[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 1347-1350]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today I want to highlight several recent 
media reports uncovering very serious errors and possible fraud by the 
United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
  First of all, let me define what we are talking about here, because 
it has been around for a long time but a lot of people have forgotten. 
Way back in 1988, the United Nations formed the IPCC--the 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The whole idea was to try to 
determine whether manmade gases--anthropogenic gases, CO2, 
and methane--caused global warming, and if in fact global warming is 
taking place.
  It is hard on a day such as today, and the last few days, to be 
talking about global warming. I often say: Where is it when you need 
it? But nonetheless, you need to know three things about the IPCC: No. 
1, the Obama administration calls it the gold standard of climate 
change science; No. 2, some say its reports on climate change represent 
the so-called consensus of scientific opinion about global warming; and 
No. 3, the IPCC and Al Gore were awarded the Nobel prize in 2007 for 
``their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about 
manmade climate change.''
  Put simply, what this means is that in elite circles the IPCC is a 
big deal. So when ABC News, The Economist, Time magazine, and the Times 
of London, among many others, report that the IPCC's research contains 
embarrassing flaws and that the IPCC chairman and scientists knew of 
the flaws

[[Page 1348]]

but published them anyway--well, you have the makings of a major 
scientific scandal.
  In fact, when Climategate first came out and it was discovered that 
they had been cooking the science at the IPCC, the UK Telegraph said: 
This is very likely the greatest scientific scandal of our generation.
  So where to begin? Well, how about with the IPCC's claim that the 
Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035. It is not true. That is right; 
it is simply false. Yet it was put into the IPCC's fourth assessment 
report. These assessment reports come out every year, and that is what 
the media normally get. They are not scientific reports, they are 
assessments that are made for policymakers. Here is what we know:
  According to the Sunday Times, the claim about the Himalayas was 
based on--keep in mind we are talking about their statement that by 
2035 the glaciers would melt--that claim was based on a 1999 story in a 
news magazine which in turn was based on a short telephone interview 
with someone named Syed Hasnain, who is a very little-known Indian 
scientist.
  Next, in 2005, the activist group World Wildlife Fund cited the story 
in one of its climate change reports. Yet despite the fact that the 
World Wildlife Fund report was not scientifically peer reviewed, it was 
still referenced by the IPCC. It was still in their report.
  Third, according to the Times:

       The Himalayan glaciers are so thick and at such high 
     altitude that most glaciologists believe it would take 
     several hundred years to melt at the present rate. Some are 
     actually growing and many show little sign of change.

  Lastly, when finally published, the Sunday Times wrote:

       The IPCC report did give its source as the World Wildlife 
     Fund study but went further, suggesting the likelihood of the 
     glaciers melting was ``very high.''

  The IPCC, by the way, defines this as having a probability of greater 
than 90 percent.
  So there you have that. But there is more. According to the Times:

       The chairman [Rajendra Pachauri] of the leading climate 
     change watchdog was informed that claims about melting 
     Himalayan glaciers were false before the Copenhagen summit.

  We all remember that Copenhagen summit in the middle of December. I 
was there for 2 hours; many were there for 2 weeks. Now to continue to 
quote from the Times article:

       . . . [he] was told that the Intergovernmental Panel on 
     Climate Change assessment that the glaciers would disappear 
     by 2035 was wrong, but he waited 2 months to correct it. He 
     failed to act despite learning that the claim had been 
     refuted by several leading glaciologists.

  So why was the Himalayan error included? We now know from the very 
IPCC scientist who edited the report's section on Asia that it was done 
for political purposes. It was inserted to induce China, India, and 
other countries--this was at Copenhagen--to take action on global 
warming. According to the UK's Sunday Mail, Murari Lal, the scientist 
in charge of the IPCC's chapter on Asia, said this:

       We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact 
     policymakers and politicians and encourage them to take some 
     concrete action.

  In other words, that is the motive she did it for. In other words, 
the Sunday Mail wrote that Lal ``admitted the glacier alarmism was 
indeed purely to put political pressure on world leaders.''
  This is what we have suspected and has been documented in the recent 
Climategate scandal. But there is still more. The glaciologist, Dr. 
Hasnain, who originally made the alarmist 2035 claim, works for Dr. 
Pachauri at his think tank in India. According to ABC News:

       The glaciologist now works at the Energy and Resources 
     Institute in New Delhi, whose director is none other than 
     Rajendra Pachauri. Could this explain why Pachauri suppressed 
     the error in the Himalayan passage of the IPCC report for so 
     long?

  Specifically, after the meeting in Copenhagen. So what has the IPCC 
done to correct this fiasco? I went into the IPCC report to see if a 
correction had been made. Well, the 2035 claim is still there. It is 
still there now. It has been denied, but it is still there. There is a 
note attached that says the following:

       It has, however, recently come to our attention that a 
     paragraph in the 938-page Working Group II contribution to 
     the underlying assessment refers to poorly substantiated 
     estimates of rate of recession and date for the disappearance 
     of Himalayan glaciers. In drafting the paragraph in question, 
     the clear and well-established standards of evidence, 
     required by the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly.

  I had to read this twice to understand what it said. The IPCC says 
the glacier alarmism came about because of poorly substantiated 
estimates. Well, that is one way of putting it. To me, from what we 
know now, the leadership of the IPCC lied about the Himalayas. They 
knew it was false, but for political purposes they kept it in.
  I could go on and on, but let me cite a few more examples. The UK 
Telegraph recently uncovered more problems. This is the entity that 
said that is probably the greatest scientific scandal of our 
generation. The IPCC's report from 2007 found observed reductions in 
mountain ice in the Andes, Alps, and Africa--all caused, of course, by 
global warming. In an article entitled ``UN Climate Change Panel Based 
Claims On Student Dissertation and Magazine Article,'' the Telegraph 
reported the following:

       One of the sources quoted was a feature article published 
     in a popular magazine for climbers which was based on 
     anecdotal evidence from mountaineers about the changes they 
     were witnessing on the mountainsides around them. The other 
     was a dissertation written by a geography student, studying 
     for the equivalent of a master's degree at the University of 
     Berne in Switzerland that quoted interviews with mountain 
     guides in the Alps.

  So that is the source they had. The article further reveals:

       The IPCC report made use of 16 nonpeer reviewed WWF 
     reports. One claim, which stated that coral reefs near 
     mangrove forests contained up to 25 times more fish numbers 
     than those without mangroves nearby, quoted a feature article 
     on the WWF website. In fact, the data contained within the 
     WWF article originated from a paper published in 2004 in the 
     respected Journal Nature. In another example a WWF paper on 
     forest fires was used to illustrate the impact of reduced 
     rainfall in the Amazon rainforest, but the data was from 
     another Nature paper published in 1999.

  On top of this, we find that the IPCC was exaggerating claims about 
the Amazon. The report said that 40 percent of the Amazon rain forest 
was endangered by global warming. But again, as we have seen, this was 
taken from a study by the WWF--the World Wildlife Federation--and one 
that had nothing to do with global warming. Even worse, it was written 
by a green activist.
  That is the statement they made--40 percent of the Amazon rain forest 
was in danger. So again, we have the gold standard of climate research 
and a body that was awarded the Nobel prize of 2007. How can the 
world's preeminent climate body fall victim to such inaccuracy and, it 
must be said, outright fraud? I am sure for many in this body this 
information is shocking, but for me I am not at all surprised.
  Five years ago, I sent a letter to Dr. Pachauri specifically raising 
the many weaknesses in the IPCC's peer-review process, but Dr. Pachauri 
dismissed my concerns. Here is how Reuters reported his response:

       In the one-page letter, [Pachauri] denies the IPCC has an 
     alarmist bias and says ``I have a deep commitment to the 
     integrity and objectivity of the IPCC process.'' Pachauri's 
     main argument is that the IPCC comprises both scientists and 
     more than 130 governments who approve IPCC reports line by 
     line. That helps ensure fairness, he says.

  Here is Dr. Pachauri defending it.
  Given the significance of the reports, Dr. Pachauri should come clean 
and respond directly to the numerous charges made against himself and 
the IPCC. And given that Dr. Pachauri has testified before Congress, 
including the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, we 
should hear directly from him as soon as possible as to how he can 
salvage the IPCC's vanishing credibility.
  How did we get to this point? I have been documenting deceit of this 
kind for several years now. But I must say that a great turning point 
occurred just a few months ago, when thousands of e-mails from the 
University of East Anglia's climatic research unit, or

[[Page 1349]]

CRU, were leaked to the media. The CRU is one of the world's most 
prestigious climate research centers. The e-mails appear to show some 
of the world's preeminent climate scientists manipulating data, 
violating information disclosure laws by deleting e-mails, and blocking 
publication of research contrary to their own. They published only the 
research that would verify their positions interms of global warming, 
in other words.
  This revelation sparked several investigations, including one by the 
UK's Information Commissioner's Office. The office recently concluded 
that the CRU broke the UK's Freedom of Information Act. However, as the 
Times of London reported:

       The Information Commissioner's Office decided that UEA 
     failed in its duties under the Act but said that it could not 
     prosecute those involved because the complaint was made too 
     late . . . The ICO is now seeking to change the law to allow 
     prosecutions if a complaint is made more than six months 
     after a breach.

  It is a little late but none the less a good change to make. The 
Times further reports on the details, noting:

       In one e-mail, Professor Jones [former director of the CRU 
     who has now stepped down because of the scandal] asked a 
     colleague to delete e-mails relating to the 2007 report by 
     the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He also told a 
     colleague that he had persuaded the university authorities to 
     ignore information requests under the act from people linked 
     to a Web site run by climate sceptics.

  Climate skeptics, so you understand the terminology that is used 
here, those are people like me who have looked at this and realize the 
science is cooked. I think most people agree with that now.
  As we know, Climategate is just the beginning. Time magazine 
reported--let's keep in mind, this is Time magazine; the same magazine 
about a year ago that had a picture of the last polar bear standing on 
the last ice cube saying: It is coming and you ought to be real worried 
about it.
  As we now know, Climategate was just the beginning.
  Time magazine reported that `Glaciergate' is a ``black eye for the 
IPCC and for the climate-science community as a whole.'' In the article 
posted online from Thursday, January 21, 2010, Himalayan Melting: How a 
Climate Panel Got It Wrong, Time reports:

       The mistake is a black eye for the IPCC and for the 
     climate-science community as a whole. Climate scientists are 
     still dealing with the Climategate controversy, which 
     involved hacked e-mails from a major British climatology 
     center that cast doubt on the solidity of evidence for global 
     warming.

  The Economist newspaper, which had accepted the IPCC climate 
``consensus,'' essentially claimed that it had been duped by the IPCC. 
Here's the Economist:

       The idea that the Himalaya could lose its glaciers by 
     2035--glaciers which feed rivers across South and East Asia--
     is a dramatic and apocalyptic one. After the 
     Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said such an 
     outcome was very likely in the assessment of the state of 
     climate science that it made in 2007, onlookers (including 
     this newspaper) repeated the claim with alarm. In fact, there 
     is no reason to believe it to be true. This is good news 
     (within limits) for Indian farmers--and bad news for the 
     IPCC.

  The Economist finds that, ``This mixture of sloppiness, lack of 
communication, and high-handedness gives the IPCC's critics a lot to 
work with.''
  Seth Borenstein with the Associated Press, a reporter whose 
objectivity I have questioned at various times, asked the IPCC to 
respond to Glaciergate. Borenstein reported in his January 20, 2010, 
article, UN Climate Report Riddled with Errors on Glaciers:

       ``The credibility of the IPCC depends on the thoroughness 
     with which its procedures are adhered to,'' Yvo de Boer, head 
     of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, told The 
     Associated Press in an e-mail. ``The procedures have been 
     violated in this case. That must not be allowed to happen 
     again because the credibility of climate change policy can 
     only be based on credible science.''

  Borenstein also quotes Roger Pielke, Jr.'s concerns with the 
significance of the errors, writing, ``However, Colorado University 
environmental science and policy professor Roger Pielke, Jr. said the 
errors point to a `systematic breakdown in IPCC procedures,' and that 
means there could be more mistakes.''
  Further troubling is the revelation of several instances in which the 
IPCC relies on nonpeer reviewed work, mainly from leftwing pressure 
groups. As the Wall Street Journal reports in an article from January 
18, ``Climate-Change Claim on Glaciers Under Fire'':

       The citation of an environmental advocacy group as a source 
     within the IPCC report appears to be a rare, but not unique, 
     occurrence. That same chapter on Asian climate impacts also 
     cited work from the World Resources Institute, which 
     describes itself as an `environmental think tank.' Most of 
     the thousands of citations supporting the rest of the 
     voluminous IPCC report were from scientific journals.

  Let me add also that Professor Bob Watson--first, Bob Watson was the 
predecessor to Pachauri. He said:

       It is concerning that these mistakes have appeared in the 
     IPCC report . . . Dr. Pachauri must take full responsibility 
     for that.

  I think it is interesting to those of us who have been stuck in 
Washington for the last 3 days because of the weather--it is a record; 
we have not had anything like this, the snowfall and temperatures, in 
the recorded history of Washington DC--that they are now talking about 
starting a new agency under NOAA. That is the National Oceanographic 
and Atmospheric Administration. That is all we need is one more 
bureaucracy to talk about global warming.
  I might add, today there is supposed to be an EPW hearing on global 
warming, but it was canceled by the blizzard. A lot of things have been 
happening recently, and I think it is very important that people 
understand how serious this matter is.
  I have to add one thing, since I think I have 6 minutes left, about 
my daughter Molly. My wife and I have been married 50 years. We have 20 
kids and grandkids, I say to my friend in the chair. Six of those were 
up here because of a little adopted Ethiopian girl. My granddaughter 
and her brothers were making a igloo. They were stuck here with nothing 
else to do. If you want to see it, it is down at Third and 
Independence. Someone took the sign off, but the sign said: ``Al Gore's 
New Home.'' I thought I would throw that out.
  One last thing, in winding this up, about how serious this is. It 
became evident that the votes to pass the very expensive cap-and-trade 
bill, the largest tax increase in the history of America, somewhere 
between $300 and $400 billion a year--it would cost every taxpaying 
family in my State of Oklahoma some $3,000 a year--the fact is, the 
votes are not there, not even close. They may be up to 20 votes, but it 
takes 60 to pass it. We know that.
  When this happened, President Obama said: Fine. If Congress is not 
going to pass this bill, I can do it administratively through an 
endangerment finding of the Clean Air Act.
  The Clean Air Act was passed many years ago. The Clean Air Act talks 
about pollutants such as SOx, NOx, and mercury. 
If he can have an endangerment finding saying that CO2 can 
be considered to be a pollutant, we can regulate it and do it through 
regulation.
  I personally asked in a public hearing, live on TV, Lisa Jackson, 
Administrator of the EPA, I said: If you do an endangerment finding--
which they have now done, but this is before then--is it accurate to 
say that is based on the science of the EIPC?
  She said yes.
  Now we have an endangerment finding based on science totally 
discredited, on the IPCC. I have no doubt in my mind that once March 
gets here and lawsuits start getting filed, the courts are going to 
look at this and say: Wait a minute. An endangerment finding that is 
going to totally change the United States of America is based on 
science that has been refuted in the last few months.
  This is very serious. It is something that could be very expensive 
for America. I invite all my colleagues here, Democrats and 
Republicans, to look and see what Climategate is all about, what 
Amazongate is all about, what Glaciergate is all about. Cooked science 
has come up with the conclusion we are now experiencing global

[[Page 1350]]

warming, and it is due to anthropogenic gases.
  I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Harkin pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 
416 are located in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. BOND. I thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I 
believe there is a UC that the assistant majority leader wishes to 
make.

                          ____________________