[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 20]
[Senate]
[Pages 28486-28500]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             GLOBAL WARMING

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, a phrase has been used recently called 
``the tipping point.'' The American people will very soon be asked to 
support a type of global warming cap-and-trade bill, legislation that 
has already had a hearing in the Environment and Public Works 
Committee. There are a couple other bills in the background.
  These bills come at a time when the science is overwhelmingly taking 
away the basis for alarm. I am going to use terms this morning. The 
alarmists are the ones who are mostly out in California, the far-left 
extremists, the Hollywood elitists, and others who feel this is a great 
alarm, the world is coming to an end--the same ones who said that 
another ice age was coming back in the middle 1970s. So we need to know 
what terms we are using.
  An abundance of new peer-reviewed studies, analyses, and data-error 
discoveries in the past several months have prompted scientists to 
declare that fear of catastrophic manmade global warming--I am using 
their terms now, the scientists' terms--``bites the dust'' and the 
scientific underpinnings for alarm are ``falling apart.''
  I have addressed this subject on this floor about a dozen times since 
2003. But I want to talk to you today about something that is really 
kind of unprecedented; that is, to talk only about things that have 
happened this year, or mostly in the last 7 months, that people are 
just not aware of.
  The media is very much opposed to the idea there might be another 
side to the global warming story. So we are going to be talking about a 
``tipping point'' in a little different relationship than you have been 
hearing about it recently. I will detail how even committed leftwing 
scientists now believe

[[Page 28487]]

the environmental movement has been ``co-opted'' into promoting global 
warming as a ``crisis,'' and I will expose the manufactured facade of 
``consensus.''
  The interesting thing is that everything I am going to be using is 
going to be what has happened just in the last 6 months. I will also 
address the economic factors of the so-called solutions to global 
warming and how they will have no measurable impact on the climate. But 
these so-called solutions will create huge economic harm for American 
families and the poor residents of the developing world who may see 
development hindered by unfounded climate fears.
  We are currently witnessing an international awakening of scientists 
who are speaking out in opposition to former Vice President Al Gore, 
the United Nations, the Hollywood elitists, and the media-driven 
``consensus'' on manmade global warming.
  We have witnessed Antarctic ice grow to records levels since 
satellite monitoring began in the 1970s. We have witnessed NASA 
temperature data errors that have made 1934--instead of 1998--the 
hottest year on record in the United States. We have seen global 
average temperatures flat line since 1998 and the Southern Hemisphere 
cool in recent years.
  When they talk about global warming, I have always conceded that the 
Northern Hemisphere is going through a warming period, as it did a 
cooling period back in the 1970s. But the Southern Hemisphere actually 
has been getting colder. This is all new stuff, as I say, in the last 
few months. These are new developments. They are but a sample of the 
new information coming out that continues to debunk the United Nations, 
former Vice President Al Gore, and the media-promoted ``consensus'' on 
global warming. But before we delve into these dramatic new scientific 
developments, it is important to take note of our pop culture 
propaganda campaign aimed at children, the most vulnerable of all of 
us.
  In addition to Gore's entry last year into Hollywood fictional 
disaster films, other celebrity figures have attempted to jump into the 
game. Hollywood activist Leonardo DiCaprio decided to toss objective 
scientific truth out the window in his new scarefest ``The 11th Hour.'' 
DiCaprio refused to interview any scientists who disagreed with his 
dire vision of the future of the Earth. In fact, his film reportedly 
features physicist Steven Hawking making the unchallenged assertion 
that:

       The worst-case scenario is that Earth would become like its 
     sister planet, Venus, with a temperature of 250 degrees 
     centigrade.

  I guess these worst-case scenarios pass for science in Hollywood 
these days. It also fits perfectly with DiCaprio's stated purpose of 
the film. DiCaprio said on May 20 of this year:

       I want the public to be very scared by what they see. I 
     want them to see a very bleak future.

  While those who went to watch DiCaprio's science fiction film may see 
his intended ``bleak future,'' it is DiCaprio who has been scared by 
the bleak box office numbers, as his film has failed to generate any 
significant audience interest.
  Children are now the No. 1 target of the global warming fear 
campaign. DiCaprio announced his goal was to recruit young, eco-
activists to the cause. ``We need to get kids young,'' he said, in a 
September 20 interview with USA Weekend.
  Hollywood activist Laurie David, who is Vice President Gore's 
coproducer of ``An Inconvenient Truth,'' recently coauthored a 
children's global warming book with Cambria Gordon for Scholastic 
Books, entitled ``The Down-To-Earth Guide to Global Warming.'' David 
has made it clear that her goal is to influence young minds with her 
new book when she recently wrote an open letter to her children 
stating: ``We want you to grow up to be activists.'' Apparently, David 
and other activists are getting frustrated by the widespread skepticism 
on climate as reflected in both the United States and the U.K., 
according to the latest polls. It appears the alarmists are failing to 
convince adults to believe their increasingly shrill and 
unscientifically unfounded rhetoric, so they have decided to go after 
the kids.
  But David should worry less about recruiting young activists and more 
about scientific accuracy. A science group found what it called a major 
``scientific error'' in David's new kids' book on page 18. According to 
a Science and Public Policy Institute release on September 13--and I am 
going to quote right now--this is very significant:

       The authors (David and Gordon) present unsuspecting 
     children with an altered temperature and CO2 graph 
     that reverses the relationship found in the scientific 
     literature. The manipulation is critical because David's 
     central premise posits that CO2 drives 
     temperature, yet the peer-reviewed literature is unanimous 
     that CO2 changes have historically followed 
     temperature changes.

  That is the reverse of the reality.
  David has now been forced to publicly admit this significant 
scientific error in her book.
  A Canadian high school student named McKenzie was shown Gore's 
climate horror film in four of her classes. Her response was:

       I really don't know why they keep showing it. It scares me.

  In June, a fourth grade class in Portland, Maine's, East End 
Community School issued a dire climate report: ``Global warming is a 
huge pending global disaster'' read the elementary school kids' report, 
according to an article in the Portland Press Herald on June 14 of 
2007. Remember, these are fourth graders issuing a dire global warming 
report.
  This agenda of indoctrination and fear aimed at children is having an 
impact.
  Nine-year-old Alyssa Luz-Ricca was quoted in the Washington Post, on 
April 6 of 2007, as saying: ``I am worried about it because I don't 
want to die.''
  The same article explained: ``Psychologists say they're seeing an 
increasing number of young patients preoccupied by a climactic 
Armageddon.''
  I was told by the parent of an elementary school kid last spring--
this is kind of interesting because we had a 3-hour discussion with Al 
Gore, and afterwards, after it was over, a lady came up to me and she 
was from Maryland. She was a mother of an elementary school student, 
and she said they were required to actually watch this film, ``An 
Inconvenient Truth'' about once a month at school, and her child would 
come home and have nightmares about drowning in the film's predicted 
scary sea level rise.
  The Hollywood global warming documentary ``Arctic Tale'' ends with a 
child actor telling kids: ``If your mom and dad buy a hybrid car, 
you'll make it easier for polar bears to get around.''
  Unfortunately, children are hearing the scientifically unfounded 
doomsday message loudly and clearly. But the message kids are receiving 
is not a scientific one, it is a political message designed to create 
fear, nervousness, and ultimately recruit them to liberal activism.
  There are a few hopeful signs. A judge in England has ruled that 
schools must issue a warning before they show Gore's film to children 
because of scientific inaccuracies and sentimental mush. This is a 
court. It is a judge in the U.K. Before they see it, they have to sign 
a disclaimer. In addition, there is a new kids' book called ``The Sky's 
Not Falling! Why It's OK to Chill About Global Warming.'' The book 
counters the propaganda from the pop culture.
  The chart here shows ``The Sky's Not Falling!''
  Objective, evidence-based science is beginning to crush hysteria. My 
speech today and these reports reveal that recent peer-reviewed 
scientific studies are totally refuting the ``Church of Manmade Global 
Warming.''
  Meteorologist Joseph Conklin, who launched the skeptical Web site 
climatepolice.com in 2007, recently declared the ``global warming 
movement is falling apart.'' All the while, activists such as former 
Vice President Al Gore repeatedly continue to warn of a fast-
approaching climate ``tipping point.''
  I agree with Gore in this respect. Global warming may have reached a 
``tipping point.'' The manmade global warming fear machine crossed the 
tipping point in 2007--this year. That is

[[Page 28488]]

the reason today I am talking about things that are happening this 
year, things in the last 6 months. I am convinced the future climate 
historians will look back on 2007 as the year the global warming fears 
began to crumble. The situation we are now in is very similar to where 
we were in the late 1970s, when the coming ice age fears began to 
dismantle. Remember, it was Newsweek magazine which in the 1970s first 
proclaimed that meteorologists were almost unanimous in their view that 
a coming ice age would have negative impacts. It was also Newsweek in 
1975 which originated the eerily similar ``tipping point''--they called 
it a tipping point at that time--rhetoric they are using today, except 
it was an ice age at that time.
  Newsweek wrote on April 28, 1975, about coming ice age fears. They 
said:

       The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they 
     find it to cope with climatic change once the results become 
     grim reality.

  Of course, Newsweek essentially retracted their coming ice age 
article 29 years later in October of last year, 2006. People don't see 
the retractions, they get the hysteria of the moment.
  Today, the greatest irony is that the U.N. and the media's climate 
hysteria grows louder as the case for alarmism fades away. While the 
scientific case grows weaker, the political and rhetorical proponents 
of climate fear are ramping up to offer hefty tax and regulatory 
solutions, both internationally and domestically, to solve the so-
called crisis.
  Skeptical climatologist Dr. Timothy Ball, formerly of the University 
of Winnipeg in Canada, wrote about the current state of the climate 
change debate earlier this month. This is a quote, I say to my 
colleagues:

       Imagine basing a country's energy and economic policy on an 
     incomplete, unproven theory--a theory based entirely on 
     computer models in which one minor variable (CO2) 
     is considered the sole driver for the entire global climate 
     system.

  How minor is that manmade CO2 variable in the atmosphere?
  Meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo, the first director of Meteorology at the 
Weather Channel and former chairman of the American Meteorological 
Society's Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting, explained in 
August how minuscule mankind's CO2 emissions are in relation 
to the Earth's atmosphere. This is what he said, and keep in mind we 
are talking about a guy who was the first director of meteorology at 
the Weather Channel.

       If the atmosphere was a 100 story building, our annual 
     anthropogenic CO2 contribution today would be 
     equivalent to the linoleum on the first floor.

  We use terms such as ``anthropogenic''--and many Members of this body 
are not sure that manmade gases are anthropogenic gases--and those who 
want to blame man for all of these problems that they try to make us 
believe are happening are saying anthropogenic gases are the problem.
  Here are scientists who are totally debunking this.
  Now, there are four essential components to debunking climate fears. 
Debunking catastrophic manmade global warming fears can be reduced to 
four essential points. Now, what I am going to do is read these points 
and go back and elaborate on each one.
  First, recent climate changes on Earth lie well within the bounds of 
natural climate variability. Even the New York Times concedes this. 
U.N. temperature data shows that the late 20th century phase of global 
warming ended in 1998; new data for the Southern Hemisphere shows that 
a slight cooling is underway.
  By the way, when we talk about IPCC, that is the United Nations; they 
are synonymous. That is where all this stuff started. A lot of things 
come from the United Nations. Currently, we are looking at a treaty 
called the Law of the Sea Treaty. It started in the United Nations--not 
in America's best interests. But the first thing we are going to do is 
talk about the recent climate changes on Earth, and we are going to 
talk about how they lie within natural variability.
  The second thing we will talk about is almost all current public fear 
of global warming is being driven by unproven and untestable computer 
model fears of the future, which now even the United Nations concedes 
that the models--these are computer models; that is what all this stuff 
is based on--they do not account for half of the variability in nature 
and, thus, their predictions are not reliable. Even the United Nations 
agrees with that.
  The third thing is debunking the relationship that the more 
CO2 you have, the warmer the world is. That is very 
simplistic and it is untrue. Scientists are reporting in peer-reviewed 
literature that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will not 
have the catastrophic impact doomsters have been predicting. In fact, 
climate experts are discovering that you cannot distinguish the impact 
of human-produced greenhouse gases from natural climate variability. 
That is extremely significant and something that has come around in the 
last 6 or 7 months.
  The fourth thing we will talk about is consensus. We hear so much 
about consensus. The more things that come out of science, where the 
scientists are saying, wait a minute, we were wrong. In a minute, I 
will be naming names of scientists who were marching the streets with 
Al Gore 10 years ago who now say they were wrong. When you talk about 
that today, those who are promoting this type of fear from the left, 
they use the word ``consensus.'' The climate change ``consensus'' 
exists. Well, it does not exist. Instead, the illusion that it does has 
been carefully manufactured for political, financial, and ideological 
purposes.
  These four basic points form the foundation of the rational, 
evidence-based approach to climate science that has come to be called 
global warming skepticism.
  Let's talk about the first one, essential point No. 1, that the 
Earth's climate is within the natural variability. On April 23, 2006, 
the article in the New York Times by Andrew Revkin stated--and I am 
quoting now from the New York Times:

       Few scientists agree with the idea that the recent spate of 
     potent hurricanes, European heat waves, African drought and 
     other weather extremes are, in essence, our fault--

  Manmade gases.

       There is more than enough natural variability in nature to 
     mask a direct connection, scientists say.

  The Times is essentially conceding that no recent weather events fall 
outside the range of natural climate variability. On a slightly longer 
time scale, many scientific studies have shown the medieval and earlier 
warm periods were as warm or warmer than the Earth's current 
temperature--when there were no influences that were due to manmade 
gases. There were no SUVs around at that time.
  Now, everything is blamed on global warming. Right now, the fires 
that are finally subsiding out in California, the disaster that has 
taken place, the first thing they say is it is due to global warming. 
It has nothing to do with global warming. When Al Gore made his global 
warming speech a year ago in February in New York--and coincidentally, 
it was on a day that set a new cold record for all time throughout the 
history of New York--a 2006 National Academy of Science, NAS, report 
discredited the now infamous ``hockey stick'' temperature graph. The 
study was created by the U.N. IPCC lead author Michael Mann. They took 
the temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere and showed that they were 
flat for 1,000 years. They then started spiking in the 20th century and 
causing them to go up. On this graph, this is the blade of the hockey 
stick.
  The problem is, they didn't take into consideration things such as 
the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. The NAS found evidence 
of both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, which is on 
the lower chart. It also expressed little confidence in Mann's 
conclusion that the 1990s were the hottest decade of the last 
millennium, and even less confidence that 1998 was the hottest year. In 
fact, we will show in a minute that NAS has come around and said we 
were wrong, that 1998 wasn't the hottest year; 1934 was.
  There have been recent studies refuting claims that the 20th century 
has

[[Page 28489]]

seen unprecedented warmth. A June 29, 2007, paper by Gerd Burger of 
Berlin's Institute of Meteorology in the peer-reviewed Science Magazine 
challenged a 2006 study that claimed the 20th century had been 
unusually warm.
  Ivy League geologist, Dr. Robert Giegengack, the chair of the 
Department of Earth and Environmental Science at the University of 
Pennsylvania, noted on May 27, 2007 that extremely long geologic 
timescales reveal that ``only about 5 percent of that time has been 
characterized by conditions on Earth that were so cold that the poles 
could support masses of permanent ice.''
  Giegengack added:

       For most of Earth's history, the globe has been warmer than 
     it has been for the last 200 years. It has rarely been 
     cooler.

  That is the chair of the Department of Earth and Environmental 
Science at the University of Pennsylvania. These guys know what they 
are talking about, and they have been ignored.
  Greenland has actually cooled since the 1940s. In fact, the current 
temperatures in Greenland--a ``poster boy'' for climate change 
alarmists--are cooler. It wasn't too long ago that there was a 
delegation from the Senate that went to Greenland. They came back with 
all these statements, but I cannot figure out where they came from 
because that is not what the facts show. Even though Greenland has been 
a ``poster boy'' for climate alarmists, it is now cooler there than the 
temperatures were in the 1930s and 1940s. It is cooler there now. You 
heard correctly.
  Greenland reached its highest temperatures in 1941, according to a 
peer-reviewed study published in the June 2006 issue of the Journal of 
Geophysical Research. Keep in mind that 80 percent of the manmade 
CO2 came after these high temperatures. Eighty percent came 
after the 1940s. That is a very interesting thing because, if you look 
at it, you would say if 80 percent of the CO2 came after the 
1940s, would that not precipitate a warming period--if they are right--
in terms of CO2 affecting warmer climate change? That didn't 
happen. That precipitated a cooler period.
  According to a July 2007 survey of peer-reviewed literature on 
Greenland:

       Research in 2006 found that Greenland has been warming 
     since the 1880s, but since 1955, temperature averages at 
     Greenland stations have been colder than the period of 1881-
     1955. Another 2006 peer-reviewed study concluded the rate of 
     warming in Greenland from 1920 to 1930 was about 50 percent 
     higher than the warming from 1995 to 2005.

  That is the time they say this crisis is taking place.

       One 2005 study found Greenland gaining ice in the interior 
     higher elevations and thinning ice at the lower elevations. 
     In addition, the often media promoted fears of Greenland's 
     ice completely melting and a subsequent catastrophic sea 
     level rise are directly at odds with the latest scientific 
     studies.

  That is not me saying this; these are scientists. These are 
scientific facts you will not hear from the U.N. scientists, Gore, or 
the hysterical liberal left.
  Yet despite all of this evidence, the media and many others still 
attempt to distort the science in order to create hysterical fears 
about Greenland.
  Environmental activist Robert Corell, who works for Teresa Heinz 
Kerry's foundation, the Heinz Center, recently tried to stir alarm by 
stating:

       I spent four months on the [Greenland] ice cap in 1968 and 
     there was no melting at all.

  If Corell, a former fellow with the American Meteorological Society, 
had desired to give a balanced historical view, he would have noted 
that Greenland in the 1930s and 1940s was much warmer. This is typical 
of how many activists mislead the public by presenting utterly 
meaningless bits of information and avoiding inconvenient facts. Corell 
is also on record for giving former Vice President Gore's 2006 science 
fiction film two thumbs up for accuracy.
  Keep in mind, he is paid by the Heinz Foundation.
  Corell's assertion in a September 8, U.K. Guardian article that the 
earthquakes triggered by melting ice are increasing in Greenland was 
rebuffed by the University of North Carolina's Jose Rial. Rial is a 
prominent climatologist/seismologist working on glacial seismic 
activity in Greenland.
  Corell's erroneous claim prompted Rial to take the unusual step of 
writing a letter to the U.K. Guardian:

       I also know there is no evidence to suggest that these 
     quakes ``are happening far faster than ever anticipated.'' 
     [As Corell claimed].

  Rial wrote that in a September 13 letter. He criticized the newspaper 
for presenting a ``sky-is-falling'' alarmist perspective, and he added:

       It will take years of continued surveying to know whether 
     anything here [in Greenland] is ``accelerating'' toward 
     catastrophe, as the article [featuring Corell] claims.

  So much for Greenland. Let's look at Antarctica for more evidence on 
the Earth's current climate. It is not changing in an alarming manner, 
and you need to look no further than the South Pole.
  Scientists monitoring ice in Antarctica reported on October 1 that 
the ice has grown to record levels since 1979, when satellite 
monitoring began. So the ice levels have grown to record levels since 
that time, according to an announcement by the University of Illinois 
Polar Research Group Web site.

       The Southern Hemisphere sea ice area has broken the 
     previous maximum of 16.03 million square kilometers and is 
     currently at 16.26 million square kilometers.

  There is more. A February 2007 study reveals Antarctica is not 
following predicted global warming temperature or precipitation models. 
This is a quote from the scientists studying that:

       A new report on climate over the world's southernmost 
     continent shows that temperatures during the late 20th 
     century did not climb as had been predicted by many global 
     climate models.

  The study was conducted by David Bromwich, professor of atmospheric 
sciences in the Department of Geography, and research with the Byrd 
Polar Research Center at Ohio State University.
  How inconvenient that the two poster children of alarmism--Greenland 
and Antarctica--trumpeted by Al Gore and the climate fear mongers have 
decided not to cooperate with the computer models.
  There is much more evidence that the Earth is currently well within 
natural climate variability.
  The Southern Hemisphere is cooling, according to U.N. scientist, Dr. 
Madhav Khandekar. Keep in mind this is a U.N. scientist, a retired 
environmental Canadian scientist, and an expert IPCC reviewer in 2007. 
He explained this on August 6, 2007, and these are all new scientific 
findings:

       In the Southern Hemisphere, the land-area mean temperature 
     has slowly but surely declined in the last few years. The 
     city of Buenes Aires in Argentina received several 
     centimeters of snowfall in early July, and the last time it 
     snowed in Buenos Aires was in 1918. Most of Australia 
     experienced one of its coldest months in June of this year. 
     Several other locations in the Southern Hemisphere have 
     experienced lower temperatures in the last few years. 
     Further, the sea surface temperatures over world oceans are 
     slowly declining since mid-1998, according to a recent 
     worldwide analysis of ocean surface temperatures.

  I don't think many people would disagree. The Southern Hemisphere is 
part of the globe, and it has been getting cooler over the past few 
years.
  The media would not report on the historical perspective of 
Greenland, the ice growing in Antarctica, or the Southern Hemisphere 
cooling. Instead, the media's current fixation is on hyping Arctic sea 
ice shifts.
  What the media is refusing to report about the North Pole is that 
according to a 2003 study by an Arctic scientist, Igor Polyakov, the 
warmest period in the Arctic during the 20th century was the late 1930s 
through the early 1940s. We are talking about the Northern Hemisphere 
now. Many scientists believe if we had satellite monitoring of the 
Arctic back then, it may have shown less ice than today.
  According to a 2005 peer-reviewed study in the Geophysical Research 
Letters by an astrophysicist, Dr. Willie Soon, solar irradiance appears 
to be the key to Arctic temperatures. The study found Arctic 
temperatures follow the pattern of increasing or decreasing energy 
received from the Sun. That is a unique thought--that the Sun is 
causing warmth.
  In another 2005 study published in the Journal of Climate, Brian 
Hartmann and Gerd Wendler linked the 1976 Pacific climate shift to a 
very significant

[[Page 28490]]

one-time shift upward in Alaskan temperatures. These evidence-based 
scientific studies debunk fears of manmade warming in the Arctic and in 
Alaska.
  I have covered the latest science on both poles. In the Southern 
Hemisphere, scientists are finding nothing to be alarmed about. It is 
important to point out that the phase of global warming that started in 
1979 has itself been halted since 1998, which is nearly a decade. In 
other words, the warming that took place, which I believe is from 
natural causes, stopped in 1998. It is not getting warmer anymore. You 
can almost hear my critics skeptical of that assertion.
  According to the temperature data that the U.N. relies on, 
paleoclimate scientist Dr. Bob Carter, who testified before the Senate 
Committee on Environment and Public Works, noted this on June 18 of 
this year, and this is significant:

       The accepted global average temperature statistics used by 
     the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no 
     ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this 
     eight-year-long temperature stability has occurred despite an 
     increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 
     percent) in atmospheric CO2. Second, lower 
     atmospheric satellite-based temperature measurements, if 
     corrected for non-greenhouse influences, such as El Nino 
     events and large volcanic eruptions, show little if any 
     global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric 
     CO2 has increased by 55 parts per million (17 
     percent).

  Yet it is true that 1998 was influenced by the warming effect of 
particularly strong El Nino. But lest you think Dr. Carter somehow 
misinterpreted the data, I have more evidence to bury any skepticism.
  The U.K. Met Office, the British version of our National Weather 
Service, was finally forced to concede the obvious in August of this 
year: Global warming has stopped.
  After the U.K. Met Office--a group fully entrenched in the global 
warming fear movement--was forced to acknowledge this inconvenient 
truth in August, they could not help but whip up a way to continue 
stoking manmade climate alarm.
  How can you do that if you are saying it is no longer warming? This 
is how they did it.
  Their response was to promote yet more unproven dire computer model 
projections of the future. They now claim climate computer models 
predict ``global warming will begin in earnest in 2009'' because 
greenhouse emissions will then overtake natural climate variability.
  What he is saying is, they are admitting--it hurts them to do this--
that the warming has stopped. But they say, well, it is going to start 
again in 2009.
  Hyping yet more unproven computer models of the future in response to 
inconvenient real-world, evidence-based data is the only thing they 
have left for promoters of manmade climate doom. But it is a bit 
refreshing to hear climate doomsters be forced to utter the phrases 
such as ``natural climate variability,'' something they do not like to 
talk about and never have.
  Meteorologist Joseph Conklin recently weighed in on these new 
developments.
  Conklin wrote in August:

       A few months ago, a study came out that demonstrated global 
     temperatures have leveled off. But instead of possibly 
     admitting that this whole global warming thing is a farce, a 
     group of British scientists concluded the real global warming 
     won't start until 2009.

  Here is somebody else talking about it.
  This new claim that ``global warming will begin in earnest in 2009'' 
sounds like the reverse of the 1930s Great Depression slogan of 
``Prosperity is just around the corner.'' Only in this instance the 
wording has been changed, ``A climate catastrophe is just around the 
corner.''
  Again, I was quoting meteorologist Joseph Conklin.
  This is not to say that global average temperatures may not rise 
again--change is what the Earth naturally and continually does, and 
part of this is temperatures fluctuating both up and down. However, the 
awkward halting of global warming since 1998 despite rising emissions 
is yet another indication that CO2 levels and temperature 
are not the simple relationship many would have us believe.
  Another key development in 2007 is the research led by metrologist 
Anthony Watts of surfacestation.org which has revealed massive U.S. 
temperature collection data errors biasing thermometers to have warmer 
readings.
  Meteorologist Conklin explained on August 10--a couple months ago--
2007:

       The (U.S.) National Climate Data Center is in the middle of 
     a scandal. Their global observing network, the heart and soul 
     of surface weather measurement, is a disaster. Urbanization 
     has placed many sites--

  Measuring sites he is talking about--

     in unsuitable locations--on hot black asphalt, next to trash 
     burn barrels, beside heat exhaust vents, even attached to hot 
     chimneys and above outdoor grills. The data and approach 
     taken by many global warming alarmists is seriously flawed. 
     If the global data were properly adjusted for urbanization 
     and station siting, and land use change issues were 
     addressed, what would emerge is a cyclical pattern of rises 
     and falls with much less of any background trend.

  That is all a quote by meteorologist Conklin.
  Adding to the further chilling of warming fears is a NASA data error 
correction that made 1934 the warmest year, and not 1998. Always 
before, they had been talking about 1998. Now NASA has come back--and 
no one seems to be refuting this--and said it was 1934 that was the 
hottest year.
  Perhaps the most humorous reaction to this inconvenient correction 
came from NASA's James Hansen who tried to minimize the data error in 
August when he wrote:

       No need to read further unless you are interested in 
     temperature changes to a tenth of a degree over the U.S.

  This comment was particularly outlandish, given that Hansen has 
become a media darling in recent years by hyping temperature 
differences of ``tenth of a degree'' to any reporter within ear shot.
  I now move to central point No. 2, the unproven computer models that 
are driving climate fears.
  It is hard to describe what a computer model is. But anytime you try 
to make a projection into the future, you try to have a model you can 
rely on instead of relying on data that is current and accurate. Even 
the New York Times has been forced to acknowledge the overwhelming 
evidence that the Earth is currently well within natural climate 
variation. This inconvenient reality means all the climate doomsdayers 
have to back up their claims, their climate fears are unproven computer 
models predicting future doom. Of course, you can't prove a prediction 
of the climate in 2100 wrong today, which reduces the models to 
speculating on what could or might or may happen 50 or 100 years from 
now.
  But prominent U.N. scientists publicly questioned the reliability of 
computer models.
  Again, only a few months ago, in June of this year, in a candid 
statement, IPCC scientist--this is a U.N. scientist--Dr. Jim Renwick, a 
leading author of the U.N. IPCC 4th Assessment Report, publicly 
admitted that climate models may not be so reliable after all.
  Renwick stated:

       Half of the variability in the climate system is not 
     predictable, so we don't expect to do terrifically well.

  Let me say that again. A U.N. scientist admitted ``half the 
variability in the climate system is not predictable. . . .''
  In June, another high profile U.N. IPCC lead author, Dr. Kevin 
Trenberth, echoed Renwick's sentiments about the climate models by 
referring to them as nothing more than ``story lines.''
  Climate models made by unlicensed software engineers are of great 
concern to a lot of people. A leading scientific skeptic, meteorologist 
Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of 
numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The 
Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute, recently took the 
critique of climate computer models one step further.
  Tennekes said in February of 2007:

       I am of the opinion that most scientists engaged in the 
     design, development, and tuning of climate models are, in 
     fact, software

[[Page 28491]]

     engineers. They are unlicensed, hence unqualified to sell 
     their products to society.

  Meteorologist Augie Auer of the New Zealand Climate Science 
Coalition, former professor of atmospheric sciences at the University 
of Wyoming, agreed, describing models this way:

       It's virtual science, it's virtual reality.

  Auer joked:

       Most of these climate predictions are models, they are 
     about a half a step ahead of PlayStation 3.

  I guess that is some kind of kid's video game.

       They're really not justified in what they are saying. Many 
     of the assumptions going into [the models] are simply not 
     right.

  Auer said this in May of 2007 in New Zealand in a radio interview.
  Predictions simply cannot happen. Prominent scientist Professor Nils-
Axel Morner also denounced computer models in August of 2007, saying:

       The rapid rise in sea levels predicted by computer models 
     simply cannot happen.

  They are not going to happen.
  Morner is a leading world authority on sea levels and coastal erosion 
who headed the Department of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics at Stockholm 
University. Morner, who was president of the Commission on Sea Level 
Changes and Coastal Evolution from 1999 to 2003, has published a new 
booklet refuting climate model claims of catastrophic sea level rise.
  Physicist Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, the former director of both the 
University of Alaska Fairbanks' Geophysical Institute and International 
Arctic Research Center, told a congressional hearing in 2006 that 
highly publicized computer models showing a disappearing Arctic were 
nothing more than ``science fiction.'' Akasofu has twice been named one 
of the ``1,000 Most Cited Scientists.''
  It gets kind of boring and hard to understand when I talk about the 
qualifications of these scientists. I have to say it because the other 
side is using people who are not of this caliber. This is what the real 
scientists are saying today.
  Geologist Morten Hald, an Arctic expert at the University of Tromso 
in Norway, has also questioned the reliability of computer models that 
predict a future melting of the Arctic. He says:

       The main problem is that these models are often based on 
     relatively new climate data. The thermometer has only been in 
     existence for 150 years and information on temperature which 
     is 150 years old does not capture the large natural changes.

  Hald, who is participating with a Norwegian national team in Arctic 
climate research, made this statement in May of 2007.
  Physicist Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the Institute for 
Advanced Study at Princeton, called himself a ``heretic'' on global 
warming and slammed computer models as unreliable. Keep in mind, I am 
talking about a professor emeritus at the Institute of Advanced Study 
at Princeton University. These are smart guys. ``The fuss about global 
warming is grossly exaggerated,'' writes Dyson in his 2007 book called 
``Many Colored Glass: Reflections on the Place of Life in the 
Universe'' published in August.
  Dyson is a fellow of the American Physical Society, a member of the 
U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and a fellow in the Royal Society of 
London.
  Dyson focuses on debunking climate model predictions of climate doom. 
There is no one more qualified than the man I just described. He said:

       They do not begin to describe the real world that we live 
     in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that 
     we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist 
     to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models 
     than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really 
     happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why 
     the climate model experts end up believing their own models.

  Gore was recently challenged to a bet on climate model accuracy. 
Internationally known forecasting pioneer, Dr. Scott Armstrong of the 
Ivy League University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School--that is the 
Wharton School of Economics--challenged Gore to a $10,000 bet in June 
over the accuracy of climate computer model predictions. Armstrong and 
his colleague, Professor Kesten Green of Monash University's business 
and economic forecasting unit in Australia, found ``claims that the 
Earth will get warmer have no more credence than saying it will get 
colder.'' According to Armstrong, the author of ``Long-Range 
Forecasting,'' the most frequently cited book on forecasting methods, 
``of 89 principles [of forecasting], the [UN] IPCC violated 72.'' That 
is the United Nations. They violated 72 of the 89 principles of 
forecasting.
  Internationally renowned scientist Dr. Antonino Zichichi, president 
of the World Federation of Scientists, has also taken climate models to 
task.
  According to an April 27, 2007 article, Zichichi, who has published 
over 800 scientific papers, said:

       The mathematical models used by the [United Nations] IPCC 
     do not correspond to the criteria of the scientific method.

  IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand, 
an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back 
to 1990, ridiculed the United Nations process as ``dangerous scientific 
nonsense.'' Gray, the author of ``Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 
Climate Change 2001,'' explained on April 10, 2007:

       My greatest achievement was the second [U.N.] report where 
     the draft had a chapter ``Validation of Climate Models.'' I 
     commented that since no climate model has ever been 
     ``validated'' that the word was inappropriate. They changed 
     the word to ``evaluate'' 50 times, and since then they have 
     never ``predicted'' anything. All they do is make 
     ``projections'' and ``estimates.''

  In fact, so much of climate computer modeling is based on taking 
temperature data from a very short timeframe and extrapolating it out 
over 50 or 100 years or more and coming up with terrifying, scary 
scenarios. There is often no attempt to look at the longer geologic 
record.
  But much of this type of modeling has about as much validity as me 
taking my 5-year-old granddaughter's growth rate from the last 2 years 
and using that to project her height when she is 25. My projections may 
show she will be 12 feet high at that time. Yet that is exactly how 
many of these computer model fears of the future are generated for sea 
level rise estimates on ice melt projections in places such as 
Greenland and the Arctic and other locations.
  Once again, computer model predictions are not evidence.
  Earlier this month, yet another report was issued based on future 
computer models finding that polar bear populations are allegedly going 
to be devastated by 2050 due to global warming. The report was issued 
as part of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service consideration of listing 
the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act.
  This is a classic case of reality versus unproven computer model 
predictions. The Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that the polar 
bear population is currently at 20,000 to 25,000 bears, whereas in the 
fifties and sixties, estimates were as low as 5,000 to 10,000 bears. We 
currently have an estimated four or five times more polar bears than 50 
years ago.
  We have a 2002 U.S. Geological Survey of wildlife in the Arctic 
Refuge Coastal Plain that noted the polar bear populations ``may now be 
near historic highs.''
  Top biologists and wildlife experts are dismissing unproven computer 
model concerns for polar bears. Yet we still see the polar bears out 
there. Everybody feels sorry for the polar bears. There are some 13 
populations of polar bears and all but 2 of them are thriving, many 
increasing rapidly.
  In 2006, Canadian biologist Dr. Mitchell Taylor, the director of 
wildlife research with the Arctic government of Nunavut, dismissed 
these fears with evidence-based data on Canada's polar bear 
populations.
  ``Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or 
increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be 
affected at present,'' Taylor said, noting that Canada is home to two-
thirds of the world's polar bears.
  In other words, they are in Canada under his jurisdiction.

       Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are 
     stable or increasing in number.

[[Page 28492]]

     They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at 
     present.

  He added:

       It is just silly to predict the demise of polar bears in 25 
     years based on media-assisted hysteria.

  In September, Taylor further debunked the latest report hyping the 
fears of future polar bear extinctions. He said, ``I think it is naive 
and presumptuous,'' referring to the recent report on the U.S. 
Government warning that computer models predicted a dire future for the 
bears due to projected ice loss.
  Taylor also debunked a notion that less sea ice means less polar 
bears by pointing out that southern regions of the bears' home with low 
levels of ice are seeing booming bear populations. He noted that in the 
warmer southern Canadian region of Davis Strait with lower levels of 
ice, a new survey will reveal that bear populations have grown from an 
estimated 850 bears to an estimated 3,000 bears. And despite the lower 
levels of ice, some of the bears measured in this region are among the 
biggest ever on record.
  ``Davis Strait is crawling with bears.'' I am quoting him again. ``It 
is not safe to camp there. They are fat. The mothers have cubs. The 
cubs are in good shape,'' he said, according to a September 14, 2007 
article.
  He added, ``That's not theory. That's not based on a model. That's 
just observation of reality.''
  Other biologists are equally dismissive of these computer model-based 
fears. Biologist Josef Reichholf, who heads the Vertebrates Department 
at the National Zoological Collection in Munich, rejected climate fears 
and asserted any potential global warming may be beneficial to both 
humans and animals.
  In a May 8, 2007 interview, Reichholf asked, ``How did the polar bear 
survive the last warm period?'' Reichfolf also debunked the entire 
notion that the warmer world will lead to a mass species extinction.

       Warming temperatures promote biodiversity. The number of 
     species increases exponentially from the regions near the 
     poles, across the moderate latitudes and to the equator. To 
     put it succinctly, the warmer the region is the more diverse 
     are its species.

  Botanist David Bellamy--this is kind of interesting because David 
Bellamy used to be on the other side. He was a famous U.K. 
environmental campaigner and former lecturer at Durham University and 
host of a TV series on wildlife. He also dismissed fears of a global 
warming driving polar bear demise.
  Keep in mind, this is David Bellamy of the U.K., who was at one time 
marching down the streets hand in hand with Al Gore, saying the world 
is coming to an end.

       Why scare the families of the world with tales that polar 
     bears are heading for extinction when there is good evidence 
     that there are now twice as many of these iconic animals . . 
     . than there were 20 years ago?

  Bellamy asked on May 15. There are twice as many as there were 20 
years ago.
  Bellamy concluded:

       The climate change people have no proof for their claims. 
     They have computer models which do not prove anything.

  The bottom line is that the attempt to list the polar bear under the 
Endangered Species Act is not based on any evidence that the polar bear 
populations are declining or in trouble. It is based on computer models 
fraught with uncertainties. I hope we made that point very clear. The 
truth is we clearly don't know enough about polar bear populations to 
make an argument about their listing. What we do know is their 
populations have dramatically increased over the past 30 or 40 years. 
It is about trying to bring about climate change regulation using the 
most powerful, development-stopping law of the land, the Endangered 
Species Act. Polar bears are being used to achieve long-sought leftwing 
environmental regulatory policies.
  We had four essential points. The third essential point is debunking 
the relationship that the more CO2, a warmer world. The 
third critical point on global warming is to debunk the notion that the 
more CO2, the warmer the world as simplistic. Scientists and 
peer-reviewed scientists are increasingly revealing that catastrophic 
climate fears of rising CO2 are simply unsustainable.
  In May 2007, the ``father of meteorology,'' Dr. Reid Bryson, the 
founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at the University of 
Wisconsin, dismissed the rising CO2 fears very bluntly. He 
said:

       You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as 
     doubling carbon dioxide.

  Bryson has been identified by the British Institute of Geographers as 
the most frequently cited climatologist in the world. He explained that 
one of the reasons climate models are failing is because they 
overestimate the warming effect of CO2 in the atmosphere.
  Climatologist Dr. Ball described how CO2's warming impact 
diminishes. A quote from Dr. Timothy Ball:

       Even if CO2 concentration doubles or triples, 
     the effect would be minimal. The relationship between 
     temperature and CO2 is like painting a window 
     black to block the sunlight. The first coat blocks most of 
     the light. The second and third reduce very little more. The 
     current CO2 levels are like the first coat of 
     black paint, Ball explained in June of 2007.

  Environmental economist Dennis Avery, co-author with climate 
scientist Dr. Fred Singer of the new book ``Unstoppable Global Warming 
Every 1500 years,'' details how solar activity is linked to the Earth's 
natural temperature cycles. These two scientists are quoted as saying, 
in their book:

       The Earth has warmed only a net of .2 degrees centigrade of 
     net warming since 1940. Human-emitted CO2 gets 
     blamed for only half of that--

  Even those who are the hysterical people say only half of that would 
go to manmade gases, anthropogenic gases, CO2, methane, as 
we talked about earlier.

     --or one tenth of 1 degree centigrade of warming in 65 years. 
     We've had no warming at all since 1998. Remember, too, each 
     added unit of CO2 has less impact on the climate. 
     The first 40 parts per million of human-emitted 
     CO2 added to the atmosphere in the 1940s had as 
     much climate impact as the next 360 parts per million.

  Perhaps the most inconvenient fact for the promoters of climate doom 
is the abundance of new peer-reviewed papers echoing these many more 
scientists' skeptical views. Keep in mind, these are new studies, the 
debunking of alarmism that have been published since 2007.
  That is this year, I say to the distinguished occupier of the chair, 
that we have been talking about, just what has happened in the last 6 
or 7 months.
  A new peer-reviewed study by Brookhaven National Lab scientist 
Stephen Schwartz, accepted for publication in the Journal of 
Geophysical Research, finds that even a doubling of atmospheric carbon 
dioxide would not have the previous predicted dire impacts on global 
temperatures. In fact, this paper implies that we have already seen 
almost all of the warming from CO2 that mankind has put into 
the atmosphere.
  The study is in agreement with the views of the 60 prominent 
scientists who advised the Canadian Prime Minister to withdraw from 
Kyoto in 2006. The 60 scientists noted global climate changes all the 
time due to natural causes and the human impact still remain impossible 
to distinguish from this natural ``noise.''
  Astronomer Dr. Ian Wilson proclaimed in August of 2007 that the new 
Schwartz study means ``Anthropogenic--that is man-made global warming--
bites the dust.''
  Those are their words, not mine.
  American Enterprise Institute scientist Joel Schwartz also agreed. He 
said:

       Along with dozens of other studies in the scientific 
     literature, this new study belies Al Gore's claim that there 
     is no legitimate scholarly alternative to climate 
     catastrophism. Indeed, if [this study's] results are correct, 
     that alone would be enough to overturn, in one fell swoop, 
     the United Nations scientific consensus--I say in quotes--the 
     ``environmentalists'' climate hysteria, and the political 
     pretext for the energy-restriction policies that have become 
     so popular with the world's environmental regulators, elected 
     officials, and corporations. The question is, will anyone in 
     the mainstream media notice?

  This is all a quote by the scientist.
  A former Harvard physicist, Dr. Lubos Motl, said the new study has 
reduced proponents of manmade climate

[[Page 28493]]

fears to ``playing the children's game to scare each other.''
  Now, just look at a sampling of the recent peer review studies 
debunking the issues. There are many others I could talk about, but I 
am just going to name a few here, things all happening this year, 2007.
  No. 1, an August 2007 peer-reviewed study Published in Geophysical 
Research Letters finds global warming over last century linked to 
natural causes. Excerpt: The study, by scientists at the University of 
Wisconsin-Milwaukee, was entitled ``Synchronized Chaos: Mechanisms For 
Major Climate Shifts.'' The author's found that ``By studying the last 
100 years of these [natural] cycles' patterns, they find that the 
systems synchronized several times.'' The authors show that this 
mechanism explains all global temperature tendency changes and El Nino 
variability in the 20th century.''
  No. 2, a September peer-reviewed study counters global warming 
theory, by finding carbon dioxide did not end the last Ice Age. The 
study found: ``Deep-sea temperatures rose 1,300 years before 
atmospheric CO2, ruling out the greenhouse gas as driver of 
meltdown. The lead author geologist Lowell Stott, explained: ``The 
climate dynamic is much more complex than simply saying that 
CO2 rises and the temperature warms.''
  No. 3, an October 2007 study by the Danish National Space Center 
Study concluded: ``The Sun still appears to be the main forcing agent 
in global climate change.'' This study was authored by Physicist Henrik 
Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen.
  No. 4, a Belgian weather institute's August 2007 study dismissed the 
decisive role of CO2 in warming. Here is an excerpt about 
the study: ``CO2 is not the big bogeyman of climate change 
and global warming. This is the conclusion of a comprehensive 
scientific study done by the Royal Meteorological Institute, which was 
published this past summer. Climate scientist Luc Debontridder 
explained: ``Not CO2, but water vapor is the most important 
greenhouse gas. It is responsible for at least 75 percent of the 
greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore's 
movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note 
of it.''
  No. 5, an August peer-reviewed study finds clouds may greatly reduce 
global warming. Paragraph No. 2, a new peer-reviewed--
  I use ``peer reviewed'' quite often to show these are documented. 
These are studies that have been reviewed by the peers, by other 
scientists, and found to be true.
  No. 5, an August peer-reviewed study finds clouds may greatly reduce 
global warming: Here is an excerpt about the study: ``This study 
published on August 9, 2007 in the Geophysical Research Letters finds 
that climate models fail to adequately take into account the effects of 
clouds. The study shows that tropical rainfall events are accompanied 
by a decrease in high ice clouds, thus allowing more infrared heat 
radiation to escape to space. Author Dr. Roy Spencer of the University 
of Alabama Huntsville said: ``At least 80 percent of the Earth's 
natural greenhouse effect is due to water vapor and clouds, and those 
are largely under the control of precipitation systems. Until we 
understand how precipitation systems change with warming, I don't 
believe we can know how much of our current warming is manmade. Without 
that knowledge, we can't predict future climate change with any degree 
of certainty.''
  Spencer, formerly a senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's 
Marshall Space Flight Center where he received NASA's Exceptional 
Scientific Achievement Medal, believes that the Earth self-regulates 
its own temperature.

       In fact, for the amount of solar energy available to it, 
     our climate seems to have a ``preferred'' average 
     temperature, damping out swings beyond one degree or so. I 
     believe that, through various negative feedback mechanisms, 
     the atmosphere ``decides'' how much of the available sunlight 
     will be allowed in, how much greenhouse effect it will 
     generate in response, and what the average temperature will 
     be.

  No. 6, a new peer-reviewed study finds that the solar system 
regulates the earth's climate--The paper, authored by Richard Mackey, 
is published August 17, 2007, in the Journal of Coastal Research. Here 
is an excerpt about the paper: ``According to the findings reviewed in 
this paper, the variable output of the sun, the 31 sun's gravitational 
relationship between the earth (and the moon) and earth's variable 
orbital relationship with the sun, regulate the earth's climate.''
  No. 7, Chinese scientists Lin Zhen-Shan, and Sun Xian's 2007 study, 
published in the peer-reviewed Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, 
noted that CO2 impact on warming may be ``excessively 
exaggerated.'' Here is an excerpt: ``The global climate warming is not 
solely affected by the CO2 greenhouse effect. The best 
example is temperature obviously cooling however atmospheric 
CO2 concentration is ascending from 1940s to 1970s. Although 
the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change is 
unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated. It is high 
time to reconsider the trend of global climate change,'' the two 
scientists concluded.
  No. 8, a Team of Scientists Question The Validity of a ``Global 
Temperature''--The study was published in Journal of Non-Equilibrium 
Thermodynamics. A March 18, 2007 article in Science Daily explained: 
``Discussions on global warming often refer to `global temperature.' 
Yet the concept is thermodynamically as well as mathematically an 
impossibility, says Bjarne Andresen, a professor at The Niels Bohr 
Institute, University of Copenhagen.
  ``It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something 
as complicated as the climate of Earth'', Bjarne Andresen says, an 
expert of thermodynamics. According to Andresen: ``The Globe consists 
of a huge number of components which one cannot just add up and 
average. That would correspond to calculating the average phone number 
in the phone book. That is meaningless.''
  No. 9, an April 2007 study revealed the Earth's climate ``seesawing'' 
during the last 10,000 years, according to Swedish researchers at Lund 
University. An excerpt of the study states: ``During the last 10,000 
years climate has been seesawing between the North and South Atlantic 
Oceans. As revealed by findings presented by scientists at Lund 
University in Sweden, cold periods in the north have corresponded to 
warmth in the south and vice verse. These results imply that Europe may 
face a slightly cooler future than predicted by IPCC, the 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
  No. 10, a new peer-reviewed study on Surface Warming and the Solar 
Cycle published in Geophysical Research Letters by scientists from the 
University of Washington claims to be ``the first to document a 
statistically significant globally coherent temperature response to the 
solar cycle,'' according to an August 2, 2007 Science Daily article. 
The paper found ``that times of high solar activity are on average 0.2 
degrees C warmer than times of low solar activity.'' Despite the fact 
that one of the co-author's protests this study being used to chill 
climate fears, this paper is an important contribution to establishing 
the solar climate link.
  No. 11, in 2007, even the alarmist UN IPCC reduced its sea level rise 
estimates significantly, thus reducing man's estimated impact on the 
climate by 25 percent. Meanwhile, a separate UN report in late 2006 
found that cow emissions are more damaging to the planet than all of 
the CO2 emissions from cars and trucks. Stating it in a 
different way, the gasses released by stock actually exceed the 
CO2 in the atmosphere from all the cars and trucks in the 
transportation sector.
  No. 12, the UN Climate Panel has been accused of possible research 
fraud. Here is an excerpt: Douglas J. Keenan, a former Morgan Stanley 
[finance man] and current independent mathematical researcher, accused 
the UN of ``fabrications'' and ``discovered that the sources used by 
the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) have disregarded 
the positions of weather stations.'' Keenan has accused the UN of 
``intentionally using outdated data

[[Page 28494]]

on China from 1991 and ignoring revised data on the country from 
1997.''
  No. 13, a study in the summer 2007 American Association of Petroleum 
Geologists publication debunked global warming fears. The study by 
Geologist C. Robert Shoup, was entitled ``Science Under Attack.'' It 
concluded: ``The hypothesis of Anthropogenic Global Warming does not 
yet meet the basic scientific standards of proof needed to be accepted 
as a viable hypothesis, much less as accepted fact.''
  Again, I stress that these research studies are but a sampling of the 
new science flowing in that is starting to overwhelm the fear campaigns 
of the global warming alarmists.
  I frequently get asked by warming activists whether I can name a 
single peer-reviewed study disagreeing with Gore or the UN Summary for 
Policymakers.
  As you can see, the skeptic's cup overflows with recent scientific 
studies.
  Everything I mentioned refutes that.
  In addition to the above recent sampling of new studies, I also refer 
to the more than 100 scientific studies by more than 300 coauthors that 
are cited in the new book ``Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 
Years'' by the climate scientist Dr. Fred Singer and Dennis Avery. The 
book details extensive research going back decades to reveal how solar 
activity is linked to the Earth's natural climate cycle. Again, we are 
talking about the sun, we are talking about natural variants.
  Geophysicist Dr. David Deming, associate professor of arts and 
sciences at the University of Oklahoma--very proud of him--explained in 
January of this year:

       No one has ever died from global warming. What kills people 
     is cold, not heat. For more than 150 years, it has been 
     documented in the medical literature that human mortality 
     rates are highest in the winter when temperatures are the 
     coldest.

  Perhaps the most scathing indictment of the ``more CO2 
equals a warmer world'' simplicity comes from Ivy League geologist Dr. 
Robert Giegengack, the chair of the Department of Earth and 
Environmental Science at--I call to the attention of the Presiding 
Officer--the University of Pennsylvania. Giegengack voted for Gore in 
2000, says he would do so again. He is a Gore fan, but he is appalled 
by Gore's ignorance of climate science. Here is a guy who--he voted for 
him, and he would vote for him again. He says to his undergraduates: 
Every single one of you knows more about global warming than Al Gore.
  This is the chair of the Department of Earth and Environmental 
Science at the University of Pennsylvania, a very fine, well-known 
institution. Giegengack said:

       Gore claims that temperature increases solely because more 
     CO2 in the atmosphere traps the sun's heat. That's 
     just wrong. It is a natural interplay. It's hard for us to 
     say that CO2 drives temperature. It's easier to 
     say temperature drives CO2.

  He said:

       The driving mechanism is exactly the opposite of what Al 
     Gore claims, both in his film and in that book. It's the 
     temperature that, through those 650,000 years, controlled the 
     CO2; not the CO2 that controlled the 
     temperature.

  I do not think anyone refutes that anymore. If I said this a year 
ago, everyone would be up in arms. But now all of them are agreeing. It 
is the temperature that is controlling the CO2.
  Now, this might be a bit technical, but what Giegengack is saying 
here is that it is temperatures that control CO2. This is 
crucial to the understanding of the reason why the scientific 
underpinnings of manmade global warming fears are utterly collapsing 
and the climate models are continuing to fail.
  Let me repeat a key point Dr. Giegengack makes. He said: If we 
reduced the rate at which we put carbon into the atmosphere, it will 
not reduce the concentration in the atmosphere; CO2 is just 
going to come back out of these reservoirs.
  There are various natural reservoirs such as oceans, soils, 
permafrost, et cetera. Giegengack is explaining the heart of the 
scientific skepticism about CO2's role in the Earth's 
climate system.
  He is not finished. He said:

       In terms of global warming's capacity to cause human 
     species harm, I don't think it makes it into the top 10. 
     [Giegengack said in an interview in the May/June 2007 issue 
     of the Pennsylvania Gazette.]

  So it is entirely appropriate that a man who supports Gore 
politically may be putting the final nail in the coffin of manmade 
global warming fears.
  The global warming scare machine is now so tenuous that other liberal 
environmental scientists and activists are now joining Giegengack and 
condemning the entire basis for manmade global warming concerns.
  This is kind of interesting. I am going to be quoting Denis Rancourt, 
a professor of physics and an environmental science researcher at the 
University of Ottawa. He believes that the global warming campaign does 
a disservice to the environmental movement. He is a big 
environmentalist. He wants people to be concerned about the 
environment. He says: But they are a doing a disservice.
  Rancourt wrote, on February 27, 2007:

       Promoting the global warming myth trains people to accept 
     unverified, remote, and abstract dangers in the place of true 
     problems that they can discover for themselves by becoming 
     directly engaged in their workplace and by doing their own 
     research and observations. It trains people to think 
     lifestyle choices, in relation to CO2 emission, 
     rather than to think activism in the sense of exerting an 
     influence to change societal structures.

  Rancourt believes that global warming:

       Will not become humankind's greatest threat until the sun 
     has its next hiccup in a billion years or more in the very 
     unlikely scenario that we are still be around.

  He also noted that even if CO2 emissions were a grave 
threat, Government action and political will cannot measurably or 
significantly ameliorate global climate in the present world.
  Most significantly, however, Rancourt, a committed leftwing activist 
and scientist--that is whom we are talking about--he believes 
environmentalists have been duped into promoting global warming as a 
crisis. This is a far leftwing environmentalist type. He said:

       I argue that by far the most destructive force on the 
     planet is profit-driven corporations and their cartels backed 
     by military might; and that the global warming myth is a red 
     herring that contributes to hiding this truth. In my opinion, 
     activists who, using any justification, feed the global 
     warming myth have effectively been co-opted, or at best 
     neutralized. Global warming is strictly an imaginary problem 
     for the First World middleclass.

  Again, this is a very well-known far leftwing scientist by the name 
of Rancourt.
  Finally, Rancourt asserted that in a warm world, life prospers.

       There is no known case of a sustained warming alone having 
     a negative impact on an entire population. As a general rule, 
     all life on earth does better when it is hotter. Compare 
     ecological diversity and biotic density, or biomass, at the 
     poles and at the equator.

  Indeed, 2007 has turned into the ``tipping point'' for 
unsubstantiated fears and gross distortion of science by activists who 
have committed decades trying to convince the world it faced a manmade 
climate crisis. Rancourt so eloquently describes the entire movement as 
one featuring unverified, remote, and abstract dangers.
  Perhaps the biggest shock to the global warming debate was the 
conversion of the renowned French geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre from 
a believer in the dangerous manmade warming fears to a skeptic just 
last year. This is a guy--Dr. Claude Allegre, former French Socialist 
Party leader and a member of both the French and the U.S. Academies of 
Science--who was one of the first scientists around to sound global 
warming fears 20 years ago. Now, this is a guy who was walking down the 
streets with Al Gore 10 years ago holding hands, saying: The world is 
coming to an end, the heat is upon us now, and we are going to have to 
do something. That was the 20 years ago and 10 years ago. But he now 
says--this is as of this year, 2007--the cause of climate change is 
unknown. He ridiculed what he termed the ``prophets of doom of global 
warming'' in a September 2006 article.
  Allegre has authored more than 100 scientific articles and written 11 
books

[[Page 28495]]

and received numerous scientific awards, including the Goldschmidt 
Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States. He now 
believes the global warming hysteria is motivated by money.

       The ecology of helpless protesting has become a very 
     lucrative business for some people.

  I find it ironic that a free market conservative Member of the Senate 
such as myself and a French Socialist scientist both apparently agree 
that sound science is not what is driving this debate; it is money.
  I just say bravo for the growing scientific dissent. It is not easy 
for these guys who took a hard position just a few years ago to change 
their minds. You do not have to believe me. In October, Washington Post 
staff writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that the 
climate skeptics ``appear to be expanding rather than shrinking.''
  These are the people, the climate science skeptics, those individuals 
who believed that global warming was causing all of those problems, 
that manmade gases, methane, CO2, were causing climate 
change. They are on the other side now.
  Washington Post's Eilperin wrote--and, of course, the Washington Post 
is not known to be a very conservative publication:

       In late May, Michael Griffin, Administrator of NASA, which 
     conducts considerable amounts of climate research, told 
     National Public Radio that he was not sure climate change was 
     a problem we must wrestle with and that it was rather 
     arrogant to suggest that the climate we have now represents 
     the best possible set of conditions.

  Alexander Cockburn, a maverick journalist who leans left on most 
topics, lambasted the global warming consensus last spring on the 
political Web site counterpunch.org, arguing that there is no evidence 
yet that humans are causing the rise of global temperature.
  These are liberals we are talking about, in fairly liberal 
publications.
  Leftwing professor David Noble of Canada's York University has joined 
the growing chorus of disenchanted liberal activists. Noble now 
believes that the movement has ``hyped the global climate issue into an 
obsession.'' Noble wrote a May 8 essay entitled ``Corporate Climate 
Coup'' which details how global warming has ``hijacked'' the 
environmental left and created a ``corporate climate campaign'' which 
has ``diverted attention from the radical challenges of the global 
justice movement.''
  Finally, I would say that world leaders such as Czech President 
Vaclav Klaus and former German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt have been 
outspoken in their climate skepticism. Schmidt said on June 4 of this 
year that fears of global warming were ``hysterical'' and 
``overheated.'' He called efforts to control the earth's temperature 
``idiotic.''
  Former Vice President Gore's biggest worry is now coming true; 
previously committed believers in manmade global warming are now 
converting to skeptics after reviewing the new science.
  Well, the new science is changing minds. The 60 prominent scientists, 
many of whom advised the Canadian Prime Minister--I mentioned this 
before. This is very significant. These are the guys in the 1990s who 
were advising the Prime Minister. These 60 scientists advised the Prime 
Minister to ratify Kyoto, the treaty we did not ratify, and now they 
have come back and said:

       Significant scientific advances have been made since the 
     Kyoto protocol was created, many of which are taking us away 
     from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in 
     the mid 1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, 
     Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have 
     concluded it is not necessary.

  These are the 60 scientists who advised the Prime Minister; they have 
all changed their minds. They are now advising him not to sign on any 
successor treaties to Kyoto.
  The climate skeptics have welcomed many scientists from around the 
world into the fold recently, including previously noted Claude 
Allegre. There are others. If you go to my Web site, you can see some 
of the rest of them. But in addition to Claude Allegre, you have the 
top Israeli astrophysicist Nir Shaviv, Australian mathematician David 
Evans, Canadian climate expert Bruno Wiskel, paleoclimatologist Ian D. 
Clark, environmental geochemist Jan Veizer, and climate scientist Chris 
de Freitas of New Zealand--the list goes on and on--just to name a few.
  Please go to epw.senate.gov for a full report and stay tuned to the 
upcoming blockbuster Senate report detailing the hundreds of scientists 
who have spoken out recently to denounce manmade global fears. The list 
is unending. It is larger every day. These people were all on the other 
side of this issue, vocally, with all their scientific background. They 
have now come over. They are skeptics now. Skeptics mean that there is 
no conclusive proof. Instead of that, it is national variances, within 
national variability, I would add.
  We come now to the last point, the central point No. 4, debunking the 
consensus. The fourth and final essential point deals with how the 
media and the climate doomsters insist that there is an overwhelming 
scientific consensus of manmade global warming. The notion of a 
consensus is carefully manufactured for political, financial, and 
ideological purposes. Its proponents never explain fully what consensus 
they are referring to. Is it a consensus that future computer models 
will turn out correct? Is it a consensus that the Earth has warmed? 
Proving that parts of the Earth have been warming doesn't prove that 
humans are responsible.
  While it may appear to the casual observer that scientists promoting 
climate fears are in the majority, that is because most of the media 
wants to believe this. By the way, this sells papers; we all know that. 
Evidence continues to reveal this is an illusion. Climate skeptics, the 
emerging silent majority of scientists, receive much smaller shares of 
university funds. They don't get university research funds, foundation 
funds.
  You think the Heinz Foundation is going to give funding to somebody 
unless they agree with their hysteria? Climate skeptics also receive 
smaller shares of Government grants and are not plugged into the well-
heeled special interest lobby. If you are part of that lobby, you get 
all these funds. If you are not, they will not play with you. On the 
other side of the climate debate, you have a comparatively well-funded 
group of scientists, the activists who participate in the U.N. 
conferences, receiving foundation moneys, international government 
support, and fawning media treatment. The number of skeptics at first 
glance may appear smaller, but the skeptics are increasingly becoming 
vocal and turning the tables on the Goliath that has become the global 
warming fear industry.
  Key components of the manufactured consensus, as they keep saying, 
fade under scrutiny. We often hear how the National Academy of Sciences 
and the American Meteorological Society issued statements endorsing the 
so-called consensus view that man is driving global warming. What you 
don't hear is that both the NAS and the AMS never allowed member 
scientists to vote on these climate statements because they know that 
if it doesn't come out this way, they will not get the money they would 
otherwise get. Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the 
governing boards of these institutions produced the consensus 
statements. It appears that the governing boards of these organizations 
caved in to pressure from those promoting the politically correct view 
of the United Nations and Gore-inspired science. The Canadian Academy 
of Sciences reportedly endorsed a consensus global warming statement 
that was never even approved by its governing board.
  Rank-and-file scientists are now openly rebelling. James Spann, a 
certified meteorologist with the AMS, openly defied the organization 
when he said in January he does not know a single TV meteorologist who 
buys into the manmade global warming hype. In February, a panel of 
meteorologists expressed unanimous climate skepticism, and one panelist 
estimated 95 percent of his profession rejects global warming fears.

[[Page 28496]]

  This is big, a survey of recent peer-reviewed studies. This is 
something you better get ready for because it is something you don't 
know about yet. It hasn't been revealed yet, but it will be.
  In August 2007, a comprehensive study of peer-reviewed scientific 
literature from 2004 to 2007 revealed less than half of all published 
scientists endorse global warming theory. ``Of 539 total papers on 
climate change, only 38 or 7 percent gave an explicit endorsement of 
the consensus.'' That consensus being that manmade anthropogenic, 
CO2, methane gases are causing climate change. Only 7 
percent of these 539 total papers since 2004.
  In addition, a September 26, 2007, report from the international 
group Institute of Physics finds no consensus on global warming. Here 
is an excerpt:

       As world leaders gathered in New York for a high-level UN 
     meeting on climate change, a new report by some of the 
     world's most renowned scientists urged policymakers to keep 
     their eyes on the ``science grapevine'' arguing that the 
     understanding of global warming is still far from complete. 
     The IOP is also urging world leaders to remain alert to the 
     latest scientific thought on climate change.

  In May the United Nations special climate envoy, Dr. Harlem 
Brundtland, declared ``it's completely immoral, even, to question'' the 
U.N.'s alleged global warming consensus.
  Let's examine whether immorality plays a role in this process. There 
are frequently claims that the U.N. IPCC ``Summary for Policymakers'' 
is the voice of hundreds or even thousands of the world's top 
scientists, but such claims do not hold up even to the light of 
scrutiny. According to the Associated Press, during the United Nations 
``Summary for Policymakers''--after they have their process, which is a 
publication that comes out, then it is many months after that that 
scientists get to say something.
  According to the Associated Press, during the IPCC ``Summary for 
Policymakers'' meeting in April of 2007, the most recent, only 52 
scientists participated. The April 9, 2007, AP article by Seth 
Borenstein reported:

       Diplomats from 115 countries and 52 scientists hashed out 
     the most comprehensive and gloomiest warning yet about the 
     possible effects of global warming, from increased flooding, 
     hunger, drought and diseases to the extension of species.

  Many of the so-called hundreds of scientists who have been affiliated 
with the U.N. as expert reviewers are, in fact, climate skeptics. They 
are on our side. Skeptics such as Virginia State climatologist Dr. 
Patrick Michaels, Alabama State climatologist Dr. John Christy, New 
Zealand climate researcher Dr. Vincent Gray, former head of the 
Geological Museum at the University of Oslo Tom V. Segalstad, and MIT's 
Dr. Richard Lindzen have served as IPCC expert reviewers but were not 
involved in writing the alarmist summary. These are the people who were 
part of this process but were excluded from talking about the summary. 
The summary is put together by politicians.
  An analysis released in September of 2007 on the United Nations 
scientific review process by climate data analyst John McLean revealed 
that the U.N. peer-review process is an illusion. A new study found 
that very few scientists are actively involved in the U.N. peer-review 
process. The report contained devastating revelations to the central 
IPCC assertion that ``it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas 
forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over 
the last 50 years.''
  What do the real scientists say about this statement? According to 
the analysis by McLean:

       The IPCC leads us to believe that this statement is very 
     much supported by a majority of reviewers. The reality is 
     that there is surprisingly little explicit support for the 
     key notion. Among the 23 independent reviewers just 4 
     explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypotheses, and one 
     other endorsed only a specific section. Moreover, only 62 of 
     the IPCC's 308 reviewers commented on the chapter at all.

  Only four out of 23 endorsed the statement that manmade gasses are 
the primary cause of global warming. Let me repeat the key point, only 
four U.N. scientists in the U.N. peer-review process explicitly 
endorsed the key chapter blaming mankind for warming the past 50 years, 
according to recent analysis. This analysis was echoed by U.N. 
scientist Dr. Madhav Khandekar. He is a retired Environment Canada 
scientist. In an August 13, 2000, letter, Khandekar lashed out at those 
who ``seem to naively believe that the climate change science exposed 
in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change documents represents 
scientific consensus.'' He said:

       Nothing could be further from the truth. As one of the 
     invited expert reviewers for the 2007 IPCC documents, I have 
     pointed out the flawed review process used by the [United 
     Nations] scientists in one of my letters. I have also pointed 
     out in my letter that an increasing number of scientists are 
     now questioning the hypotheses of Greenhouse gas induced 
     warming on the earth's surface and suggesting a stronger 
     impact of solar variability and large-scale atmospheric 
     circulation patterns on the observed temperature increase 
     than previously believed.

  Khandekar concluded:

       Unfortunately, the [United Nations] IPCC climate change 
     documents do not provide an objective assessment of the 
     earth's temperature trends and associated climate change.

  Keep in mind, the IPCC, the United Nations, are the ones who brought 
all this to start with.
  Paul Reiter, a malaria expert formally of the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention, participated in the past U.N. IPCC process and 
now calls the concept of consensus on global warming a sham. Reiter, a 
professor of entomology and tropical disease with the Pasteur Institute 
in Paris, had to threaten legal action to have his name removed from 
the IPCC. They were not even letting him withdraw because he disagreed 
scientifically with what they are coming up with. He called it a sham. 
People who are going to review what I am saying here today will call it 
a sham. I am not calling anything a sham. That is what the scientist 
called this last report. ``That is how they make it seem that all top 
scientists are agreed,'' he said in 2007. He said: ``It's [just] not 
true.''
  Hurricane expert Christopher Landsea of NOAA's National Hurricane 
Center was both an author and a reviewer of the IPCC's second 
assessment report back in 1995 and the third assessment report in 2001 
but resigned from the fourth assessment report after charging the U.N. 
with playing politics with hurricane science. Landsea wrote a January 
17, 2005, public letter detailing his experience with the U.N. Keep in 
mind, he is one of the top scientist on hurricanes.

       I am withdrawing [from the U.N.] because I have come to 
     view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant 
     as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised 
     my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply 
     to dismiss my concerns. I personally cannot in good faith 
     continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being 
     motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically 
     unsound.

  The IPCC's own guidelines explicitly state that the scientific 
reports have to be ``changed'' to ``ensure consistency with'' the 
politically motivated ``Summary for Policymakers.'' We have already 
said that the ``Summary for Policymakers''--that is the political arm, 
not the scientific but the political arm. In addition, the IPCC more 
closely resembles a political party's convention platform battle, not a 
scientific process. During an IPCC ``Summary for Policymakers'' 
process, the political delegates and international bureaucrats 
squabbled over the scientific wording of a phrase or assertion.
  Steve McIntyre, one of the individuals responsible for debunking the 
infamous hockey stick theory temperature graph, slammed the IPCC 
``Summary for Policymakers'' process in January of 2004.

       So the purpose of the three-month delay between the 
     publication of the (IPCC) Summary for Policy-Makers and the 
     release of the actual [Working Group 1] is to enable them to 
     make any ``necessary'' adjustments to the technical report to 
     match the policy summary. Unbelievable. Can you imagine what 
     securities commissions would say if business promoters issued 
     a big promotion and then the promoters made the ``necessary'' 
     adjustments to the qualifying reports and financial 
     statements so that they matched the promotion. Words fail me.

  That is the scientist, not me.
  As you continue to scratch beneath the surface of the alleged global 
warming consensus, more discoveries await.

[[Page 28497]]

Alabama's State climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of 
Alabama in Huntsville served as a U.N. IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 
third assessment report and detailed how he personally witnessed U.N. 
scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes.
  This guy, keep in mind, was a scientist who participated in that 
process. He said:

       I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having 
     lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead 
     authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to 
     make the report dramatic that the United States would just 
     have to sign that Kyoto Protocol.

  That is what Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007, just this year.
  Former Colorado State climatologist, Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr., also 
detailed the corruption of the U.N. IPCC process. This is what he said 
on September 1--just a month ago--2007:

       The same individuals who are doing primary research in the 
     role of humans on the climate system are then permitted to 
     lead the [IPCC] assessment! There should be an outcry on this 
     obvious conflict of interest, but to date either few 
     recognize this conflict, or see that since the 
     recommendations of the IPCC fit their policy and political 
     agenda, they chose to ignore this conflict. In either case, 
     scientific rigor has been sacrificed and poor policy and 
     political decisions will inevitably follow.

  This is Dr. Pielke.
  He added:

       We need recognition among the scientific community, the 
     media, and policymakers that IPCC process is obviously a real 
     conflict of interest, and this has resulted in a 
     significantly flawed report.

  What we have been talking about is the United Nations at work.
  Politics appear to be the fuel that runs this process--the U.N. 
process we have been talking about--from the scientists to the 
bureaucrats to the delegates, and all the way to many of the world 
leaders involved in it.
  What is the motivation of these distortions? I am often asked, if we 
know that the costs are going to be so great, and we know the science 
is now flawed, and people are now waking up to it, what is the 
motivation? I would have to say there is a lot of motivation overseas 
on things like this.
  Former French President Jacques Chirac stated in 2000 that as to 
Kyoto, we are not talking about climate change. He said Kyoto 
represents ``the first component of an authentic global governance.''
  These growing critiques of the politicized IPCC process have been 
echoed by the U.K.'s Lord Nigel Lawson. He is former Chancellor of the 
Exchequer and a member of the House of Lords Committee that reviewed 
the IPCC process. Lawson called for the abolishment of the U.N.'s IPCC 
process. He said:

       I believe the IPCC process [U.N. process] is so flawed, and 
     the institution, it has to be said, so closed to reason, that 
     it would be far better to thank it for the work it has done, 
     close it down, and transfer all future international 
     collaboration on the issue of climate change [to something 
     else].

  This is a statement he made in 2005.
  The huge organizational and funding advantage that proponents of 
climate alarmism enjoy over scientific skeptics has led to a pretty 
elaborate and impressive facade of ``consensus.'' Many climate skeptics 
have been excluded from key roles in the politicized IPCC process and 
largely ignored by the media unless they are being demonized as ``flat 
Earthers'' or accused of being part of a well-funded industry campaign. 
But in reality, it is the climate fear peddlers who enjoy an 
overwhelming funding advantage over skeptics.
  Since the late 1980s, when global warming fears rose out of the 
scorched frost of the 1970s coming ice age scare--the same ones, I 
might add--an international organized effort and tens of billions of 
dollars have been spent promoting the warming fear gravy train.
  Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter estimates proponents of global 
warming fears worldwide have received over $50 billion from 
international sources and the United States over the last two decades. 
This is what he said:

       In one of the more expensive ironies of history, the 
     expenditure of more than [50 billion U.S. dollars] on 
     research into global warming since 1990 has failed to 
     demonstrate any human-caused climate trend, let alone a 
     dangerous one.

  That was a quote from him on June 18, 2007.
  The U.S. alone spends over $5 billion a year on research directly or 
indirectly related to global warming. Adding to these totals of funding 
manmade climate fears are large foundations such as the Heinz 
Foundation, international governments, the United Nations, worldwide 
universities, the Pew Foundation, and individuals such as billionaires 
Richard Branson and George Soros.
  In fact, if you want to get a study funded today on anything from 
suicide to butterflies, researchers are finding they better somehow 
link the issue of global warming, and it will increase their chances of 
securing funding automatically.
  James Spann is a meteorologist, certified by the American 
Meteorological Society. He suggests scientific objectivity is being 
compromised by the ``big cash grab'' for money flowing to proponents of 
manmade climate fears. I previously noted that NASA's James Hansen 
received a $250,000 award from the Heinz Foundation.
  It is kind of interesting. One of my favorite liberals--and I think 
he is kind of the darling on the left on CNN--is Miles O'Brien. We are 
fellow pilots. We have a lot in common, so I enjoy being on his 
program. I have been on many times.
  He asked me the last time I was on: Well, how do you respond to the 
assertions that NASA's James Hansen made these statements, and they 
must be true?
  I said: Because he was given $250,000 in cash by the Heinz 
Foundation, and I think he would say anything they wanted him to say.
  Spann explained:

       Billions of dollars of grant money are flowing into the 
     pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No 
     man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big 
     money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money 
     trail and it tells a story.

  That is what Spann wrote in January of this year.
  The imbalance of money between the promoters of climate fears and 
skeptics is so large that one 2007 U.S. Department of Agriculture grant 
of $20 million to study how ``farm odors'' contribute to global warming 
exceeded all of the money the groups skeptical of climate fears 
allegedly received from ExxonMobil over the past two decades.
  The money is clearly coming from the far left environmental 
extremists, from the Hollywood elitists.
  Later this fall, my EPW Committee will also release a report 
detailing the hundreds of scientists--many of them affiliated with the 
U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change process--who have spoken 
out recently to oppose climate alarmism. The report will feature the 
scientists--many of them who have finally had it with claims that ``all 
scientists agree''--in their own words. The report will be complete 
with the scientists' biographies and Web links for future reading.
  Keep in mind that is in addition to the names we have identified 
today. Look at them all, as shown on this chart. Those are many of the 
scientists now--and not even a complete list.
  This new research and the hysteria created by the U.N. and by Gore 
and the media have prompted frustrated scientists to finally fight back 
in the name of a rational approach to science.
  Climate rationalists or skeptics do not need to engage in smoke and 
mirrors to state their case, and we will be offering the world a chance 
to read and decide for themselves, unfiltered from the increasingly 
activist and shrill lens of media outlets such as NBC, Newsweek, Time, 
CBS, ABC, and CNN.
  I have stood on the floor for years detailing all the unfolding 
science that has debunked climate alarmism. These scientific 
developments of 2007 are the result of years or decades of hard work by 
scientists skeptical of manmade climate fears. Finally reaching the 
point where we can watch the alarm crumble is very satisfying.
  All these scientists have come up with the same response.
  Despite the massive scientific shift in favor of skeptics, proponents 
of climate fears are increasingly attempting

[[Page 28498]]

to suppress dissent by skeptics. During Gore's Live Earth concert--
which was a dismal failure, I might add--that he had in July, 
environmental activist Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., said of climate 
skeptics:

       This is treason. And we need to start treating them as 
     traitors.

  I have been personally attacked by Anderson Cooper. It is taking 
place right now, even this week, calling me every kind of name, all 
kinds of threats. This is what--you people say: Why don't more Members 
of the House and the Senate tell the truth about climate change? This 
is the reason. This is what we are subjected to. I have a big family at 
home who has to watch all this.
  Heidi Cullen of the Weather Channel--she is a lovely girl--but she 
called on the American Society of Meteorologists to deny certification 
of any of the scientists or any of the Weather Channel people or the 
meteorologists who do not agree with her.
  In August, NASA's resident alarmist, James Hansen--whom we already 
talked about--he called skeptics ``deceitful'' and ``court jesters.'' 
This is the same activist Hansen who conceded in a 2003 issue of 
Natural Science that the use of ``extreme scenarios'' to dramatize 
global warming ``may have been appropriate at one time'' to drive the 
public's attention to the issue--a disturbing admission by James 
Hansen. In other words, he is saying: Exaggerate this. Scare people.
  Other climate fear promoters have called for Nuremberg-style trials 
for those expressing manmade global warming skepticism.
  In September, the Virginia State climatologist skeptical of global 
warming lost his job after a clash with the Governor. Dr. Patrick 
Michaels claims he was censored by the Governor because he held a 
different view of climate science.
  Michaels said:

       I was told that I could not speak in public on my area of 
     expertise, global warming, as state climatologist.

  He was fired. If the advocates for climate change alarm are so 
confident, why are they so afraid of the debate? Why do they resort to 
such low-brow name calling and intimidation?
  The reason is obvious. The latest scientific findings are refuting 
climate fears and prompting many global warming activists to try 
desperate measures to silence the debate. When they do agree to debate 
the scientific facts, the alarmists lose, and lose badly.
  In March--this is really significant--in March of this year, an 
audience of several hundred in the New York City area were persuaded to 
the view that global warming was not a ``crisis'' following a public 
debate with scientists on both sides.
  Now, what we are saying here is, we had several hundred people just 
off the street, people in New York City; and most of them, when they 
were surveyed at the beginning of this--like 75 percent of them--said: 
We believe manmade gases are causing climate change. Then, after the 
debate took place, it reversed, and a majority of them said that was 
not true. So people--when they hear the debate and listen to the 
science on both sides, there is a wake-up call.
  When I became chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee--
that was 4\1/2\ years ago--I vowed to make science one of the 
cornerstones of my agenda to ensure policy based on sound science. And 
as I continue on as the ranking member, I have continued this goal.
  I think it is probably fair to say that no other Federal legislator 
has devoted so many hours addressing Congress about the science of 
climate change. I have spent this time because sound policy requires 
understanding, and what climate policy direction we choose will have 
enormous consequences not only for our Nation but for the world.
  I would like now to address a question that I am asked repeatedly: 
Senator Inhofe, what if you are wrong and the alarmists are right? 
Isn't it better to adopt carbon restrictions to stop carbon dioxide 
emissions, just in case? My answer is always the same: What if I am 
right, and there is no response to that?
  But let me address their question. Let's assume for a moment that the 
alarmists are right, which, of course, they are not, but let's assume 
for the sake of discussion they are. It still makes absolutely no sense 
to join Kyoto or any successor treaty or to adopt climate restrictions 
on our own. Not only does it not make economic sense, it does not make 
environmental sense.
  Let me explain that.
  First, going on a carbon diet, for us, would do nothing to avert 
climate change. After the United States signed the Kyoto Protocol in 
1997--it was never ratified, but we signed it--Al Gore's own 
scientist--this is what happened to Al Gore when he was Vice President 
of the United States. His own scientist, Tom Wigley of the National 
Center for Atmospheric Research, calculated--he said: Let's assume we 
signed on to the Kyoto treaty--this is back in 1997--and all other 
developed nations--not China, not Mexico, just the developed nations--
signed on to it and lived by the emission requirements. How much would 
it lower the temperature in 50 years? His answer was 0.07 degrees 
Celsius by the year 2050.
  Mr. President, 0.07 degrees is not even measurable, and that is if we 
took all these drastic steps, and we are not going to be doing that.
  Of the 15 original European Union countries, only two are on track to 
meet their targets. One of these is Great Britain, and they are 
starting to increase their emissions again, not decrease them.
  Similar calculations have been done to estimate other climate bills. 
The Climate Change Stewardship Act that was defeated 38 to 60 last year 
in this Chamber would have only reduced temperatures by 0.03 degrees 
Celsius, and another bill modeled on the National Commission on Energy 
Policy report would have only reduced temperatures by 0.008 degrees 
Celsius. That is right--that is less than 1 percent of 1 degree.
  Now, I think when we come to the significant part of this--and that 
is the lesson on economics--the high costs that would be borne under 
carbon constraints are unjustifiable to achieve minuscule temperature 
reductions, and that is if the alarmists are right about the science. 
How much more unjustifiable would it be if I and the growing number of 
skeptical scientists are right, which I believe we are?
  The fearmongering about global warming has turned common sense on its 
head. In its December 7, 1998, issue, Time magazine named Henry Ford 
one of the 20th century's 100 most influential builders. Yet, just this 
month, ``Time'' named the 1909 Model-T car the worst environmental 
product of the century. ``Time'' acknowledges that the car supercharged 
the American economy and put it on its wheels but states: ``That's just 
the problem, isn't it?'' The consequences keep piling up, it says. In 
short, ``Time'' now endorses the view that our world would be better 
off if we had never advanced technologically and if we were still 
dependent upon the horse and the cart as we were in 1909.
  Now, most people don't agree with such extremist views, but at the 
core of the question: ``Shouldn't we do something just in case''--that 
is the question they ask--the same calculus is at work. What if Henry 
Ford had not created the Model-T out of fear of unknown consequences, 
just in case?
  It isn't just that our major cities don't each have to deal with the 
sanitation disposal issues of tens of millions of pounds of horse 
manure--one of the many real environmental problems a century ago that 
the automobile eliminated. It extended to every aspect of life.
  When the Model-T first rolled off the assembly lines near the 
beginning of the 20th century, the average American's life expectancy 
was 53 years. Today, the average American's life expectancy is 78 
years, or 25 more than it was a century ago. We are not just living 
longer lives but healthier and more secure lives. The average 
American's real standard of living climbed from $5,300 a year in 1913 
to $33,000 a year in 2005. That is an enormous jump. The carbon-based 
society is responsible for that.

[[Page 28499]]

  Advances in medicine and food production, building construction, 
services, and the manufacturing of clothing, furniture, and other goods 
have all been made possible by the mobility brought about by the 
transportation sector and the electricity provided by our powerplants.
  The advances over the last century are not simply interesting 
historic facts, they show us not only why we are a prosperous nation, 
but a roadmap to a prosperous future. Threats to prosperity have real 
consequences and for how well and how long Americans will live. 
Whatever actions we take today, we must also safeguard the well-being 
of America's families now and into the future.
  The Senate acknowledged this when it passed two similar resolutions 
on the floor right here in the Senate Chamber. In 1997, the Byrd-Hagel 
sense of the Senate passed 95 to nothing, a resolution that the United 
States should not be a signatory to any kind of a treaty that reduced--
that had the result of costing a lot of money for the United States and 
that did not involve the developing nations. In other words, something 
that involved us and the developing nations but left Mexico and India 
and China and these countries alone. That was passed 95 to nothing. 
Similarly, the Bingaman sense-of-the-Senate resolution passed in 2005 
resolved that the United States should address global warming as long 
as it will not significantly harm the United States economy and 
encourages comparable action by other nations that are major trading 
partners and key contributors to global emissions.
  Neither the Kyoto protocol nor a single bill before Congress meets 
these criteria. They range from costly to ruinous. But they all fail to 
meet the requirement of Byrd-Hagel and Bingaman.
  Both the Energy Information Administration--that is the EIA--and the 
Wharton Econometric Forecasting Associates--that is the Wharton School 
of Economics--analyzed the cost of Kyoto when it was signed and the 
costs were staggering. For instance, EIA found that the annual cost 
would be up to $283 billion a year. That is in 1992 constant dollars. 
Wharton put the cost even higher--more than $300 billion a year. Now, 
that equates out to an increase in taxes $2,700 a year for every family 
of four in the United States.
  The estimated costs to comply with carbon legislative proposals in 
the United States would be unreasonable. The NCEP approach would do 
nothing to lessen global warming, even according to the alarmists. But 
according to the EIA, it would still cost more than 118,000 American 
jobs simply to make this symbolic gesture.
  As I recall from our debate, I say to the Presiding Officer, the 
highest job loss was actually in the State of Pennsylvania if we had 
passed that bill 2 years ago.
  According to the MIT study--this is a different study than the one we 
just talked about--the Sanders-Boxer bill would cost the energy sector 
consumers an amount equal to $4,500 per American family of four. This 
is a bill that is now pending in the Environment and Public Works 
Committee. The same study found the Lieberman-McCain bill would cost 
consumers $3,500 per family of four. Similarly, the EIA found that it 
would have a cost of 1.3 million jobs. A new EPA analysis shows the 
Lieberman-McCain bill would also cost up to a half a trillion dollars 
by 2030, and $1.3 trillion by 2050.
  Let me in all fairness say it is no longer called the Lieberman-
McCain bill; it is the Lieberman-Warner bill now.
  So the environmentalists will now tell you that is OK. Dan Lashof of 
the National Resource Defense Council says the EPA's analysis of the 
Lieberman-Warner bill shows it is affordable, although EPA finds that 
fuel will increase by 22 percent, because he calls fuel impacts 
``pretty modest.'' Activists inside the Beltway may think that big 
jumps in gas prices is not a big deal, but I doubt people living in the 
real America would agree.
  What few Americans realize is that the impact of these policies would 
not be evenly distributed. The Congressional Budget Office recently 
looked at the approach taken by most global warming proposals in 
Congress, known as cap and trade--cap and trade the CO2 
emissions--that would place a cap on carbon emissions, allocate how 
much everyone could emit, and then let them trade those emissions. Let 
me quote from the CBO report:

       Regardless of how the allowances were distributed, most of 
     the cost of meeting a cap on CO2 emissions would 
     be borne by consumers, who would face persistently higher 
     prices for products such as electric and gasoline. Those 
     price increases would be regressive in that poor households 
     would bear a larger burden relative to their income than 
     wealthier households would.

  Think about that. Even relatively modest bills would put enormous 
burdens on the poor. The poor already face energy costs much higher as 
a percentage of their income than the wealthy. While most Americans 
spend about 4 percent of their monthly budget on heating homes and 
energy needs, the poorest one-fifth of Americans spend 19 percent of 
their budget on energy. Why would we adopt polices which 
disproportionately force the poor and working class to shoulder the 
higher costs?
  To put this in perspective as to what the costs would be, we go 
back--on this chart we show that these right here represent the last 
four of the largest tax increases in this country. This one right here, 
a $32 billion tax increase, was the Clinton-Gore tax increase of 1993. 
You remember that: Increased marginal rates, corporate rates affected 
all of the capital gains tax and all that. I came down here and stood 
at this podium in outrage trying to fight that tax increase of 1993. By 
contrast, the Kyoto protocol would actually be 10 times greater. So it 
is a tax increase 10 times greater than the largest tax increase in 
recent history.
  Carbon caps would also fundamentally alter the way we live. Take the 
case of the cement industry and its relationship to our daily lives. 
Cement is experiencing a tremendous growth in daily demand with new 
jobs that are created. Cement is essential to the maintaining and 
revitalization of our aging infrastructure. Highways, bridges, water 
and sewer systems are built with cement. Already, our ability to meet 
our energy needs is under tremendous stress due to the cost. I think we 
understand that. I have several things I will put in the Record talking 
about how that is going to hurt the economy.
  But I wish to move on here and say that many times I have heard 
America is the biggest emitter of carbon dioxide. They have been saying 
this up until a month ago. They said that America is the biggest 
emitter of carbon dioxide, and thus, we are the problem. That is no 
longer true. Earlier this year, China surpassed the United States as 
the world's largest emitter of carbon. Only 6 years ago, it was 
estimated that China's emissions would still lag those of the United 
States in 2040. China's emissions growth is explosive and climbing 
upward.
  To put things in perspective, the United States did not build a 
single new coal-fired powerplant in the last 15 years, up until 2006--
not one--although there are now some efforts underway to change that. 
By comparison, according to the New York Times, China last year built 
117 government-approved coal-fired powerplants at a rate of roughly 1 
every 3 days according to official figures. So they are putting up 1 
every 3 days and we crank out none in 15 years. You talk about the main 
motivator of that. India's emissions increases are not far behind 
China, and Brazil is not far behind them. The fact is if these 
countries do not curb their rapidly accelerated emissions growth, then 
embracing a carbon diet and sluggish economic growth by developed 
countries will accomplish nothing. Moreover, many of the carbon 
reductions achieved through most manufacturing jobs in developing 
countries are simply emitted elsewhere, as jobs are created to make the 
same product in countries that don't ration energy. The U.S. emissions 
as a measure of productivity are far lower than China. Cement 
manufacturing is a perfect example. Every job sent there will increase 
emissions, not lower them.
  What we are talking about here is they don't have all these safe 
terms--

[[Page 28500]]

the technologies in China--that we have to lower the emissions. So if 
we force them overseas to China, emissions will have a net increase.
  China is growing at such a rate that even if the United States, 
Europe, and the rest of the developing world were to eliminate every 
ton of its emissions and become zero emitter countries within a few 
decades--a clearly ruinous goal--emissions would still be higher than 
today because of rapidly growing emissions in the developing world. We 
are talking about China and other countries.
  Some will say we simply need to educate the developing countries, but 
the fact is they understand all too well that there are more important 
priorities. As the Director General of China's Office of Global 
Environmental Affairs said in October 2006:

       You cannot tell the people--

  Talking about his Chinese people--

     who are struggling to earn enough to eat that they need to 
     reduce their emissions.

  The Secretary of India's Environmental Ministry expressed the same 
sentiment when he said:

       Removal of poverty is the greater immediate imperative.

  These views are consistent with the findings of the Copenhagen 
Consensus. In 2004, a Danish environmentalist who believes global 
warming is a serious problem got together 8 of the world's leading 
economists, including four Nobel laureates and 30 specialists on many 
of the world's leading problems. They analyzed the world's biggest 
issues and ranked them on the cost-effectiveness of directing societal 
wealth or resources toward these problems. Of the 17 issues studied, 
HIV/AIDS, malnutrition, malaria and sanitation topped the list as the 
best investments, while climate came in dead last. It was ranked as a 
bad use of resources.
  So what is the path forward? I categorically will oppose legislation 
or initiatives that will devastate our economy, as well as those that 
will cost jobs simply to make symbolic gestures to the far left.
  I believe such measures would be defeated because the approach is 
politically unsustainable. We are seeing the first signs of that in 
Europe right now. Even if the alarmists were right on the science--
which they are not--their command and control approaches sow the seeds 
of their own failure. As long as their own policies put national 
economy in the crosshairs, they will stoke the fires of opposition and 
eventually collapse under their own weight.
  Stabilizing emissions cannot happen in 20, 40, 60 years because our 
world infrastructure is built on fossil fuels and will continue to be 
so for a long time to come. The powerplants and other facilities being 
built now and in the future will emit carbon for half a century once 
they are complete. Quite simply, the technology does not exist to cost-
effectively power the world without emitting carbon dioxide. I and many 
others who reject the climate alarmism or ineffective yet expensive 
solutions will block efforts to implement mandatory carbon 
restrictions.
  I find it unfortunate that so many politicians and climate advocates 
focus on trying to resurrect a mandatory carbon policy in the face of 
its demonstrated failure in practice in the countries that have adopted 
it. In the process, they are ignoring the best path forward.
  There is only one approach so far I have seen that will work, which 
is called the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and 
Climate. Why is this? It is because this approach serves multiple 
purposes. There are some real pollutants out there. CO2 is 
not a pollutant; it is a fertilizer. But there are real pollutants out 
there, SOX, NOX, and mercury. By working with our 
partners, the Asia-Pacific partners, we can expand our energy supply, 
increase trade, and along with these other goals, reduce greenhouse 
gases as a byproduct, along with reducing real pollutants such as 
SOX, NOX, and mercury. Others might put this list 
together differently in terms of priority, but my point is that the 
Asia-Pacific Partnership meets the criteria for success.
  It is a politically and economically sustainable path forward that 
addresses multiple issues in the context of their relation to other 
issues. Perhaps other approaches in the future will meet this criteria 
as well, but this partnership is currently the only one that does.
  Any international post-Kyoto agreement the United States enters into 
must make the concepts embodied in the APP a cornerstone of that 
agreement.
  Let me conclude. I point out that climate alarmism has become a 
cottage industry in this country and many others. But a growing number 
of scientists and the general public are coming around to the idea that 
climate change is natural and that there is no reason for alarm. It is 
time to stop pretending the world around us is headed for certain doom 
and that Kyoto-style policies would save us--when, in fact, the biggest 
danger lies in these policies themselves. Again, new studies continue 
to pile up and debunk alarm and the very foundation for so-called 
solutions to warming.
  I know this has been a long speech. I want the real people--not the 
money-driven liberals and the Hollywood elitists but the real people 
out there raising their families and working hard and paying taxes for 
all the stuff we are doing in Washington--we want to tell them that 
help is on its way and that all the U.N.- and media-driven hype to sell 
America down the river will fail.
  During the past 2 hours, I have named hundreds of scientists who were 
Al Gore followers in the past and now who are skeptics; and they 
realize this issue is driven by money and the far left. The truth is 
coming out loudly and clearly.
  As Winston Churchill said:

       Truth is incontrovertible, ignorance can deride it, panic 
     may resent it, malice may destroy it, but there it is.

  Why am I willing to subject myself to the punishment by the alarmists 
and elitists? It is because of this. My wife and I have 20 kids and 
grandkids who are living in this world. I don't want them to have to 
pay a tax 10 times greater than they should because of something that 
is based on flawed science and contrived science. It is for them that 
we are doing it.
  With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me make an inquiry. What is the 
Senate's current posture?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is in a period of morning business.

                          ____________________