Search Form
First, enter a politician or zip code
Now, choose a category

Public Statements

Climate Stewardship Act of 2003

By:
Date:
Location: Washington, DC

CLIMATE STEWARDSHIP ACT OF 2003

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I will yield in a minute to the Senator from Nebraska.

Last night we went into a lot of detail in this debate and I used three groups of scientists, numbering over 20,000, who refute the science on which global warming is based. Only two criticisms did I get from the other side. One was comments I made about supposedly misquoting Professor Schneider. After looking at this, I find I did not misquote him at all. He is one who adheres to the MIT study that says there is far less than 1 percent chance temperatures would rise to 5.18 degrees or higher, while there is a 17 percent chance that temperatures would rise lower than 1.4 degrees. These are the guys who are for this.

More significant—and this is setting the framework for this debate today. This is not about a pared-down bill McCain-Lieberman are coming up with now. They have both said this is just a start.

I will quote Professor Wigley, one I was criticized for misquoting. We find out I did not. He said:

Senator Inhofe quotes my 1998 publication .    .    . where I pointed out that adhering to the emissions reductions outlined in the Kyoto Protocol would have only a small effect on the system. What he fails to point out is this analysis assumed that Kyoto was followed to 2010, and there were no subsequent system climate mitigation policies. The point of the paper was to show that Kyoto was to be considered only the first step of a long and complex process of reducing our dependency on fossil fuels as a primary energy source.

The chart of Senator Sununu shows how little change would be possible under this.

I yield to the Senator from Nebraska for 8 minutes.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank Senator Voinovich for making his statement. I will be specific. The amount of jobs in his State alone, if this passes, would be 178,000.

For any other Members who want to know how their States will be affected, we have that breakdown. It is a study by Penn State University. I thank the Senator for his comments.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, while I appreciate the comments made by my good friend from Arizona, I would only say some of the things there—I know he doesn't intend to say things that aren't true. I would like to quote an article that was in this morning's USA Today. James Morison, who is a scientist with the University of Washington—this is a front page article in USA Today—said the temperature increases and the shifts in winds and ocean currents occurred early in the 1990s and have since "relaxed." This is a recent discovery.

These big changes "are not related to (global) climate change."

This was just in this morning's paper, speaking of the Arctic Circle.

So if we have time, when I have a chance to wind up, I want to repeat some of the things I said about the flawed science on which all these things are based. Until then, I recognize the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, for a time not to exceed 12 minutes.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, to draw to conclusion this debate, let me repeat a couple of things we did last night. I will briefly address the science issue. I know there are people out there thinking the science is settled. The science is not settled. Last night I went into detail and I will repeat a couple of significant points.

First, Frederick Seitz, the past president of the National Academy of Sciences, compiled the Oregon petition which had 17,800 independently verified signatures—most of those holding degrees of Ph.D. They came to this conclusion: There is no convincing scientific evidence that the 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.

Again, the Heidelberg Appeal, over 4,000 scientists, 70 of whom are Nobel Prize winners, signed this Heidelberg Appeal that says there is no compelling evidence that is existing today to justify controls of anthropogenic—man made—greenhouse gas emissions.

Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT scientist and member of the National Academy of Sciences, said—and I don't think anyone would question his credentials—said there is a definite disconnect between Kyoto and science. Should a catastrophic scenario prove correct, Kyoto would not prevent it.

Lastly, the Harvard-Smithsonian study, the most exhaustive study out there, 240 peer-reviewed papers published by thousands of researchers over the last four decades, says the science is flawed. It is important people realize that is the situation.

Probably the most significant item we should have been talking about all the time instead of this science—since it is a fact now, I think people understand there are scientists on both sides of this issue—is what is the effect.

Last night we had a chance to talk about the National Black Chamber of Commerce and the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, how it would disproportionately hurt them in losing jobs. A study that no one has challenged concluded that Kyoto would cost 511,000 jobs of Hispanic workers and 864,000 jobs held by Black workers. Is this something we all understand?

My chart is revealing if Members need statistics for their own State. The State of Illinois is losing 159,000 jobs; the State of Indiana loses 194,000. This is a study done by Penn State University.

The other significant point is that we are voting on an amendment. This amendment is somewhat pared down. Everyone realizes that this amendment, as has been stated many times by the distinguished Senator from Connecticut as well as the Senator from Arizona, is just a first step. So everyone has to look at this. This is the Kyoto Treaty. It needs to be looked at in that respect.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me get back to something the Senator from Arizona said. He is not on the floor now. He mentioned some of the signatures were not verified. They keep using this same argument, which has been refuted over and over again. The Perry Mason he refers to happens to be a Ph.D. chemist. It is documented. Again, we are talking about some 17,000 scientists there. There are 4,000 scientists on the Heidelberg Petition.

Of course, Richard Lindzen, I don't think anyone is going to question his credibility. These studies—particularly the Harvard-Smithsonian study—is a very significant one.

I think the debate has been good. I do not question it when the Senator from Arizona—who I respect immensely—says we will be back. I am hoping it will be necessary to come back because I am hoping we will defeat this amendment. But it is very significant.

Lastly, let me mention I do not know how so many of these groups could be wrong. We have almost every union in the country—the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the United Mine Workers, the United Steel Workers. We have all these jobs shown up here, some 3.6 million jobs, that would be lost. This analysis was done by a credible organization, Penn State University.

I cannot imagine that any Member of this Senate would come up here and look at this chart and not realize that here we are—we have been going through a recession that began in March of 2000, and we are now pulling out of this recession. The jobs are looking good right now. For something such as this to pass would push us right back in a devastating position.

So when you look at what we are talking about today, we are talking about something that would pass in America and that would not have anything to do with Mexico, anything to do with China, anything to do with India. I can assure you, right now people from those countries are sitting back with their fingers crossed, hoping this passes, because this would be the biggest jobs bill for Mexico and India and the other developing nations that we could pass.

I say to Senator Lieberman, thank you very much for the spirited debate, as I also thank the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time, if there is any.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. You have 1 second.

Mr. INHOFE. I reserve that.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, in my last second, I ask unanimous consent that the list of labor unions, agricultural organizations, and other organizations opposing S. 139 be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the materials was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

WHAT DO ALL THESE GROUPS AGREE ON? LIEBERMAN-MCCAIN IS BAD FOR AMERICA

The 60 Plus Association, Aluminum Association, American Association of Port Authorities, American Bakers Association, American Boiler Manufacturers Association, American Chemistry Council, American Health Care Association, American Highway Users Alliance, American Iron and Steel Institute, American Public Power Association, American Road and Transportation Builders Association, American Sheep Industry Association, American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association, American Trucking Association, American Waterways Operators, Americans for Tax Reform, Association of Equipment Manufacturers, Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, Brotherhood of Railroad Signalman, Center for Energy and Economic Development, Council of Industrial Boiler Owners, Edison Electric Institute, Federation of American Hospitals, Frontiers of Freedom, General Mills, Goodman Manufacturing Corporation, Institute of Makers of Explosives, Intermodal Association of North America, International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, International Dairy Foods Association, Motor Freight Carriers Association, National Association of Manufacturers, National Association of Wheat Growers, National Cattleman's Beef Association, National Food Processors Association, National Grange, National Mining Association, National Restaurant Association, National Retail Federation, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, National Waterways Conference, Inc., Portland Cement Association, Railway Supply Institute, The Salt Institute, The Seniors Coalition, Small Business Survival Committee, Snack Food Association, US Chamber of Commerce, United Mine Workers of America, United Seniors Association, United Transportation Union.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, thank you very much.

Skip to top
Back to top