[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 11, 2014)]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I spoke last night in anticipation of this
all-night session that was going to take place. I was not surprised at
the general topics that were covered. There are probably five all
together that they were stated over and over. I would like to clarify a
couple of things that probably are worthwhile this afternoon.
One is my good friend from California--this is a quote, we took it
When 97 to 98 percent of the scientists say something is
real, they do not have anything pressing them to say that
other than the truth. They do not have any other agenda. They
don't work for oil companies. And I will tell you, as
chairman of the environment committee, every time the
Republicans chose a so-called expert on climate, we have
tracked them down to special interest funding, those 3
percent. They know where their bread is buttered.
That is kind of an interesting and a timely statement to make because
what they are not telling you--and I am talking about the Senator from
California and the other Democrats--is that the hedge fund billionaire
and climate activist Tom Steyer plans to spend $100 million through his
NextGen PAC. The NextGen PAC is his political action committee. He has
made the statement that he is going to be spending $100 million in the
midterm elections of 2014 and is going to be looking very carefully to
make sure that all of the Democrats go along with his activist agenda.
That was actually a statement that was made, that has been written
up. It is all documented. I am going to submit for the Record at this
point all of the newspaper articles, the Washington Post, the
Washington Times, and others that talk about this climate activist Tom
Steyer, who is going to be spending $100 million in the next election.
What I would like to do is cover the points that were made. As I say,
they were made over and over, different people saying them, the same
talking points. I am sure Tom Steyer's people had the talking points
well prepared and moveon.org and George Soros and Michael Moore and the
Hollywood elites and that crowd all had their talking points to sound
real good. I noticed that so many of them were reading those points and
were not familiar with the issues.
But last night many of my colleagues pointed to weather as the reason
for manmade climate change. Yet they failed to quote meteorologists in
the speeches. Let me read just what the meteorologists are saying about
A recent study by George Mason University reported--that was over 400
TV meteorologists--they reported that 63 percent of the weathercasters
believe that any global warming that occurs is the result of natural
variations and not human activity. That is a significant 2-to-1
Another study by the American Meteorological Society last year found
that of their members, nearly half did not believe in manmade global
warming. Furthermore, the survey found that scientists who professed
liberal political views were more likely to proclaim manmade climate
change than the rest of their colleagues.
I think we can name names here. Certainly one of the more prominent
names is Heidi Cullen. She was with the Weather Channel. She spent most
of her time with a background of very liberal thinking, liberal agenda,
talking about this until she is no longer there anymore. She is now
with one of the groups, the very liberal groups.
This is a good one, a lifelong liberal Democrat. His name is Dr.
Hertzberg. He is a retired Navy meteorologist with a Ph.D. in physical
chemistry who also declared his dissent of warming fears in 2008. This
is a quote from Dr. Martin Hertzberg:
As a scientist and life-long liberal Democrat, I find the
constant regurgitation of the anecdotal, fear mongering clap-
trap about human-caused global warming to be a disservice to
science. The global warming alarmists don't even bother with
data! All they have are half-baked computer models that are
totally out of touch with reality and have already been
proven to be false.
CNN, not exactly a bastion of conservatism, had yet another of its
meteorologists dissent from global warming fears. His name is Chad
Myers, a meteorologist for 22 years and certified by the American
Meteorological Society, spoke out against anthropogenic climate change
on CNN in December of 2008.
He said, ``You know, to think that we could affect weather all that
much is pretty arrogant.''
Since they are talking about the weather, here are a few facts that
are not mentioned on drought and hurricanes. Several of the people came
to the floor during the evening to talk about increase in drought, the
increase in hurricanes and all of that. According to NOAA, hurricanes
have been in decline in the United States since the beginning of
records in the 19th century. The worst decade for major--category 3, 4,
5--hurricanes was in the 1940s. Severe drought in 1934 covered 80
percent of the country. The current one, the drought we went through a
year and a half ago was 25 percent of the country.
Then they talked about, last night, the icecaps are melting and all
of that. My colleague Senator Feinstein from California pointed to
melting icecaps as proof of climate change. Yet reports on what is not
melting show a different story. This past December a research
expedition of climate scientists got stuck in deep ice in Antarctica.
We all remember that. I remember talking about that and showing
pictures on the floor when that took place. That was a bunch of people
who were going up there to try to solidify their case on global
warming. They were stuck in ice for weeks on end. It took a couple of
weeks and a couple more icebreakers getting stuck before the research
vessel was finally freed.
A paper published in the October Journal of Climate examines the
trend of sea ice extent along the east Antarctic coast from 2000 to
2008 and finds a significant increase, average of 1.43. That is 1.5
percent a year of increase of ice in the Antarctic.
Greenland, the IPCC--now, keep in mind, I talked yesterday about the
IPCC. That is the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. In a minute, I will show how it was discredited. But in
Greenland they said--they admitted that in 2001, to melt Greenland the
ice sheet would require temperatures to rise by 5.5 degrees Celsius and
remain for 1,000 years. The ice sheet is actually growing by 2 percent
a year. That is what is going on right now on this very ice sheet.
Everyone is concerned about Greenland. Yet it is actually growing, not
In January 2010, Time magazine: Himalayan Melting: How a Climate
Panel Got it Wrong: ``Glaciergate'' is a black eye for the IPCC and the
climate-science community as a whole.
In December of 2008, Al Gore said--this is good. Al Gore said, ``The
That is a little over 5 years ago. Gore said, ``The entire North
polar icecap will disappear in 5 years.'' It is now 5 years and 1 month
past the deadline, December of 2013, and the Arctic ice is actually
doing pretty well. Last month, BBC reported that the Arctic icecap
coverage is close to 50 percent more than in the corresponding period
in 2012. So contrary to what Al Gore predicted, that it would be gone
by now, it did not disappear.
I had a good quote there by Richard Lindzen talking about Gore. This
is Richard Lindzen, one of the foremost authorities, scientific
authorities on climate anywhere in the world. He is MIT. He has been
quoted extensively. He said, talking about Gore:
To treat all changes as something to fear is bad enough. To
do it in order to exploit that fear is much worse.
I mentioned last night that the New York Times designated Al Gore as
perhaps the first environmental billionaire in the United States. He
said the entire North polar icecap would disappear in 5 years. It has
actually increased substantially.
Last night they talked about the IPCC is the gold standard of climate
science. Senator Whitehouse defended the credibility of the IPCC
despite climategate, saying last night:
So after all that, after six published reviews whose
results confirmed that there was nothing wrong with the
science as a result of these emails--
We are talking about climategate now.
--for people to continue to come to the floor and suggest
that the email chains revealed some flaw in the data or some
flaw in the science, it's untrue. It's as simple as that.
It's just not true.
But we know this is not the case. The emails are very clear that the
scientists were manipulating the data to generate a result they wanted.
This is what some of the emails disclose: One of the scientists said,
and the emails disclosed, that the IPCC was systematically distorting
facts, cooking the science of global warming to either cover up data
that did not tell the story they wanted everyone to hear and
exaggerating the impacts of the changing climate to help drive people--
out of fear--into action.
Here are two examples. We have about 12 examples. I have read them
all in the past on the floor of the Senate. But here are a couple of
examples of how the IPCC was cooking the science. The IPCC claimed the
Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035. Of course it is not true. Yet it
was put into the IPCC's fourth assessment report.
The assessment report is a report the IPCC has that the media picks
up and the public consumes. According to the Sunday Times, that is in
the UK, this claim was based off of a brochure that was used by the
World Wildlife Fund to promote global warming activism. They put it on
a brochure after finding a paper from a little-known scientist in
That scientist was wrong. According to the Times, Himalayan glaciers
are so thick and at such a high altitude that most glaciologists
believe it would take several hundred years to melt them at the present
rate. More alarming, from the East Anglia University's Climatic
Research Unit, the CRU, disturbing evidence was revealed that the
climatologists had been increasingly cooking the books. One leaked
email from 1999--keep in mind, these are the guys who are giving the
science to the IPCC.
I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding the real
temps to each series for the last 20 years, i.e., from 1981
onwards, and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline.
In other words, they were falsifying the increase in the temperature.
What he is saying is that he changed the numbers to show the warming is
happening when it has not happened.
Another e-mail that was revealed in 2009:
The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming
at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can't. Our
observing system is inadequate.
Despite this, the IPCC has continued to say global warming is
continuing to happen.
The media outcry from these email leaks was surprising because we did
not hear as much about it in the United States as we did in the UK and
other places. It seemed to be the mainstream press organizations that
have been strong partners with the global warming activists, alarmists,
that began to question their confidence in the whole premise.
Here are some quotes. Keep in mind these are from legitimate
organizations, publications, major publications that are credible.
Christopher Booker of the UK, the Telegraph--one of the largest
papers in the United Kingdom--said that what has happened with climate
change is they are talking about falsifying the information to make the
public believe this is actually happening. They said it is the ``worst
scientific scandal of our generation.'' That is very serious, I say to
the Presiding Officer, the ``worst scientific scandal of our
Clive Crook of the Financial Times stated: ``The closed mindedness of
these supposed men of science . . . is surprising, even to me. The
stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering.'' That was from the
Financial Times. We are all familiar with that publication.
A prominent IPCC physicist said: ``Climategate was a fraud on a scale
I've never seen.''
U.N. scientist Dr. Philip Lloyd said: ``The result is NOT
Newsweek magazine said: ``Once celebrated climate researchers feeling
like the used-car salesman.''
``Some of the IPCC's most quoted data and recommendations were taken
straight out of unchecked activist brochures.''
George Monbiot is a columnist for the Guardian. He was on the other
side of this issue. He was upset because people were finding out the
truth and said: ``It is no use pretending that this isn't a major blow.
The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic unit at the
University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging . . . I'm
dismayed and deeply shaken by them . . . I was too trusting of some of
those who provided the evidence I championed. I would have been a
better journalist if I had investigated their claims more closely.'' He
is one of the strongest supporters of global warming.
Last night we heard more and more, and now we get to the rest of the
story, and that would be what is most important. I say this is the most
important because many years ago--this would have been about 2002, when
almost everyone believed the world was coming to an end and it was
global warming that was causing it--they all talked about how it must
be true. Frankly, I thought it was true at that time until we did some
checking to find out what would it cost to regulate greenhouse gases. I
mean, even if it were a legitimate problem that was destroying this
country, what would it cost?
The first reports we got were from Charles Rivers and from the
Wharton School. Some of their economists came up with it. The range is
between $300 to $400 billion a year. This is based off of a regulatory
threshold of 25,000 tons. This is very tough.
I have a good friend, Senator Ed Markey, who was in the House with me
for quite some time. We disagree on this issue, but the last bill that
came up, the last legislation to force us to have a type of cap-and-
trade, was based on capping these people who emit 25,000 tons or more.
That is based off of the regulatory threshold of 25,000 tons. Only the
largest facilities, such as oil refineries and powerplants, would have
been affected. But doing by regulation what they cannot do by
legislation, they have to do it under the Clean Air Act.
This is kind of under the weeds, but it is very important. I thought
the bill was too costly for the American people. It would regulate
those who emitted 25,000 tons or more, but the Clean Air Act would
regulate those at 250 tons or more. That is every church, every school,
every small shop would be covered, apartment buildings in America.
So when you stop and think about it, we have never been able to
calculate. No one disagrees with the fact that if we did it through
regulation, it would cost between $300 to $400 billion a year. For
those people who are listening right now, $300 to $400 billion a year
may not mean too much. But every year I calculate, in my State of
Oklahoma, how many people, families we have who file a federal tax
return. Then I do the math. That would have meant $3,000 to each family
in the State of Oklahoma. So it is a big deal. That is what it would
While they are extremely costly, the agency is busy doing other
things that also include other types of regulations. The ozone, for
example, their regulation--and it hasn't gone through yet--all 77 of my
counties in Oklahoma would be out of attainment. That would be 7,000
jobs lost in my State.
Utility MACT is something that has already been implemented. That is
what put coal out of business--$100 billion in cost, 1.65 million jobs.
Boiler MACT is already implemented also. Every manufacturing company
has a boiler, and so they would regulate those boilers. The cost of
that is $63 billion, costing 800,000 jobs that were lost. That is
The BLM fracking regulations would be about $100,000 per well. On
fracking, I can remember when hydraulic fracturing was something not
many people knew much about. I did because the first hydraulic
fracturing took place in my State of Oklahoma. It was 1948.
I remember when the last Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency, Lisa Jackson, made the statement when I asked her
the question live on TV--I said: Is it causing groundwater
contamination? She is the one who said there has never been a
documented case of groundwater contamination by using hydraulic
President Obama, in his effort and his war on fossil fuels, is trying
to stop them. We have heard him say several times: Well, we have good,
cheap, abundant, plentiful natural gas to take care of our energy needs
in America. That part was true, but then the next thing he said was: We
have to stop hydraulic fracturing. Without hydraulic fracturing, we
can't get 1 cubic foot of gas.
What I have tried to do is let the public know the cumulative impact
of all of these regulations. A lot of people think of regulations as
only affecting large corporations. If someone talks to Tom Buchanan of
the State of Oklahoma--he was recently elected president of the
Oklahoma Farm Bureau. If we ask him what the most critical thing is for
the farmers in the State of Oklahoma, he will say the overregulation by
the EPA. He said: Overregulation by the EPA is much more significant to
the ag community in Oklahoma and across the country than anything in
the farm bill.
So the cumulative impact of all of these regulations so far is about
$630 billion annually and about 9 million jobs lost.
I would only say that last night they had a good time talking about
these things, and the same story was told over and over using a
slightly different slant on it.
But in terms of the cost, this is the reason that they have tried
ever since the Kyoto Convention. The first bill was introduced in 2002
and several of them since then. They were never able to pass a bill
through the House and the Senate on regulating greenhouse gases because
cap and trade is so costly.
But what people have to realize--I know right now as I speak that
there are a lot of people out there who really believe global warming
is happening, really believe the world is going to come to an end,
really believe we are going to have to do something about it, and so we
start in the United States. So knowing that these people are out
there--and there are even people in my State of Oklahoma who have
bought into this--when Lisa Jackson, who at that time--she is not there
anymore. She was Obama's pick and was the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency. I asked her the question on the
record, live on TV in one of our committee hearings--I said: Let's
assume that we pass legislation and that we impose the cost of $300 to
$400 billion on the American taxpayer. If that is the case and if they
did that, would that have the effect of reducing greenhouse gases
worldwide? Her answer: No, it wouldn't, because the problem isn't in
the United States; the problem is in China and India and Mexico and
Now, you could carry out that argument even further and say that
those people who want to do away with emissions and have cap and trade
in the United States--that could cause it to have actually more, not
less, emissions of CO2 because we would be chasing our
manufacturing base to countries that didn't have any requirements. So
if you really believe it, then still it isn't true.
I would end with one more quote. Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT, whom we
talked about 1 minute ago, was asked this question: Why is it that so
many of the bureaucrats, the very liberals who want government to be
controlled from Washington, want our lives to be controlled from
Washington, why is it that they are so concerned with carbon
regulations? Richard Lindzen's answer was this: ``Controlling carbon is
a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life.''
It is unfortunate. There are a lot of people even in this body who
believe we should have much more power in the Senate. I can assure you
that the problems we are facing now are problems because of too much
power being concentrated in Washington, DC.
With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.