[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 2]
[House]
[Page 2660]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        GLOBAL WARMING ALARMISTS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, conservatives who oppose world government 
and massive foreign aid, such as our very unconservative war in Iraq, 
are sometimes called isolationists. However, anyone who makes the 
isolationist charge is really resorting to childish name-calling rather 
than a discussion on the merits.
  Another major issue on which there is a lot of name-calling these 
days is the debate over global warming. Just today the Oversight and 
Government Reform Committee held a one-sided hearing on allegations 
that the Bush administration is guilty of political interference in the 
global warming debate. The implication was that Federal scientists are 
being intimidated by those who are skeptical about global warming.
  Actually, the intimidation is coming from those who believe that 
global warming is the biggest or one of the biggest problems we face. 
Global warming alarmists get very angry if anyone even dares to 
question their views.
  Richard Lindzen, a professor of atmospheric science at MIT wrote a 
few months ago about what he called, ``the sinister side to this 
feeding frenzy about global warming.''
  Professor Lindzen said, ``Scientists who dissent from the alarmism 
have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided and 
themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. 
Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence, even when they 
fly in the face of the science that is supposedly their basis.''
  Professor David Deming, a geophysicist, said, ``The media hysteria on 
global warming has been generated by journalists who do not understand 
the provisional and uncertain nature of scientific knowledge. Science 
changes.''
  And Robert Bradley, president of the Institute for Energy Research, 
writing in the Washington Times, said, ``The emotional politicized 
debate over global warming has produced a fire-ready-aim mentality, 
despite great and still-growing scientific uncertainty about the 
problem.''
  Mr. Bradley added, ``Still climate alarmists demand a multitude of 
do-somethings to address the problem they are sure exists and is 
solvable. No job is too big for government because they welcome bigger 
and bigger government. They pronounce the debate over in their favor, 
and call their critics names such as 'deniers,' as in Holocaust 
deniers. This has created a bad climate for scientific research and for 
policymaking. In fact, the debate is more than unsettled.''
  I can produce hundreds of quotes like this from experts and 
scientists who question or are skeptical about the wild claims from 
some climate change alarmists. And the charge that the Bush 
administration is intimidating scientists or suppressing their work 
seems to be coming from scientists who want more attention or publicity 
or who want to make themselves out to be some sort of courageous, 
heroic martyrs.
  Actually the Bush administration has spent $25 billion on global 
warming and climate change research in the last 5 years, far more than 
any previous administration. Almost all global warming alarmists either 
work full time for the Federal Government or get Federal funding for 
their research. They know they are very unlikely to get more Federal 
money unless they say this problem is terrible and getting worse all 
the time.
  There may be some global warming and some of it may be bad. In some 
places it may be good. However, we need to make sure we solve the 
problems that exist without destroying our economy, or harming humanity 
in the process. The worst polluters in the world have been the 
Socialist and Communist countries.
  Only free market systems generate the excess funds to do the good 
things for the environment that all of us want done. Anger and name-
calling and biased hearings will not solve any serious or legitimate 
problems.

                          ____________________