Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Before I go into my prepared remarks, I would like to point out that I personally have opposed all of the bailouts and the hundreds of billions of dollars that the Obama administration has channeled to different financial wheeler-dealers and cronies, like Goldman Sachs and the others that have received so much money as directed to them from this administration, just to put it on the record.
Many of these so-called corporations that my colleague just pointed out, if we take a look, when we say if we're going to increase taxes on them, these corporations' biggest stockholders happen to be pension funds. What we're really talking about by trying to say we're going to just tax these big corporations, what we're really doing is taxing the pension funds and are taxing the entities that provide the money for the pension funds for the rest of the citizens of this country. But that is another issue that I will discuss some other day.
Today, Mr. Speaker, as a strong advocate of human progress through advancing mankind's understanding of science and engineering, I rise to discuss the blatant abuse and misuse of science. A few nights ago, I watched a video of President Eisenhower's 1961 farewell address. Unfortunately, his much-heralded warnings about the military industrial complex, which were right on target, I might add, that warning has unfortunately obscured another warning in that farewell address that is just as significant.
Eisenhower pointed to the danger ``of domination of the Nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present--and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.''
In my lifetime, there has been no greater example of this threat, which Eisenhower warned us about, than the insidious coalition of research science and political largesse--a coalition that has conducted an unrelenting crusade to convince the American people that their health and their safety and--yes--their very survival on this planet is at risk due to manmade global warming. The purpose of this greatest-of-all propaganda campaigns is to enlist public support for, if not just the acquiescence to, a dramatic mandated change in our society and a mandated change to our way of life. This campaign has such momentum and power that it is now a tangible threat to our freedom and to our prosperity as a people.
Ironically, as the crusade against manmade global warming grows in power, more evidence surfaces every day that the scientific theory on which the alarmists have based their crusade is totally bogus. The general public and decisionmakers for decades have been inundated with phony science, altered numbers, and outright fraud. This is the ultimate power grab in the name of saving the world; and like all fanatics, disagreement is not allowed in such endeavors.
Prominent scientists who have been skeptical of the claims of manmade global warming have themselves been cut from research grants and have been obstructed when trying to publish peer-reviewed dissenting opinions. How the mainstream media or publications like the National Journal, for example, have ignored the systematic oppression that I speak about is beyond me.
If you've heard the words ``case closed,'' it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the purpose of such a proclamation is to limit and repress debate. Well, the case isn't closed, so let's start with some facts about manmade global warming and the theory of manmade global warming.
First and foremost, the Earth has experienced cooling and warming climate cycles for millions of years, which a significant number of prominent scientists believe is tied to solar activity--just like similar temperature trends have been identified on Mars and other bodies in the solar system--and that is the Sun.
So how about those icecaps on Mars that seem to expand and recede, mirroring our own polar icecaps? Doesn't that point to the Sun rather than to human activity? After all, there are very few, if any, human beings around on Mars, and certainly millions of years ago, when we had other cycles in the world, there weren't very many human beings, if any, around. So where do the climate cycles come from? What causes climate cycles?
Right off the bat, let's acknowledge that manmade global warming advocates, who I suggest are alarmists, do not believe the Sun has no impact on climate cycles. They just believe that the Sun has a minimal impact as compared to the increasing level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Basically, they believe that the Sun does have some impact but nothing compared to the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. Today, they believe this increase in CO2 in the atmosphere has become very frightening because mankind is using fossil fuels, which they believe is causing this dramatic increase in CO2. Similarly, skeptics like me believe the solar activity of the Sun is the major factor in creating the Earth's climate cycles, including the one that we're currently in. We also believe that manmade CO2 buildup may have a minor impact. The debate isn't all Sun or all manmade CO2. It's over which of these factors is a major determinant or even the significant determinant.
At this point, one other fact needs to be understood. Many intelligent people believe that CO2--carbon dioxide--represents 10, 20, even 30 percent of the atmosphere. If anyone is reading this or is listening to this, answer this question:
What do you think the percentage is after all we've heard, time and time again, of how CO2 is changing the climate of our planet?
As I say, most people think it's 10, 20, even 30 percent of the atmosphere. In reality, CO2 is less--less--than one half of one-tenth of 1 percent of the atmosphere, and humankind's contribution to that one half of one-tenth of 1 percent is a small fraction of that. So to say that what we're talking about is minuscule, no, that's not smart enough. What it really is is microscopic.
Frankly, I believe that CO2 is so irrelevant that it should not be the focus of air standards and regulations. After all, it is not harmful to human beings unless, of course, you stick it into your automobile in the garage and shut the door for hours and hours at a time. The CO2 that's in the atmosphere is not harmful. Other gases, like NOX, which are damaging to human health, should be a much higher priority than CO2. NOX is harmful to people's health. It's global pollution, not global warming, that we should be concerned about.
Not making this distinction has cost us billions, maybe more. The temperature of this planet isn't manmade, and we can't do anything about it. Our energy challenges and the air quality that we have are man-influenced, if not manmade. We can do something about these maladies.
But the alarmists are not interested in solving those problems. They are part of a coalition that wants to change our way of life, which requires us to acquiesce--or, better yet, to frighten us into submission. Make no mistake: The manmade global warming theory is being pushed by people who believe in global government. They have been looking for an excuse for an incredible freedom-busting centralization of power for a long time, and they've found it in the specter of manmade global warming.
For the past 30 years, the alarmists have been spouting ``Chicken Little'' climate science. This campaign was turbocharged in the 1990s when the Clinton administration made it part of its agenda, thanks to Vice President Al Gore. One of the first actions that the administration took was to fire the top scientist at the Department of Education, Dr. William Happer, a professional who, at the time, dared to be open-minded about the global warming theory. Al Gore decided Dr. Happer just didn't fit in, and out he went. From there, the pattern became all too clear. In order to receive even one iota of Federal research funds, a scientist had to toe the line on manmade global warming.
There is a biblical quote: ``The truth shall set you free.'' Well, this is a battle for the truth, and we are up against a political machine that has been yelling, ``Case closed,'' and restricting Federal research grants only to those who agree with them.
That we have politicos who believe in centralizing power and are willing to use their own power certainly should surprise no one, but that a scientific-technological elite, the very group that President Eisenhower warned us against 50 years ago, has allied itself with such a political power play is totally contrary to what science and scientists are supposed to be all about.
Because of the retaliation of those alarmists in charge of bestowing the Federal research grants, opposition to this power grab has taken time to coalesce; but the opposition to the manmade global warming theory is now evident and won't be ignored.
There have been major conferences here in Washington and at other locations around the Nation, with hundreds of prominent members of the scientific community. Individuals, many of whom are renowned scientists, Ph.D.'s and heads of major university science departments, including a few Nobel Prize winners, have all stepped up and spoken out.
Even with little news coverage, this group, who are accurately referred to as skeptics, are gaining ever more recognition and ever more influence. They face a daunting challenge, however, and they, as I say, have to fight for any attention, even though they have just as good credentials as those people who are advocating on the other side. For a list of some of these credentialed and very well-respected skeptics, one can visit my Web site. I'm Congressman Dana Rohrabacher from California.
So what is this apocalyptic manmade global warming theory that the globalists and radical environmentalists would have us believe? It is that our planet is dramatically heating up because we human beings, especially Americans, put large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere as a result of using oil, gas, and coal as fuel.
The CO2 has an impact in that it entraps a certain amount of heat in the atmosphere, thus dangerously warming the planet. We have been warned about huge changes in our environment, including a 10-degree jump in the overall temperature, and thus a serious rise in the level of the oceans of the world.
Vice President Gore, in his movie, ``An Inconvenient Truth,'' showed what seemed to be a video of melting and breaking icecaps. Inconveniently, somebody squealed, the video was actually a special effect. It was Styrofoam made to look like melting and breaking icecaps. But that's no problem. People still listen to Al Gore.
Over and over again, the alarmists have said that the Earth is dramatically heating up. Look closely at the data that they're talking about. Look closely at the date that was picked by these people as a baseline for comparing temperatures. It is 1850. And what is 1850? It's the end of a 500-year decline in the Earth's temperature. The Little Ice Age was ending in the 1850s. Skeptics say that a 1- or 2-degree increase in the planet's temperature is irrelevant if the basis of comparison is a 500-year low in the Earth's temperature. To skeptics, currently we are just in another natural climate cycle. That's what we as skeptics believe. This is another natural climate cycle, and it's been going on, as was the 500-year decline in the Earth's temperatures. If it's going up a little bit now, that is a natural climate cycle.
To alarmists, however, the sky is falling. A couple of degrees warmer and the sky is heating, or it's falling, that is, or heating, and all of this is caused by mankind pumping CO2 into the air.
This theory of manmade CO2 causing global warming emerged when scientists mistakenly believed that the data they were studying from ice cores indicated that a warming of our planet was happening after a major increase in CO2.However, later, it was found that the ice cores were misread. Nicholas Caillon pointed out in Science magazine in 2003 that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacierization warming by 800 to 200 years, give or take 200 years. So the heating came first, and then the CO 2 increased, not the other way around.
Yes, when Earth heats up, there is more CO2. But we've been told the opposite over and over again, and we were told it was the CO 2 that was making the Earth heat up, and they were telling us that the Earth will keep heating up until it reaches a tipping point, and then there will be a huge jump in the temperature. The temperature will shoot up once it reaches this tipping point. And we could expect, this is what we were told over and over again by the scientists predicting over and over again that we could expect this warming to go on and on until we quit using CO2 and quit using these CO2-emitting fossil fuels as a major source of our energy.
The future they described was hot and bleak, but their frightening illusion began to disintegrate when, about 9 years ago, even as more CO2 was being pumped into the air and has continued to be pumped into the air, the Earth quit warming and, in fact, it may be now in a cooling cycle. That's right. The NOAA National Climate Data Center shows that ground surface temperatures have flattened, and there hasn't been any net warming since 1998, and the RSS microwave sounding units--that's MSU--operating on NOAA satellites show a net cooling since 1998.
It's totally the opposite of every prediction of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, that's the IPCC, and their faulty computer models, as well as the army of global warming scientists who have been warning us about higher and higher temperatures of what we could expect.
Well, miraculously, the frantic claims and predictions of manmade global warming have now been replaced with an all-new encompassing warning. So if it gets colder, or it gets warmer, the alarmists will have their way because that's being caused by too much CO2. Well, what is being caused? Well, whatever it is,
it's being caused by it. And so they changed the words from global warming to climate change and have replaced, as I say, global warming with their climate change.
Well, I guess they think that we would just forget about the predictions and their predictions over and over again being 100 percent wrong. Even the much-touted melting of the icecaps has now reversed itself in the last few years. According to the most recent data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado, not all the icecaps are melting now. There's melting, and there is also refreezing going on.
So the polar icecaps aren't going away and, yes, the polar bears are not becoming extinct. They were put on the extinct list even though they weren't extinct. In fact, there are some number of polar bear families that are growing dramatically in the last few years, even as we were warned that polar bears were becoming extinct.
Warming has ended, but the power grab continues. What we are now finding out is exactly how ruthless and, yes, deceitful that power grab has been. One example of blackballing is of prominent scientists like Dr. William Gray, Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University and the head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at CSU's Department of Atmospheric Science. Gray had the courage and honesty to point out that there have not, in recent years, been more or stronger hurricanes and other such storms than in the past. No more research grants for him, no attention in the media, either.
Zealots can usually find high-sounding excuses for their transgressions against other professionals like Dr. Gray. Professional figures in white coats with authoritative tones of voices and lots of credentials repeatedly dismiss criticism by claiming that their so-called scientific findings had been peer reviewed, verified by other scientists. It sounds so much beyond reproach. They gave each other prizes as they selectively handed out research grants.
To those who disagreed, like Dr. Gray, no matter how prominent, they were treated like nonentities, like they didn't exist, or were personally disparaged with labels like ``denier.'' Well, you know, Holocaust denier, that's what you do. Now, how much uglier does it get? How much against the standard of professional science can you be than to try to paint someone like that because he disagrees with you?
Well, these unprofessional tactics won't work forever, and it's becoming ever clearer that the man-made global warming steamroller is beginning to fall apart. We now know that the scientists clamoring for subservient acceptance to their theory of man-made global warming were themselves making a sham out of the scientific methodology. We now know what they were doing. I'm speaking, of course, of Climategate, the publication of over 1,000 emails and 3,000 other unofficially obtained documents from one of the world's foremost global warming research institutes, the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia University in the United Kingdom. And we have all heard of those quotes. Here's a few of them:
``We can't account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it's a travesty that we can't.''
How about another quote: ``I've just completed Mike's nature trick ..... to hide the decline.''
Here's another quote: ``We'll keep them''--meaning the skeptics of their science. ``We'll keep them out somehow--even if we have to redefine what peer-review literature is.''
How about this for another quote: ``If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the U.K., I think I'll delete the file rather than send it to anyone.''
Deleting files? Trying to prevent peer review? What kind of scientists were these? Well, arrogant and politically motivated scientists, that's who.
The unauthorized release of those internal memos exposed the shenanigans of the man-made global warming alarmists and the crime being committed against science and the public. Even though handpicked panels of their peers held the a kangaroo court--yeah, their own peers judged them, that's right--and that kangaroo court loudly proclaimed there had no wrongdoing by these people, well, public confidence was justifiably shaken in the global warming science advocates.
Now, just as that scandal was about to be forgotten, we have an even larger database being exposed showing even more clearly how this elite operates, and it ain't pretty.
Here are some of the quotes from the newly released database: Unfortunately, there is no way to fix the IPCC, and there never was. The reason is that its information over 20 years ago was to support political and energy policy goals, not to search for scientific truth.
Here's another quote: If you disagree with their interpretation of climate change, you were left out of the IPCC process. They ignore or fight against any evidence which does not support their policy-driven mission, even to the point of pressuring scientific journals not to publish papers which might hurt the IPCC's effort.
Here's another one regarding the IPCC: I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it.
Here's another one: It's very likely that the mean temperature has shown much larger past variability than caught by previous reconstructions. We cannot, from these reconstructions, conclude that the previous 50-year period has been unique in the context of the last 500 to 1,000 years.
What's that mean? That means the current cycle we're in has nothing to do with the burning of fossil fuel by human beings.
I would like to insert an article from James Taylor of Forbes magazine who said Climategate 2: ``These scientists view global warming as a political `cause' rather than a balanced scientific inquiry.''
More damaging emails will likely be uncovered during the next few days as observers pour through the 5,000 emails. What is already clear, however, is the need for more objective research and ethical conduct by the scientists at the heart of the IPCC and the global warming discussion.
Perhaps the most perplexing aspect of all of this, amid all of the consternation about their malpractices to which we have now been exposed: The global warming elite just keeps a straight face. They keep up their PowerPoint presentations, distorted graphs and all, and continue projections of man-made global doom and gloom. They try to ignore the uproar and change the subject, but these recent revelations seriously call into question the basic science of man-made global warming fanatics.
In the meantime, a report was recently issued by world-respected scientists at CERN in Switzerland. The CERN study demonstrated it is cosmic rays from the sun that determine global cloud cover, and the clouds have dramatically more to do with temperature than the minuscule amounts of CO 2 in the atmosphere.
The Cloud Project at a highly respected CERN laboratory published a paper in the journal Nature this past August based on this research which shows that the sun's activity is influencing cloud formation and may account for most of the recorded temperature changes in the last century.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm here to explain that this is utter nonsense and to warn of the danger that lurks behind this high-sounding cause.
Don't miss the significance, by the way, of the Durban conference in South Africa that is gathering now to determine how best to control our lives.
As happened in Kyoto and Copenhagen in the past, they now are meeting in Durban to try to find ways of issuing mandates to the people of the world in the name of stopping global warming.
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the people of the United States they pay close attention to this. Eisenhower isn't here to protect us anymore. The fact is our freedom is at stake. The globalists would like to control the people of the United States. It's up to us to defend our freedom. The patriots will win if we stand together.
I yield back the balance of my time.