or Login to see your representatives.

Access Candidates' and Representatives' Biographies, Voting Records, Interest Group Ratings, Issue Positions, Public Statements, and Campaign Finances

Simply enter your zip code above to get to all of your candidates and representatives, or enter a name. Then, just click on the person you are interested in, and you can navigate to the categories of information we track for them.

Public Statements

Science of Climate Change (cont.)

Location: Washington, DC


    Such reporting prompted testimony by Dr. Richard Lindzen before the Committee on Environment and Public Works, the committee I now chair. This was in May of 2001.

    Dr. Lindzen said:

    Nearly all reading and coverage of the IPCC is restricted to the highly publicized Summaries for Policymakers, which are written by representatives of government, NGO's, and business; the full reports, written by participating scientists, are largely ignored.

    That is what Dr. Lindzen, who is one of the contributing scientists to the IPCC, has said. As it turned out, the policymakers' summary was politicized and radically different from the earlier draft. For example, the draft concluded the following concerning the driving case for climate change:

    From the body of the evidence since IPCC (1996), we conclude there has been a discernible human influence on global climate. Studies are beginning to separate the contributions to observed climate change attributable to individual external influences, both anthropogenic and natural. This work suggests that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are a substantial contributor to the observed warming, especially over the past 30 years.

    Keep in mind their conclusion:

    However, the accuracy of these estimates continues to be limited by uncertainties in estimates of internal variability, natural and anthropogenic forcing, and the climate response to external forces.

    In other words, they go all the way through the IPCC, the document on which all the extremists are basing their conclusions that anthropogenic actually contributes to global warming. Yet then they have a disclaimer at the very end.

    The final version looks quite different and concluded instead:

    In light of new evidence taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to increases in greenhouse gas concentrations.

    Keep in mind "warming over the last 50 years." Remember we showed you those charts going back 25 years. These same people were yelling and screaming and complaining that there is a cooling period coming. They had all these fearful statements made about what is going to happen. Now they are saying over the past 50 years, when they themselves said 25 years ago that the concern was cooling.

    This kind of distortion was not unintentional, as Dr. Lindzen explained for the Environment and Public Works Committee. Dr. Lindzen said:

    I personally witnessed coauthors forced to assert their "green" credentials in defense of their statements.

    This is testimony before our committee. This is from Dr. Lindzen, one of the contributors to the IPCC on which they base this premise.

    In short, some parts of the IPCC process resemble a Soviet-style trial in which the facts are predetermined and ideological purity trumps technical and scientific examinations. The predictions in this summary went far beyond those in the IPCC's 1995 report.

    The second assessment of the IPCC predicted that the Earth could warm by 1 to 3.5 degrees Celsius by the year 2100. The best estimate was a 2-degree Celsius warming by 2100. Both are highly questionable at best. That was the 1995 report.

    In the third assessment, the IPCC dramatically increased that estimate to a range between 1.4 percent and 5.8 degrees Celsius, even though no new evidence had come to light to justify a dramatic change. In fact, the IPCC's median projected warming actually declined from 1990 to 1995. IPCC's 1990 initial estimate was 3.2 degrees Celsius. Then the IPCC revised 1992—2 years later—estimate was 2.6 degrees Celsius, followed by the IPCC revised 1995 estimate of 2.0 degrees Celsius. What changed?

    As it turned out, the new prediction was based on faulty, politically charged assumptions about trends in population growth, economic growth, and fossil fuel use. The extreme case scenario of a 5.8-degree warming, for instance, rests upon an assumption that the whole world will raise its level of economic activity and per capita energy use to that in the United States. That is what it is based on. That energy use will be carbon intensive. This scenario is simply ludicrous. This essentially contradicts the experience of the industrialized world over the past 30 years. Yet the 5.8 degree figure featured prominently in news stories because it produced the biggest fear effect.

    Moreover, when regional climate models of the kind relied upon by the IPCC attempt to incorporate such factors as population growth, "the details of future climate recede toward unintelligibility," according to Jerry Mahlman, Director of NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory.

    Even Dr. Stephen Schneider, an outspoken believer in catastrophic global warming, criticized the IPCC's assumptions in the journal Nature on May 3, 2001. In his article—this is the promoter of the catastrophic global warming fear mongers—Schneider asks:

    How likely is it that the world would get 6 degrees [centigrade] hotter by 2100? [That] depends on the likelihood of the assumptions underlying the projections.

    Keep in mind that Schneider is on the side of the alarmists. Schneider's own calculations, which cast serious doubt on the IPCC's extreme prediction, broadly agree with an MIT study published in April of 2001.

    It found that there is a "far less" than one percent chance that temperatures would rise to 5.8 degrees C or higher, while there is a 17 percent chance the temperature rise would be lower than 1.4 degrees.

    That point bears repeating: even global warming alarmists think the lower number is 17 times more likely to be right than the higher number. Moreover, even if the earth's temperature increases by 1.4 degrees Celsius, does it really matter? The IPCC doesn't offer any credible science to explain what would happen.

    Gerald North of Texas A&M University in College Station, agrees that the IPCC's predictions are baseless, in part because climate models are highly imperfect instruments. As he said after the IPCC report came out: "It's extremely hard to tell whether the models have improved" since the last IPCC report. "The uncertainties are large." Similarly, Peter Stone, an MIT climate modeler, said in reference to the IPCC, "The major [climate prediction] uncertainties have not been reduced at all."

    Dr. David Wojick, an expert in climate science, recently wrote in Canada's National Post:

    The computer models cannot .    .    . decide among the variable drivers, like solar versus lunar change, or chaos versus ocean circulation versus greenhouse gas increases. Unless and until they can explain these things, the models cannot be taken seriously as a basis for public policy.

    In short, these general circulation models, or GCMs as they're known, create simulations that must track over 5 million parameters. These simulations require accurate information on two natural greenhouse gas factors—water vapor and clouds—whose effects scientists still do not understand.

    Because of these and other uncertainties, climate modelers from four separate climate modeling centers wrote in the October 2000 edition of Nature that, "Forecasts of climate change are inevitably uncertain." They go on to explain that, "A basic problem with all such predictions to date has been the difficulty of providing any systematic estimate of uncertainty," a problem that stems from the fact that "these [climate] models do not necessarily span the full range of known climate system behavior."

    Again, to reiterate in plain English, this means the models do not account for key variables that influence the climate system.

    Despite this, the alarmists continue to use these models and all the other flimsy evidence I've cited to support their theories of man-made global warming—theories they so desperately want to believe.

    Before I get into another subject, I see the Senator from Ohio, Senator Voinovich. I have been talking a little about the committee hearing we had. I believe it was at your invitation that Tom Mullins came and testified. I ask you if I am accurately portraying the comments he made concerning the poor people of your State of Ohio.

    Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, the Senator portrayed Tom Mullins' comments accurately. In the statement I am going to be making, I will refer to those remarks—the indication that many of the people who are promoting capping carbon at the altar of responding to the climate change promotion are not seeking to affect the impact that capping carbon would have on natural gas questions and on those people in our country who are least able to pay their energy costs.

    Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator. I recall that he almost had tears in his eyes when he talked about the poor people of Ohio and the fact they have to make decisions about eating and heating their homes. It is a very serious thing.

    Mr. VOINOVICH. I think the main purpose of his testimony was that in decisions we make in the Senate regarding environmental legislation, we ought to take into consideration the impact it is having on those who have to pay the energy costs that are increased as a result of those initiatives. There seems to be some type of disconnect between our environmental policy and our energy policy. What we are hoping to do here is to harmonize our environmental and energy policies so we can put together a policy that will reduce emissions and at the same time not destroy our economy and impact on the least of our brethren who pay a large percentage of what they have toward the cost of energy.

    Mr. INHOFE. What Tom Mullins said is totally consistent with what I talked about earlier. In the National Black Chamber of Commerce and the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce they talked about the unemployment rate and how it hurts poor people. I think that to be very true.

    Now I want to turn to temperature trends in the 20th Century. GCMs predict that rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations will cause temperatures in the troposphere, the layer from 5,000 to 30,000 feet, to rise faster than surface temperatures—a critical fact supporting the alarmist hypothesis.

    But in fact, there is no meaningful warming trend in the troposphere, and weather satellites, widely considered the most accurate measure of global temperatures, have confirmed this.

    To illustrate this point, just think about a greenhouse. The glass panes let sunlight in but prevent it from escaping. The greenhouse then warms from the top down. As is clear from the science, this simply is not happening in the atmosphere.

    Satellite measurements are validated independently by measurements from NOAA balloon radiosonde instruments, with records extending back over 40 years. This is very critical. The extremists will tell you warming is occurring.

    If you look at this chart of balloon data, extremists will tell you that warming is occurring, but if you look more closely you see that temperature in 1955 was higher than temperature in 2000.

    A recent detailed comparison of atmospheric temperature data gathered by satellites with widely-used data gathered by weather balloons corroborates both the accuracy of the satellite data and the rate of global warming seen in that data.

    To reiterate, the best data collected from satellites validated by balloons to test the hypothesis of a human-induced global warming from the release of CO2 into the atmosphere shows no meaningful trend of increasing temperatures, even as the climate models exaggerated the warmth that ought to have occurred from a build-up in CO2.

    Some critics of satellite measurements contend that they don't square with the ground-based temperature record. But some of this difference is due to the so-called "urban heat island effect." This occurs when concrete and asphalt in cities absorb—rather than reflect—the sun's heat, causing surface temperatures and overall ambient temperatures to rise. Scientists have shown that this strongly influences the surface-based temperature record.

    In a paper published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society in 1989, Dr. Thomas R. Karl, senior scientist at the National Climate Data Center, corrected the U.S. surface temperatures for the urban heat-island effect and found that there has been a downward temperature trend since 1940. This suggests a strong warming bias in the surface-based temperature record.

    Even the IPCC finds that the urban heat island effect is significant. According to the IPCC's calculations, the effect could account for up to 0.12 degrees Celsius of the 20th century temperature rise, one-fifth of the total observed.

    When we look at the 20th century as a whole, we see some distinct phases that question anthropogenic theories of global warming. First, a strong warming trend of about 0.5 C began in the late 19th century and peaked around 1940. Next, the temperature decreased from 1940 until the late 1970s.

    Why is that decrease significant? Because about 80% of the carbon dioxide from human activities was added to the air after 1940, meaning the early 20th century warming trend had to be largely natural.

    Scientists from the Scripps Institution for Oceanography confirmed this phenomenon in the March 12, 1999 issue of the journal Science. They addressed the proverbial "chicken-and-egg" question of climate science, namely: when the Earth shifts from glacial to warm periods, which comes first: an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, or an increase in global temperature?

    The team concluded that the temperature rise comes first followed by a carbon dioxide boost about 400 to 1,000 years later. This contradicts everything alarmists have been saying about manmade global warming in the 20th century. Repeat: The temperature precipitates the carbon dioxide increase.

    We can go even further back, some 400,000 years, and see this phenomenon occurring, as the chart clearly shows. Yet the doomsayers, undeterred by these facts, will not quit. In February and March of 2002, the New York Times and the Washington Post, among others, reported on the collapse of the Larsen B ice shelf in the Antarctic Peninsula, causing quite a stir in the media, and providing alarmists with more propaganda to scare the public.

    When we look at this chart, we can see this goes back 400,000 years. No one is going to refute this, but the Earth's natural 12,000-year cycle of increases and decreases in temperatures is followed by an increase and decrease in CO2. We can see the trends going all the way back. It has not really made a major change.

    Although there was no link to global warming, the Times could not help but make a suggestion in its March 20 edition:

    While it is too soon to say whether the changes there are related to a buildup of "greenhouse" gas emissions that scientists believe are warming the planet, many experts said it was getting harder to find any other explanation.

    The Times, however, simply ignored a recent study in the Journal of Nature which found the Antarctic has been cooling since 1966.

    Another study in Science recently found the West Antarctic ice sheet to be thickening rather than thinning. University of Illinois researchers also reported a net cooling on the Antarctic Continent between 1966 and 2000. In some regions, such as the McMurdo dry valleys, temperatures cooled between 1986 and 1999 by as much as 2 degrees during that timeframe.

    In perhaps the most devastating critique of glacial alarmism, the American Geophysical Union found the Arctic was warmer in 1935 than it is today.

    That bears repeating. Eighty percent of the carbon dioxide from human activities was added to the air after 1940. Yet the Arctic was warmer in 1935 than it is today.

    So not only is glacial alarmism flawed, there is no evidence, as shown by measurements from satellites and weather balloons, of any meaningful warming trends in the 20th century.

    I will now talk about health risks. The subject I am going to talk about is probably the most significant, so I hope people will not go away.

    Even as we discuss whether temperatures will go up or down, we should ask whether global warming will actually produce the catastrophic effects the alarmists confidently predict.

    What gets obscured in the global warming debate is the fact that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is necessary for life. Numerous studies have shown that global warming can actually be beneficial to mankind.

    Most plants, especially wheat and rice, grow considerably better when there is more CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 works like a fertilizer; higher temperatures further enhance the CO2 fertilizer effect.

    In fact, the average crop, according to Dr. John Reilly of the MIT Joint Program on Science and Policy of Global Change, is 30 percent higher in a CO2-enhanced world. I repeat that: 30 percent higher in a CO2-enhanced world. This is not just a matter of opinion but a well-established phenomenon.

    With regard to the impact of global warming on human health, it is assumed that higher temperatures will induce more deaths and massive outbreaks of deadly diseases. In particular, a frequent scare tactic by alarmists is that warmer temperatures will spark malaria outbreaks. Dr. Paul Reiter convincingly debunks this claim in a 2000 study for the Centers for Disease Control. As Reiter found:

    Until the second half of the 20th century, malaria was endemic and widespread in many temperature regions—

    This next point is critical—

    with major epidemics as far north as the Arctic Circle.

    Reiter also published a second study in the March 2001 issue of Environmental Health Perspectives showing that "despite spectacular cooling, malaria persisted throughout Europe."

    Another myth is that warming increases morbidity rates. This is not the case, according to Dr. Mendelsohn, environmental economist from Yale University. Mendelsohn argues that heat stress deaths are caused by a temporary variability and not warming. In other words, you do not die of heat because of heat temperature; you die as a result of the variable change.

    I wish to now go back to the IPCC's third assessment. In addition to trying to predict the future, the third assessment report looked into the past. The IPCC released a graph depicting global temperatures trending slightly downward over the last 10 centuries and then rather dramatically increasing beginning around 1900. The cause for such a shift, of course, is attributed to industrialization and manmade greenhouse gas emissions.

    The now infamous "hockey stick" graph was enthusiastically embraced by IPCC which used it as a basis for the third assessment. Dr. Michael Mann at the University of Virginia was its principal authority. The study, which Mann and others conducted, examined climate trends over the past 1,000 years. As many scientists have pointed out since its publication, it contains many flaws.

    Stay with me. First, Mann's study focuses on temperate trends only in the northern hemisphere. Mann extrapolated that data to reach the conclusion that global temperatures remained relatively stable and then dramatically increased at the beginning of the 20th century. That leads to Mann's conclusion that the 20th century has been the warmest in the last 1,000 years. As is obvious, however, such an extrapolation cannot provide a reliable global perspective of long-term climate changes.

    Moreover, Mann's conclusions were drawn mainly from 12 sets of climate proxy data, of which 9 were tree rings, while the remaining 3 came from ice cores. Notably, some of the ice core data was drawn from the southern hemisphere—one from Greenland and two from Peru. What is left is a picture of the northern hemisphere based on eight sets of tree ring data—again, hardly a convincing global picture for the last 1,000 years.

    Mann's hockey stick dismisses both the Medieval Warm Period—and that was roughly 800 A.D. to about 1300, 1350 A.D.—and the Little Ice Age which was from 1350 to 1850, two climatic events that are fairly widely recognized in the scientific literature to be accurate.

    Mann believes that the 20th century is "nominally the warmest" of the past millennium and that the decade of the 1990s was the warmest decade on record.

    The Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age are replaced by a largely benign and slightly cooling linear trend in climate until 1900. But as is clear from a close analysis of Mann's methods, the hockey stick is formed by crudely grafting the surface temperature record of the 20th century into a pre-1900 tree ring record.

    This is a highly controversial and scientifically flawed approach. As is widely recognized in the scientific community, two data series representing radically different variables—temperature and tree rings—cannot be grafted together credibly to create a single series. In simple terms, as Dr. Patrick Michaels of the University of Virginia explained, this is like comparing apples to oranges.

    Even Mann and his coauthors admit that if the tree ring data set were removed from their climate reconstruction, the calibration and verification procedures they used would undermine their conclusions.

    A new study from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, which I will comment on shortly, strongly disputes Mann's methods and hypotheses. As coauthor Dr. David Legates wrote:

    Although [Mann's work] is now widely used as proof of anthropogenic global warming, we've become concerned that such an analysis is in direct contradiction to most of the research and written histories available.

    Our paper shows this contradiction and argues that the results of Mann .    .    . are out of step with the preponderance of the evidence.

    The scientific evidence. That is worth repeating: Mann's theory of global warming is out of step with most scientific thinking on the subject.

    What we are talking about in plain English is the science news by the environmental alarmist is not just flawed; it is just not there. But there is more.

    Based in part on the data supporting the IPCC's key reports, thousands of scientists have rejected the scientific basis of Kyoto. Recently, 46 climate experts wrote an open letter to Canada's National Post on June 3 of this year claiming that the Kyoto Protocol lacks credible science. This is 46 leading climate experts.

    I ask that the entire text of the letter from these 46 leading climate experts be printed in the RECORD at the conclusion of my remarks.

    The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

    Mr. INHOFE. The scientists wrote that the Canadian Prime Minister essentially ignored an earlier letter they drafted in 2001. In it, they wrote:

    Many climate science experts from Canada and around the world, while still strongly supporting environmental protection, equally strongly disagree with the scientific rationale for the Kyoto Accord.

    In their June 3 letter, the group wrote to Paul Martin, a Canadian member of Parliament, urging him to consider the consequences of a Kyoto ratification. This is the country of Canada. Quoting now from that letter:

    Although ratification has already taken place, we believe that the government of Canada needs a far more comprehensive understanding of what climate science really says if environmental policy is to be developed that will truly benefit the environment while maintaining the economic prosperity so essential to social progress.

    Many scientists share the same view. I mentioned several other countries' leading climate scientists earlier in this speech. In addition, over 4,000 scientists, 70 of whom are Nobel Prize winners, signed the Heidelberg Appeal, which says that no compelling evidence exists to justify controls of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions; that is, manmade emissions.

    Let me repeat that. Over 4,000 scientists, 70 of whom are Nobel Prize winners, signed the Heidelberg Appeal which says that no compelling evidence exists to justify controls of greenhouse gas emissions, manmade greenhouse gas emissions. They agree it is a hoax.

    Now, I also want to point to a 1998 survey of State climatologists, which reveals that a majority of respondents have serious doubts about whether anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases present a serious threat to climate stability.

    Then there is Dr. Frederick Seitz, a past president of the National Academy of Sciences and a professor emeritus at Rockefeller University, who compiled the Oregon Petition, and it reads as follows:

    We urge the United States Government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan, in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

    There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the earth.

    That is Dr. Frederick Seitz, former president of the National Academy of Sciences.

    The petition has 17,800 independently verified signatures, and for those signers who hold a Ph.D., 95 percent have now been independently verified. Environmental groups have attacked the credibility of this petition based on one false name sent in by some green pranksters. Several names are still on the list even though biased press reports have ridiculed their identity with the names of famous personalities. They are actual signers.

    A guy named Perry Mason, for example, is a Ph.D. chemist. He was one of the signers.

    The most significant thing that just recently came out is the Harvard Smithsonian 1,000-year climate study. Let me turn to an important new study by the researchers. The study entitled "Proxy Climatic and Environmental Changes of the Past 1,000 Years" offers a devastating critique of Mann's hypothesis calling into question the IPCC's Third Assessment, and indeed the entire intellectual foundation of the alarmists' views. It draws on extensive evidence showing that major changes in global temperatures result not from manmade emissions but from natural causes.

    Smithsonian scientists, Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas, with coauthors Craig Idso, Sherwood Idso, and David Legates, compiled and examined results from more than 240 peer-reviewed papers published by thousands of researchers over the past four decades. In contrast to Mann's flawed, limited research, the Harvard-Smithsonian study covers a multitude of geophysical and biological climate indicators. While Mann's analysis relied mostly on tree-ring data from the Northern Hemisphere, the researchers offer a detailed look at climate changes that occurred in different regions around the world over the last 1,000 years.

    The range of the climate proxies—now, keep in mind, we are talking about one of them that was just primarily looking at tree rings, but these 240 studies that were analyzed in the Smithsonian-Harvard report looked at borehole data, cultural data, glacier advances or retreats, geomorphology, isotopic analysis from lake sediments or ice cores, tree or peat celluloses, corals, stalagmite or biological fossils, net ice accumulation rate, including dust or chemical counts, lake fossils and sediments, river sediments, melt layers in ice cores, phenological and paleontological fossils, pollen, seafloor sediments, luminescent analysis, everything that fit every kind of proxy that could be known to science.

    Based on this proxy data drawn from the 240 peer-reviewed studies, the authors offered highly convincing evidence to support the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. As coauthor Dr. Sallie Baliunas explained:

    For a long time, researchers have possessed anecdotal evidence supporting the existence of these climate extremes.

    What happened during these periods? We remember what happened during these periods. Baliunas notes that, during the Medieval Warm Period:

    The Vikings established colonies in Greenland at the beginning of the second millennium that died out several hundred years later when the climate turned colder.

    In England, she found that:

    Vineyards had flourished during the medieval warmth.

    In their study, the authors accumulated reams of objective data to back up these cultural indicators.

    The Medieval Warm Period, or Medieval Optimum, occurred between 800 to 1300. Among the studies surveyed by the authors, 112 contained information about the warm period. Of these, 103 showed evidence for the Medieval Warm Period; two did not; seven had equivocal answers.

    Looking just at the Southern Hemisphere, the authors found 22 studies, 21 of which confirmed the warm period and only one that did not.

    The authors also looked at the 20th century and examined 102 studies to determine whether it was the warmest on record. Three studies said yes, 16 had equivocal answers, and of the remaining 83, 79 showed periods of at least 50 years that were warmer than any 50-year period in the 20th century.

    I must say, to any reasonable person, these ratios appear very convincing and undoubtedly rest on a solid scientific foundation. Again, remember, the conclusions of this study are based on 240 peer-reviewed studies, and this chart shows what the Harvard-Smithsonian researchers concluded.

    Peer review means they were rigorously reviewed and critiqued by other scientists before they were published. This climate study, published in March of 2003, is the most comprehensive of its kind in history. According to the authors, some of the global warming during the 20th century is attributable to the climate system recovering from the Little Ice Age. Global warming alarmists, however, vehemently disagree, and pull a scientific sleight of hand by pointing to the 140-year direct temperature record as evidence of warming caused by humans. But as the authors note:

    The direct temperature measurement record is too short .    .    . to provide good measures of natural variability in its full dynamic range.

    This research begs an obvious question: If the Earth was warmer during the Middle Ages than the age of coal-fired powerplants and SUVs, what role do manmade emissions play in influencing climate? I think any person with a modicum of common sense would say, not much and maybe none.

    How did the media report on the Harvard-Smithsonian study? The big dailies, such as the New York Times and the Washington Post, basically ignored it. I was impressed by a fair and balanced piece in the Boston Globe. Unfortunately, some of the media could not resist playing politics of personal destruction.

    Before I move on, I add another point about climate history. For the last several minutes, I have talked about natural climate variability over the past 1,000 years. We can go back even further in history to see dramatic changes in climate that had nothing to do with SUVs or powerplants. During the last few hundred thousand years, the Earth has seen multiple repeated periods of glaciation. Each ice age has ended because of dramatic increases in global temperatures which had nothing to do with fossil fuel emissions.

    In fact, the last major glacier retreat, marking the end of the Wurm Glaciation, was only 12,000 years ago. At the end, the temperature was 14 degrees Celsius lower than today and climbed rapidly to present day temperature—and did so in as little as 50 years. Thus began our current Holocene Age of warm climates and glacier retreat.

    These cycles of warming and cooling have been found so frequent and are so often so much more dramatic than the fractional degree changes measured over the last century that one wonders if the alarmists are simply ignorant of geological and meteorological history or simply ignoring it to advance their agenda.

    What is the real story behind Kyoto? As I pointed out, the science underlying the Kyoto Protocol has been thoroughly discredited. But for some reason the drive to implement Kyoto continues apace in the United States and more fervently in Europe. What is going on here?

    The Europeans continue to insist that the United States should honor its international responsibilities and ratify Kyoto. In June of 2001 Germany released a statement declaring the world needs Kyoto because its greenhouse gas reduction targets are indispensable.

    Similarly, Swedish Prime Minister Goeran Persson, in June of 2001, said flatly and without explanation that "Kyoto is necessary." The question is, indispensable and necessary for what?

    Certainly not for further reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, as Europe has proven. According to news reports earlier this year, the European Union has failed to meet its Kyoto targets. As we know, according to the best scientific evidence, Kyoto will do nothing to reduce global temperatures.

    As it turns out, Kyoto's objective has nothing to do with saving the globe. In fact, it is purely political. The case in point, French President Jacques Chirac said during a speech at The Hague in November of 2002 that Kyoto represents "the first component of an authentic global governance." Keep in mind who we are talking about—Jacques Chirac of France. He wants the authentic global governance. You have to ask if we are going to let the French dictate our United States policy.

    Margot Wallstrom, EU environment commissioner, takes a different view but one instructive about the real motives of Kyoto proponents. She asserts that Kyoto is about "the economy, about leveling the playing field for big businesses worldwide." In other words, we in this country should level the playing field so we are equal with the European Union. That is very significant in terms of what the real motives are.

    Chirac and Wallstrom's comments mean two things: Kyoto represents an attempt by certain elements within the international community to restrain United States interests; second, Kyoto is an economic weapon designed to undermine the global competitiveness and economic superiority of the United States.

    I am mystified that some in this body and in the media blithely assert that the science of global warming is settled; that is, fossil fuel emissions are the principal, driving cause of global warming.

    In a letter to me concerning the next EPA administrator, two Senators wrote, "The pressing problem of global warming" is now "established scientific fact," and demanded that the new administrator commit to addressing it.

    With all due respect, this statement is baseless for several reasons, as I outlined in detail above. The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of those who do not see global warming proposing harm to the planet and who do not think human beings have an insignificant influence on the climate system.

    This leads to another question: Why would this body subject the United States to Kyoto-like measures that have no environmental benefits and cause serious harm to the economy? There are several pieces of legislation, including several that have been referred to my committee, that effectively implement Kyoto without ratifying the treaty. From a cursory read of the Senate politics, it is my understanding some of these bills enjoy more than a modicum of support.

    I urge my colleagues to reject them and follow the science to the facts. Reject approaches designed not to solve an environmental problem but to satisfy the ever-growing demand of environmental groups for money and for power and other extremists who simply do not like capitalism, free markets, and freedom.

    Climate alarmists see an opportunity here to tax the American people. Consider the July 11 Op-ed by J.W. Anderson of the Washington Post. Anderson, a former editorial writer of the Post and now a journalist in residence with Resources for the Future, concedes that climate science still confronts uncertainties, but his solution is a field tax to prepare for a potentially catastrophic future. Based on the case I have outlined today, such a course of action fits a particularly ideological agenda but is entirely unwarranted.

    It is my fervent hope Congress will reject prophets of doom who peddle propaganda masquerading as science in the name of saving the planet. I urge my colleagues to put stock in scientists who rely on the best, most objective scientific data and reject fear as a motivating basis for making public policy decisions.

    Let me be very clear: Alarmists are attempting to enact an agenda of energy suppression that is inconsistent with American values, freedom, prosperity, and environmental problems.

    Over the past hour and a half I have offered compelling evidence that catastrophic global warming is a hoax. That conclusion is supported by painstaking work of the Nation's top planet scientists. We have those scientists who concluded that the Kyoto protocol has no environmental benefits; natural variability, not fossil fuel emissions, is an overwhelming factor influencing climate change; satellite data, confirmed by NOAA, confirms that no meaningful warming has occurred over the last century; and climate models predicting dramatic temperature increases over the next 100 years are flawed and highly imperfect.

    These scientists include Dr. Fred Singer, from the University of Virginia; Dr. Tom Wigley, senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research; Dr. Richard Lindzen from the National Academy of Science. Everyone listed is someone whose credentials cannot be questioned.

    If you study that, you will come to the same conclusions. These are objective scientists, not fundraisers for some far-left environmental extremist groups.

    Finally, I return to the words of Dr. Frederick Seitz, a past president of the National Academy of Sciences, a professor emeritus at Rockefeller University, who compiled the Oregon Petition. He said:

    There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

    These are sobering words which the extremists have chosen to ignore. So what could possibly be the motivation for global warming alarmism? Since I have become the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, it has become pretty clear. It is fundraising. Environmental extremists rake in millions of dollars, not to solve environmental problems but to fuel their ever-growing fundraising machines, part of which are financed by the Federal taxpayers.

    So what have we learned from the scientists and economists I talked about today? Five things, briefly:

    No. 1, the claim that global warming is caused by manmade emissions is simply untrue and not based on sound science.

    No. 2, CO2 does not cause catastrophic disasters. Actually, it would be beneficial to our environment and the economy.

    No. 3, Kyoto would impose huge cost on Americans, especially the poor.

    No. 4, the same environmentalists who are hysterical over global warming today were just as hysterical in the 1970s over global cooling.

    And, No. 5, the motives for Kyoto are economic, not environmental; that is, proponents favor handicapping the American economy through carbon taxes and more regulations.

    So I will just conclude by saying: Wake up, America. With all the hysteria, all the fear, all the phony science, could it be that manmade global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people? I believe it is.

    And if we allow these detractors of everything that has made America great, those ranging from the liberal Hollywood elitists to those who are in it for the money, if we allow them to destroy the foundation, the greatness of the most highly industrialized nation in the history of the world, then we don't deserve to live in this one nation under God. So I say to the real people: Wake up, make your voice heard. My 11 grandchildren and yours are depending on you.

Back to top