2 that was making the Earth heat up, and they were telling 
us that the Earth will keep heating up until it reaches a tipping 
point, and then there will be a huge jump in the temperature. The 
temperature will shoot up once it reaches this tipping point. And we 
could expect, this is what we were told over and over again by the 
scientists predicting over and over again that we could expect this 
warming to go on and on until we quit using CO2 and quit 
using these CO2-emitting fossil fuels as a major source of 
our energy.
  The future they described was hot and bleak, but their frightening 
illusion began to disintegrate when, about 9 years ago, even as more 
CO2 was being pumped into the air and has continued to be 
pumped into the air, the Earth quit warming and, in fact, it may be now 
in a cooling cycle. That's right. The NOAA National Climate Data Center 
shows that ground surface temperatures have flattened, and there hasn't 
been any net warming since 1998, and the RSS microwave sounding units--
that's MSU--operating on NOAA satellites show a net cooling since 1998.
  It's totally the opposite of every prediction of the United Nations 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, that's the IPCC, and their 
faulty computer models, as well as the army of global warming 
scientists who have been warning us about higher and higher 
temperatures of what we could expect.
  Well, miraculously, the frantic claims and predictions of manmade 
global warming have now been replaced with an all-new encompassing 
warning. So if it gets colder, or it gets warmer, the alarmists will 
have their way because that's being caused by too much CO2.
  Well, what is being caused? Well, whatever it is, it's being caused 
by it. And so they changed the words from global warming to climate 
change and have replaced, as I say, global warming with their climate 
change.

  Well, I guess they think that we would just forget about the 
predictions and their predictions over and over again being 100 percent 
wrong. Even the much-touted melting of the icecaps has now reversed 
itself in the last few years. According to the most recent data from 
the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado, not all the 
icecaps are melting now. There's melting, and there is also refreezing 
going on.
  So the polar icecaps aren't going away and, yes, the polar bears are 
not becoming extinct. They were put on the extinct list even though 
they weren't extinct. In fact, there are some number of polar bear 
families that are growing dramatically in the last few years, even as 
we were warned that polar bears were becoming extinct.
  Warming has ended, but the power grab continues. What we are now 
finding out is exactly how ruthless and, yes, deceitful that power grab 
has been. One example of blackballing is of prominent scientists like 
Dr. William Gray, Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado 
State University and the head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at 
CSU's Department of Atmospheric Science. Gray had the courage and 
honesty to point out that there have not, in recent years, been more or 
stronger hurricanes and other such storms than in the past. No more 
research grants for him, no attention in the media, either.
  Zealots can usually find high-sounding excuses for their 
transgressions against other professionals like Dr. Gray. Professional 
figures in white coats with authoritative tones of voices and lots of 
credentials repeatedly dismiss criticism by claiming that their so-
called scientific findings had been peer reviewed, verified by other 
scientists. It sounds so much beyond reproach. They gave each other 
prizes as they selectively handed out research grants.
  To those who disagreed, like Dr. Gray, no matter how prominent, they 
were treated like nonentities, like they didn't exist, or were 
personally disparaged with labels like ``denier.'' Well, you know, 
Holocaust denier, that's what you do. Now, how much uglier does it get? 
How much against the standard of professional science can you be than 
to try to paint someone like that because he disagrees with you?

                              {time}  1650

  Well, these unprofessional tactics won't work forever, and it's 
becoming ever clearer that the man-made global warming steamroller is 
beginning to fall apart. We now know that the scientists clamoring for 
subservient acceptance to their theory of man-made global warming were 
themselves making a sham out of the scientific methodology. We now know 
what they were doing. I'm speaking, of course, of Climategate, the 
publication of over 1,000 emails and 3,000 other unofficially

[[Page H8312]]

obtained documents from one of the world's foremost global warming 
research institutes, the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia 
University in the United Kingdom. And we have all heard of those 
quotes. Here's a few of them:
  ``We can't account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it's a 
travesty that we can't.''
  How about another quote: ``I've just completed Mike's nature trick . 
. . to hide the decline.''
  Here's another quote: ``We'll keep them''--meaning the skeptics of 
their science. ``We'll keep them out somehow--even if we have to 
redefine what peer-review literature is.''
  How about this for another quote: ``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 send it to anyone.''
  Deleting files? Trying to prevent peer review? What kind of 
scientists were these? Well, arrogant and politically motivated 
scientists, that's who.
  The unauthorized release of those internal memos exposed the 
shenanigans of the man-made global warming alarmists and the crime 
being committed against science and the public. Even though handpicked 
panels of their peers held the a kangaroo court--yeah, their own peers 
judged them, that's right--and that kangaroo court loudly proclaimed 
there had no wrongdoing by these people, well, public confidence was 
justifiably shaken in the global warming science advocates.
  Now, just as that scandal was about to be forgotten, we have an even 
larger database being exposed showing even more clearly how this elite 
operates, and it ain't pretty.
  Here are some of the quotes from the newly released database: 
Unfortunately, there is no way to fix the IPCC, and there never was. 
The reason is that its information over 20 years ago was to support 
political and energy policy goals, not to search for scientific truth.
  Here's another quote: If you disagree with their interpretation of 
climate change, you were left out of the IPCC process. They ignore or 
fight against any evidence which does not support their policy-driven 
mission, even to the point of pressuring scientific journals not to 
publish papers which might hurt the IPCC's effort.
  Here's another one regarding the IPCC: I also think the science is 
being manipulated to put a political spin on it.
  Here's another one: It's very likely that the mean temperature has 
shown much larger past variability than caught by previous 
reconstructions. We cannot, from these reconstructions, conclude that 
the previous 50-year period has been unique in the context of the last 
500 to 1,000 years.
  What's that mean? That means the current cycle we're in has nothing 
to do with the burning of fossil fuel by human beings.
  I would like to insert an article from James Taylor of Forbes 
magazine who said Climategate 2: ``These scientists view global warming 
as a political `cause' rather than a balanced scientific inquiry.''

      Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate

                           (By James Taylor)

       A new batch of 5,000 emails among scientists central to the 
     assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis 
     were anonymously released to the public yesterday, igniting a 
     new firestorm of controversy nearly two years to the day 
     after similar emails ignited the Climategate scandal.
       Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: 
     (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate 
     are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate 
     underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view 
     global warming as a political ``cause'' rather than a 
     balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists 
     frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak 
     and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.
       Regarding scientific transparency, a defining 
     characteristic of science is the open sharing of scientific 
     data, theories and procedures so that independent parties, 
     and especially skeptics of a particular theory or hypothesis, 
     can replicate and validate asserted experiments or 
     observations. Emails between Climategate scientists, however, 
     show a concerted effort to hide rather than disseminate 
     underlying evidence and procedures.
       ``I've been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom 
     of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those 
     working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of 
     the process,'' writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with 
     the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 
     (IPCC), in a newly released email.
       ``Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of 
     the research grants we get--and has to be well hidden,'' 
     Jones writes in another newly released email. ``I've 
     discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in 
     the past and they are happy about not releasing the original 
     station data.''
       The original Climategate emails contained similar evidence 
     of destroying information and data that the public would 
     naturally assume would be available according to freedom of 
     information principles. ``Mike, can you delete any emails you 
     may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [UN Intergovernmental 
     Panel on Climate Change 4th Assessment]?'' Jones wrote to 
     Penn State University scientist Michael Mann in an email 
     released in Climategate 1.0. ``Keith will do likewise. . . . 
     We will be getting Caspar [Ammann] to do likewise. I see that 
     CA [the Climate Audit Web site] claim they discovered the 
     1945 problem in the Nature paper!!''
       The new emails also reveal the scientists' attempts to 
     politicize the debate and advance predetermined outcomes.
       ``The trick may be to decide on the main message and use 
     that to guid[e] what's included and what is left out'' of 
     IPCC reports, writes Jonathan Overpeck, coordinating lead 
     author for the IPCC's most recent climate assessment.
       ``I gave up on [Georgia Institute of Technology climate 
     professor] Judith Curry a while ago. I don't know what she 
     thinks she's doing, but its not helping the cause,'' wrote 
     Mann in another newly released email.
       ``I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding 
     an investigative journalist to investigate and expose'' 
     skeptical scientist Steve McIntyre, Mann writes in another 
     newly released email.
       These new emails add weight to Climategate 1.0 emails 
     revealing efforts to politicize the scientific debate. For 
     example, Tom Wigley, a scientist at the University 
     Corporation for Atmospheric Research, authored a Climategate 
     1.0 email asserting that his fellow Climategate scientists 
     ``must get rid of'' the editor for a peer-reviewed science 
     journal because he published some papers contradicting 
     assertions of a global warming crisis.
       More than revealing misconduct and improper motives, the 
     newly released emails additionally reveal frank admissions of 
     the scientific shortcomings of global warming assertions.
       ``Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout 
     the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study 
     and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just 
     downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty 
     and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss 
     these further if necessary,'' writes Peter Thorne of the UK 
     Met Office.
       ``I also think the science is being manipulated to put a 
     political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too 
     clever in the long run,'' Thorne adds.
       ``Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive . . . there 
     have been a number of dishonest presentations of model 
     results by individual authors and by IPCC,'' Wigley 
     acknowledges.
       More damaging emails will likely be uncovered during the 
     next few days as observers pour through the 5,000 emails. 
     What is already clear, however, is the need for more 
     objective research and ethical conduct by the scientists at 
     the heart of the IPCC and the global warming discussion.

  Perhaps the most perplexing aspect of all of this, amid all of the 
consternation about their malpractices to which we have now been 
exposed: The global warming elite just keeps a straight face. They keep 
up their PowerPoint presentations, distorted graphs and all, and 
continue projections of man-made global doom and gloom. They try to 
ignore the uproar and change the subject, but these recent revelations 
seriously call into question the basic science of man-made global 
warming fanatics.
  In the meantime, a report was recently issued by world-respected 
scientists at CERN in Switzerland. The CERN study demonstrated it is 
cosmic rays from the sun that determine global cloud cover, and the 
clouds have dramatically more to do with temperature than the minuscule 
amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere.
  The Cloud Project at a highly respected CERN laboratory published a 
paper in the journal Nature this past August based on this research 
which shows that the sun's activity is influencing cloud formation and 
may account for most of the recorded temperature changes in the last 
century.
  I would like to submit an editorial about this project from The Wall 
Street Journal by Anne Jolis for the Record.

                        The Other Climate Theory

       Al Gore won't hear it, but heavenly bodies might be driving 
     long-term weather trends.

                            (By Anne Jolis)

       In April 1990, Al Gore published an open letter in the New 
     York Times ``To Skeptics on Global Warming'' in which he 
     compared them to medieval flat-Earthers. He soon became vice 
     president and his conviction that

[[Page H8313]]

     climate change was dominated by man-made emissions went 
     mainstream. Western governments embarked on a new era of 
     anti-emission regulation and poured billions into research 
     that might justify it. As far as the average Western 
     politician was concerned, the debate was over.
       But a few physicists weren't worrying about Al Gore in the 
     1990s. They were theorizing about another possible factor in 
     climate change: charged subatomic particles from outer space, 
     or ``cosmic rays,'' whose atmospheric levels appear to rise 
     and fall with the weakness or strength of solar winds that 
     deflect them from the earth. These shifts might significantly 
     impact the type and quantity of clouds covering the earth, 
     providing a clue to one of the least-understood but most 
     important questions about climate. Heavenly bodies might be 
     driving long-term weather trends.
       The theory has now moved from the corners of climate 
     skepticism to the center of the physical-science universe: 
     the European Organization for Nuclear Research, also known as 
     CERN. At the Franco-Swiss home of the world's most powerful 
     particle accelerator, scientists have been shooting simulated 
     cosmic rays into a cloud chamber to isolate and measure their 
     contribution to cloud formation. CERN's researchers reported 
     last month that in the conditions they've observed so far, 
     these rays appear to be enhancing the formation rates of pre-
     cloud seeds by up to a factor of 10. Current climate models 
     do not consider any impact of cosmic rays on clouds.
       Scientists have been speculating on the relationship among 
     cosmic rays, solar activity and clouds since at least the 
     1970s. But the notion didn't get a workout until 1995, when 
     Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark came across a 1991 paper by 
     Eigil Friis-Christensen and Knud Lassen, who had charted a 
     close relationship between solar variations and changes in 
     the earth's surface temperature since 1860.
       ``I had this idea that the real link could be between cloud 
     cover and cosmic rays, and I wanted to try to figure out if 
     it was a good idea or a bad idea,'' Mr. Svensmark told me 
     from Copenhagen, where he leads sun-climate research at the 
     Danish National Space Institute.
       He wasn't the first scientist to have the idea, but he was 
     the first to try to demonstrate it. He got in touch with Mr. 
     Friis-Christensen, and they used satellite data to show a 
     close correlation among solar activity, cloud cover and 
     cosmic-ray levels since 1979.
       They announced their findings, and the possible climatic 
     implications, at a 1996 space conference in Birmingham, 
     England. Then, as Mr. Svensmark recalls, ``everything went 
     completely crazy. . . . It turned out it was very, very 
     sensitive to say these things already at that time.'' He 
     returned to Copenhagen to find his local daily leading with a 
     quote from the then-chair of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel 
     on Climate Change (IPCC): ``I find the move from this pair 
     scientifically extremely naive and irresponsible.''
       Mr. Svensmark had been, at the very least, politically 
     naive. ``Before 1995 I was doing things related to quantum 
     fluctuations. Nobody was interested, it was just me sitting 
     in my office. It was really an eye-opener, that baptism into 
     climate science.'' He says his work was ``very much ignored'' 
     by the climate-science establishment--but not by CERN 
     physicist Jasper Kirkby, who is leading today's ongoing 
     cloud-chamber experiment.
       On the phone from Geneva, Mr. Kirkby says that Mr. 
     Svensmark's hypothesis ``started me thinking: There's good 
     evidence that pre-industrial climate has frequently varied on 
     100-year timescales, and what's been found is that often 
     these variations correlate with changes in solar activity, 
     solar wind. You see correlations in the atmosphere between 
     cosmic rays and clouds--that's what Svensmark reported. But 
     these correlations don't prove cause and effect, and it's 
     very difficult to isolate what's due to cosmic rays and 
     what's due to other things.''
       In 1997 he decided that ``the best way to settle it would 
     be to use the CERN particle beam as an artificial source of 
     cosmic rays and reconstruct an artificial atmosphere in the 
     lab.'' He predicted to reporters at the time that, based on 
     Mr. Svensmark's paper, the theory would ``probably be able to 
     account for somewhere between a half and the whole'' of 20th-
     century warming. He gathered a team of scientists, including 
     Mr. Svensmark, and proposed the groundbreaking experiment to 
     his bosses at CERN.
       Then he waited. It took six years for CERN to greenlight 
     and fund the experiment. Mr. Kirkby cites financial pressures 
     for the delay and says that ``it wasn't political.''
       Mr. Svensmark declines entirely to guess why CERN took so 
     long, noting only that ``more generally in the climate 
     community that is so sensitive, sometimes science goes into 
     the background.''
       By 2002, a handful of other scientists had started to 
     explore the correlation, and Mr. Svensmark decided that ``if 
     I was going to be proved wrong, it would be nice if I did it 
     myself.'' He decided to go ahead in Denmark and construct his 
     own cloud chamber. ``In 2006 we had our first results: We had 
     demonstrated the mechanism'' of cosmic rays enhancing cloud 
     formation. The IPCC's 2007 report all but dismissed the 
     theory.
       Mr. Kirkby's CERN experiment was finally approved in 2006 
     and has been under way since 2009. So far, it has not proved 
     Mr. Svensmark wrong. ``The result simply leaves open the 
     possibility that cosmic rays could influence the climate,'' 
     stresses Mr. Kirkby, quick to tamp down any interpretation 
     that would make for a good headline.
       This seems wise: In July, CERN Director General Rolf-Dieter 
     Heuer told Die Welt that he was asking his researchers to 
     make the forthcoming cloud-chamber results ``clear, however, 
     not to interpret them. This would go immediately into the 
     highly political arena of the climate-change debate.''
       But while the cosmic-ray theory has been ridiculed from the 
     start by those who subscribe to the anthropogenic-warming 
     theory, both Mr. Kirkby and Mr. Svensmark hold that human 
     activity is contributing to climate change. All they question 
     is its importance relative to other, natural factors.
       Through several more years of ``careful, quantitative 
     measurement'' at CERN, Mr. Kirkby predicts he and his team 
     will ``definitively answer the question of whether or not 
     cosmic rays have a climatically significant effect on 
     clouds.'' His old ally Mr. Svensmark feels he's already 
     answered that question, and he guesses that CERN's initial 
     results ``could have been achieved eight to 10 years ago, if 
     the project had been approved and financed.''
       The biggest milestone in last month's publication may be 
     not the content but the source, which will be a lot harder to 
     ignore than Mr. Svensmark and his small Danish institute.
       Any regrets, now that CERN's particle accelerator is 
     spinning without him? ``No. It's been both a blessing and the 
     opposite,'' says Mr. Svensmark. ``I had this field more or 
     less to myself for years--that would never have happened in 
     other areas of science, such as particle physics. But this 
     has been something that most climate scientists would not be 
     associated with. I remember another researcher saying to me 
     years ago that the only thing he could say about cosmic rays 
     and climate was that it was a really bad career move.''
       On that point, Mr. Kirkby--whose organization is controlled 
     by not one but 20 governments--really does not want to 
     discuss politics at all: ``I'm an experimental particle 
     physicist, okay? That somehow nature may have decided to 
     connect the high-energy physics of the cosmos with the 
     earth's atmosphere--that's what nature may have done, not 
     what I've done.''
       Last month's findings don't herald the end of a debate, but 
     the resumption of one. That is, if the politicians purporting 
     to legislate based on science will allow it.

  In this piece, she says: charged subatomic particles from outer 
space, or cosmic rays, might significantly impact the type and quality 
of clouds covering the Earth, providing a clue to one of the least 
understood but most important questions about climate. Heavenly bodies 
might be driving long-term weather trends.
  And while scientists have discovered the sun's relationship to cloud 
cover, even more recently there's been a study directly undermining the 
theory that CO2 levels are a major determinant of the 
Earth's temperature.
  A recent editorial from Investor's Business Daily on the topic of 
this new study about temperature sensitivity to carbon dioxide 
undermines the case-closed arguments of the scientific elite.
  From the editorial: The left's proposed solutions to the world's ills 
are based on the idea that carbon dioxide is a climate-heating poison 
that must be scrubbed from the global economy at all costs. Yet another 
study shows this to be foolishness.
  And I submit that for the Record at this point as well.

     [From the Investor's Business Daily Editorial, Nov. 25, 2011]

        Global Warming Models Called Into Question By New Study

       Climate: The left's proposed solutions for the world's ills 
     are based on the idea that carbon dioxide is a climate-
     heating poison that must be scrubbed from the global economy 
     at all cost. Yet another study shows this is foolish.
       The study in the journal Science found that global 
     temperatures appear to be far less sensitive to the amount of 
     CO2 in the atmosphere than originally estimated.
       This sounds prosaic, but it's a bombshell--another in a 
     long line of revelations showing the scientific fraud at the 
     heart of the anti-global warming movement.
       The study's findings are simple and devastating. ``This 
     implies that the effect of CO2 on climate is less than 
     previously thought,'' said Oregon State University's Andreas 
     Schmittner, the study's main author.
       Even with a doubling of CO2 from levels that existed before 
     the Industrial Revolution, the study found a likely increase 
     in Earth's temperature only from about 3.1 degrees Fahrenheit 
     to 4.7 degrees Fahrenheit.
       That compares with the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on 
     Climate Change's 2007 report, which predicted an increase of 
     3.6 degrees to 8.6 degrees.
       Coupled with the fact the average global temperature hasn't 
     increased at all over the past decade--even though under all 
     of the global warming models now in use, this is

[[Page H8314]]

     impossible--warmist ideology is crumbling. There is no 
     climate armageddon on the horizon.
       But don't expect global warm-mongers to admit this. As 
     we've discovered from a new trove of emails sent by leading 
     European climate-change scientists, there has been a vast, 
     global green conspiracy to silence scientific opposition to 
     the idea--even to the point of falsifying data and ruining 
     others' careers.
       Subscribe to the IBD Editorials Podcast--The left's entire 
     prescription for solving the world's ills--ranging from 
     population control to strict regulation of businesses to 
     shrinking CO2 output--are premised on the notion that carbon-
     dioxide is a poison.
       Happily, the left's pernicious, economy-destroying and 
     false global warming ideology is collapsing under a growing 
     body of evidence that the CO2 scare is a fraud.
       Who says we have nothing to be thankful for?
  And despite the weaknesses of the linkage between CO2 and 
temperature, the alarmists continue with their tactics. We just heard a 
report published in Nature Climate Change in the last few days that 
CO2 emissions in 2010 went up by 5.9 percent, which 
scientists claimed was the highest total annual growth ever recorded--
except they didn't record any CO2 emissions. They estimated 
that based on energy use. They didn't take into account new 
technologies that make gas and oil and coal cleaner and greener. The 
scientists didn't care about how cleanly coal and oil might be being 
burned; they just estimated--or guesstimated--CO2 emissions 
based on the total amount of coal and oil used. And the media, like 
their lapdogs, faithfully reported that this sounds like a calamity 
when you have so much more CO2 coming in, even though they 
never measured any CO2 emissions. None of it was actually 
recorded.
  The truth is CO2 is not a pollutant. Anybody perpetuating 
that myth that CO2 is dangerous, a dangerous pollutant, is 
contributing to the health-destructive impact of real pollution by 
diverting resources and attention away from these very real challenges. 
We have wasted $25 billion or more on this foolishness. That is money 
that could have been used to develop new energy technologies, for 
example, that could have moved us off of our dependence on foreign oil.
  Some examples of these technologies are the small modular nuclear 
reactors which could offer us safety and no pollution, no leftover 
waste, but we didn't have the money for that. How about space-based 
solar power, which could collect solar energy from the sun out in outer 
space and transmit it to the Earth?
  Developing these new technologies will take hundreds of millions of 
dollars for these new reactors, billions of dollars for a space-based 
solar. Instead, we've squandered our billions of dollars and our 
limited science money and technology dollars on trying to prove that 
man-made global warming is something that we have to worry about and 
spread the fear.
  We have not pursued these or other technologies which could have 
fundamentally benefited everyone on the Earth because we have been 
wasting our time and our resources. We have been trying to figure out 
how to bury carbon in the ground and other such things.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm here to explain that this is utter nonsense 
and to warn of the danger that lurks behind this high-sounding cause.
  Don't miss the significance, by the way, of the Durban conference in 
South Africa that is gathering now to determine how best to control our 
lives.

                              {time}  1700

  As happened in Kyoto and Copenhagen in the past, they now are meeting 
in Durban to try to find ways of issuing mandates to the people of the 
world in the name of stopping global warming.
  Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the people of the United States they 
pay close attention to this. Eisenhower isn't here to protect us 
anymore. The fact is our freedom is at stake. The globalists would like 
to control the people of the United States. It's up to us to defend our 
freedom. The patriots will win if we stand together.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________