[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 113 (Monday, July 28, 2003)]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SCIENCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, the comments made by the Senator from
Idaho are such a good prelude to work into what I am about to say. I am
chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and in this
capacity I have a responsibility because the decisions the committee
will reach impact and influence the health and security of America.
What I am about to do--and it is for this reason that I am doing
something that is politically stupid--I am going to expose the most
powerful, most highly financed lobby in Washington, the far left
The Senator from Idaho talked about the fact that we have to have
electricity. Right now, we are dependent upon fossil fuels for 52
percent of our electricity in America. There are people trying to get
us to do away with that. If that should happen, I think he has
articulated very well what would happen to America if all of a sudden
we had to go to natural gas. Already we are seeing some companies
moving to Europe and other places because they are thinking that maybe
we will buy on to this hoax that will stop us from being able to have
fossil fuels. That is why when I became chairman of the committee, I
established three guiding principles for that committee.
No. 1, we are going to make our decisions not on a political agenda
but on sound science. No. 2, we are going to have a cost-benefit
analysis. At least let the American people know what types of costs are
involved in some of
these regulations that do not make any sense. No. 3, to change the
attitude, an attitudinal change on the various bureaucracies, so they
will be there not to rule the people but to serve the people. Without
these principles we cannot make effective public policy decisions. They
are necessary to both improve the environment and encourage economic
growth and prosperity.
To the average person hearing, all you want is sound science, that
sounds perfectly normal. Why would we not want sound science? Why
predicate decisions on something that has nothing to do with sound
science? But leftwing environmental communities insist sound science is
outrageous. For them a pro-environment policy can only mean top-down
command-and-control rules dictated by bureaucrats; science is
irrelevant, instead for extremists. Politics and power are the
motivating forces for making public policy. Sadly, that is true in the
current debate over many environmental issues. Too often, emotions
stoked by irresponsible rhetoric rather than facts based on objective
science shape the contours of environmental policy.
A rather telling example arose during President Bush's first days in
office when emotionalism overwhelmed science in the debate over arsenic
standards in drinking water. Environmentalist groups, including the
Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council, vilified
President Bush for poisoning children because he questioned the
scientific bases of the arsenic regulation implemented in the final
days of the Clinton administration. The debate featured television ads
financed by environmental extremist groups with children asking for
another glass of arsenic-laced water. The science underlying the
standard, which was flimsy, was hardly mentioned or held up to any
scrutiny. In other words, millions of dollars were spent to make people
think President Bush wanted to kill children. This is the kind of
extremism we are facing on a daily basis.
The Senate went through a similar exercise we all remember in 1992. I
was serving in the other body, but I was here during debate. That year
some Members seized on data from NASA suggesting that an ozone hole was
developing in the Northern Hemisphere. The Senate then rushed into
panic mode, ramming through by a vote of 96-0 an accelerated ban on
certain chlorofluorocarbon refrigerants. Only 2 weeks later NASA
produced new data showing that their initial finding was a gross
exaggeration and the ozone hole never appeared.
The issue of catastrophic global warming, which I will speak about
today, fits perfectly this mode. Much of the debate over global warming
is predicated on fear rather than science. Global-warming alarmists see
a future plagued by catastrophic flooding, war, terrorism, economic
dislocations, drought, crop failures, mosquito-borne diseases, and
harsh weather, all caused by manmade greenhouse gas emissions. Hans
Blix, the guy who could not find anything with both hands, chief of the
U.S. weapons inspectors, sounded both ridiculous and alarmist when he
said in March: I am more worried about global warming than I am of any
major military conflict.
It is no wonder he could not find any weapons of mass destruction.
Science writer David Appell, who has written for such publications as
the Scientist News and Scientific American, parroted Blix when he said
global warming would ``threaten fundamental food and water resources,
it would lead to displacement of billions of people in huge waves of
revenues, spawn terrorism, topple governments, spread disease across
Appell's next point deserves special emphasis because it demonstrates
the sheer lunacy of the environmental extremists. He said global
warming would be chaos by any measure, far greater even than the sum
total of chaos of the global wars of the 20th century, and so in this
sense, Blix is right to be concerned.
Sounds like a weapon of mass destruction to me. And that is what we
No wonder the late political scientist Aaron Wildavsky called global
warming alarmism the mother of all environmental scares.
Appel and Blix sound very much like those who warned us in the 1970s
that the planet was headed for a catastrophic global cooling.
On April 28, 1975, Newsweek printed the article ``The Cooling World''
in which the magazine warned:
There are ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns
have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may
portend a drastic decline in food protection--with serious
political implications for just about every nation on earth.
Wait, these are the same guys who talk about global warming today.
In a similar form, Time Magazine, June 24, 1974, declared ``Another
However widely the weather varies from place to place and
time to time, when meteorologists take an average of
temperatures around the globe, they find that the atmosphere
has been growing gradually cooler for the past 3 decades.
Then we had the Science News article that talks of the same thing,
and an article from Science Digest titled ``Earth's Cooling Climate.''
Decline in temperatures since 1940 raises question of man's
In 1974, the National Science Board, the governing body of the
National Science Foundation, stated: During the last 20 to 30 years,
world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply
over the last decade.
Two years earlier, the board had observed
judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the
present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end
. . . leading into the next glacial age.
That was the same timeframe that the global-warming alarmists are
concerned about global warming. How quickly things change. Fear of the
coming ice age is old hat, but fear that manmade greenhouse gases are
causing temperatures to rise to harmful levels is in vogue now. That is
popular. Go in any establishment in Washington and the liberals are
talking about global warming. They do not care about what is happening
with other countries and the weapons of mass destruction. They are
concerned about global warming. That is the in thing to talk about.
Alarmists brazenly assert that this phenomenon is fact and the
science of climate change is settled. In fact, it is far from settled.
Indeed, it is seriously disputed.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed at the end of my remarks a
July 8th editorial of this year by former Carter administration Energy
Secretary James Schlesinger on the science of climate change.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1)
Mr. INHOFE. Dr. Schlesinger takes issue with alarmists who assert
there is a scientific consensus supporting their views. He says,
``There is an idea among the public that `the science is settled.' That
remains far from the truth.''
Keep in mind, this is not someone from a Republican administration.
I refer to a chart demonstrating this is not really a partisan issue.
There is no one more knowledgeable on energy than the former Secretary
of Energy under the Carter administration. He has been saying there is
scientific disagreement over global warming. It is controversial.
But anyone who pays even cursory attention to the issue understands
that scientists vigorously disagree over whether human activities are
responsible for global warming or whether those activities will
precipitate national disasters. Only the scaremongers agree. I submit,
furthermore, that not only is there a debate but the debate is shifting
away from those who subscribe to global-warming alarmism.
After studying the issue over the last several years, I believe the
balance of the evidence offers strong proof that natural variability,
not manmade, is the overwhelming factor influencing climate, and that
manmade gases are virtually irrelevant.
It is also important to question whether global warming is even a
problem for human existence. Thus far, no one has seriously
demonstrated any scientific proof that increased global temperatures
would lead to the catastrophic predictions by alarmists. In fact, it
appears just the opposite is true, that increases in global temperature
have a beneficial effect on how we live our lives.
For these reasons, I will discuss an important body of scientific
evidence and research that refutes the anthropogenic--which means
of catastrophic global warmings. I believe this research offers
compelling proof that human activities have little or no impact on
climate. This research, well documented in scientific literature,
directly challenges the environment world view of the media, so they
typically do not receive proper attention and discussion.
Certainly, members of the media would rather level personal attacks
on scientists who question ``accepted'' global warming theories than
engage on the science. So you have two groups at work here: The
environmental extremists doling out to you the lies and the money to
politicians and the liberal media that nests with them. This is an
unfortunate artifact of the debate, a relentless increase in personal
attacks on certain members of the scientific community who question so-
called conventional wisdom.
I believe it is extremely important for the future of this country
that the facts and the science get a fair hearing. Without proper
knowledge and understanding, alarmists will scare the country into
enacting its ultimate goal: Making energy suppression in the form of
harmful mandatory restrictions on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse
emissions the official policy of the United States of America.
Such a policy would induce serious economic harm, especially for the
low-income and minority populations. Energy suppression, as official
Government and nonpartisan private analyses have amply confirmed, means
higher prices for food, higher prices for medical care, and higher
prices for electricity, as well as massive job losses and drastic
reductions in gross domestic product, all the while providing virtually
no environmental benefit. In other words, it is a raw deal for the
American people but especially the poor.
In a minute we are going to shift to the Kyoto Treaty. The issue of
global warming garnered significant international attention through the
Kyoto Treaty, which requires signatories to reduce their greenhouse gas
emissions by considerable amounts below the 1990 levels. The Clinton
administration, led by former Vice President Al Gore, signed the Kyoto
Treaty on November 12, 1998, but never submitted it to the Senate for
ratification. Let's remember what our Constitution says: If we want to
join a treaty, the President takes the lead and then he submits it to
be ratified by the U.S. Senate. It has never been submitted to us.
The treaty explicitly acknowledges as true that manmade emissions,
principally from the use of fossil fuels, are causing global
temperatures to rise, eventually to catastrophic levels. Kyoto
enthusiasts believe if we dramatically cut back or even eliminate the
use of fossil fuels, the climate system will respond by sending global
temperatures back to normal levels--whatever normal levels would be.
In 1997, the Senate sent a powerful message that Kyoto was not
acceptable. In this resolution that was passed, called the Byrd-Hagel
resolution, they said it is the sense of the Senate--this is very
The United States should not be a signatory to any protocol
to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations
framework convention on climate change of 1992, at
negotiations in Kyoto in December of 1997, or thereafter,
Would do what? No. 1:
mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas
emissions for the Annex 1 parties, unless the protocol or
other agreement also mandates new specific scheduled
commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for
developing country parties within the same compliance period.
What they are saying, and what we voted on here right in this room,
in this body, is that we are not going to ratify anything that does not
impose the same regulations on developing countries as it does
that it would result in serious harm to the economy of the
Obviously, that is very significant at this time. The treaty would
have required the United States to reduce its emissions 31 percent
below the level otherwise predicted for 2010. Put another way, the
United States would have had to cut 552 million metric tons of
CO2 per year by the year 2008 through 2012.
As the Business Roundtable pointed out:
[That target is] the equivalent of having to eliminate all
current emissions from either the United States
That is everything that is moving out there in transportation--
or the utilities sector, [that would be] residential and
commercial, or industry.
In other words, you have to eliminate everything in order to reach
The most widely cited and definitive study came from Wharton
Econometric Forecasting Associates. According to Wharton Econometric
Forecasting Associates' economists, Kyoto would cost 2.4 million U.S.
jobs and reduce GDP by 3.2 percent, or about $300 billion annually, an
amount greater than the total expenditure on primary and secondary
education in America. Certainly that would result in the serious harm
to the economy of the United States that was voted on by this body
without one dissenting vote.
Because of Kyoto, American consumers would face higher food, medical,
and housing costs. For food, an increase of 11 percent; for medicine,
an increase of 14 percent; and for housing, an increase of 7 percent.
At the same time, an average household of four would see its real
income drop by $2,700 in 2010, and each year thereafter.
Under Kyoto, energy and electricity prices would nearly double and
the gasoline prices would go up an additional 65 cents a gallon.
I hope somebody is listening out there.
Some of the environmental community have dismissed the Wharton report
as a tainted product. I point them to the 1998 analysis of the Clinton
Energy Information Administration, the statistical arm of the
Department of Energy, which largely confirmed Wharton's analysis. Keep
in mind, all these disastrous results of Kyoto are predicted by the
Wharton Econometric Forecasting Associates, a private consulting
company founded by professors from the University of Pennsylvania's
Wharton Business School.
This month the Congressional Budget Office provided further proof
that Kyoto-like carbon regulatory schemes are regressive and harmful to
economic growth and prosperity.
As the CBO--that is, the Congressional Budget Office--found:
The price increases resulting from a carbon cap would be
regressive--that is, they would place a greater burden on
lower-income households than higher-income households.
As to the broader macroeconomic effects of the carbon cap and trade
schemes, the CBO said:
A cap-and-trade program for carbon emissions could impose
significant costs on the economy in the form of welfare
losses. Welfare losses are real costs to the economy in that
they would not be recovered anywhere else in the form of
higher income. Those losses would be borne by people in their
role as shareholders, consumers and workers.
Some might respond that the Government can simply redistribute the
wealth, redistribute the income, in a form of welfare programs to
mitigate the impact, but the CBO found otherwise. The CBO said:
The Government could use the allowance value to partly
redistribute the costs of a carbon cap-and-trade program, but
it could not cover these costs entirely. [And, further,]
Available research indicates that providing compensation
could actually raise the cost to the economy of a carbon cap.
That is what CBO said just this month.
Despite these facts, groups such as Greenpeace blindly assert that
Kyoto ``will not impose significant costs'' and ``will not be an
Among the many questions this provokes, one may ask: Won't be a
burden on whom exactly? Greenpeace doesn't elaborate. But according to
a recent study by the Center for Energy and Economic Development
sponsored by the National Black Chamber of Commerce and the U.S.
Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, if the U.S. ratifies the Kyoto or passes
domestic climate policies effectively implementing the treaty, the
result would be to:
disproportionately harm America's minority communities and
place the economic advancement of millions of U.S. Blacks and
Hispanics at risk.
This was the National Black Chamber of Commerce and the U.S. Hispanic
Chamber of Commerce.
Among the study's key findings--and this is one that is very
significant here, too, when we talk about unemployment rates--this line
would be unemployment rates without Kyoto. It goes straight across. We
can see it starting at about 10.5 percent, going across from the
current time to 2012.
This line down here is the line for Hispanics. This is unemployment
The study concluded, if we should have to comply with Kyoto
regulations, it would go up, unemployment would go up at that
particular rate and, for Hispanics, at this particular rate.
It also affects the poverty rates for Blacks and Hispanics. Again,
for Blacks, the poverty rate, if you take this as a baseline and take
it straight across from the year 2000 to 2012, this being a little over
26 percent, then you follow with Kyoto, look at what happens to the
poverty rate--the same thing happening down here for Hispanics. In
other words, it is discriminatory against these particular individuals.
Among the study's key findings--again, let me remind you, this is not
some organization that should be questioned; this is the National Black
Chamber of Commerce and the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, and
among their findings: Kyoto will cost 511,000 jobs held by Hispanic
workers and 864,000 jobs held by Black workers. Poverty rates for
minority families will increase dramatically, and because Kyoto will
bring about higher energy prices, many minority businesses will be
This is not Senator Jim Inhofe talking, this is the National Black
Chamber of Commerce and U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.
It is interesting to note, the environmental left purports to
advocate policies based on their alleged good for humanity, especially
the most vulnerable.
Kyoto is no exception. Yet Kyoto and Kyoto-like policies developed in
this body would cause the greatest harm to the very poorest of
Environmental alarmists, as an article of faith, peddled the notion
that climate change, as Green Peace put it, is ``the biggest
environmental threat facing . . . developing countries.''
Such thinking runs totally contrary to the public declaration of the
2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development, a program sponsored by
the United Nations, which found that poverty is the No. 1 one threat to
I would like at this point to talk a little bit about John Christy.
Dr. John Christy is director of the Earth System Science Center at the
University of Alabama, Huntsville, who passionately reiterated the
point about poverty in the May 22 letter to the House Resources
Committee Chairman, Richard Pombo of California. As an addendum to his
testimony during the committee's hearing on the Kyoto Protocol, Dr.
Christy, an Alabama State climatologist, talked eloquently about his
service as a missionary in Africa.
I am going to dwell a little on this because I have had a mission in
west Africa for quite a number of years and I have been there and have
seen what he is about to describe as a reality. We talked about the
poverty in America. We talked about what is going to happen to
minorities--Blacks and Hispanics in America.
Let us look at where the poverty is the worst. Dr. Christy said,
``Poverty is the worst polluter.'' As he noted, bringing modern,
inexpensive electricity to developing countries would raise living
standards and lead to a cleaner environment. Kyoto, he said, would be
counterproductive, and, as I interpret him, immoral, for Kyoto would
divert precious resources away from helping those truly in need to a
problem that doesn't exist and a solution that would have no
The following is an excerpt of a letter worth quoting at length. This
is Dr. Christy talking about his experience in Africa:
The typical home was a mud-walled, thatched-roof structure.
Smoke from the cooking fire fueled by undried wood was
especially irritating to breathe as one entered the home. The
fine particles and toxic emissions from these in-house, open
fires assured serious lung and eye diseases for a lifetime.
And, keeping such fires fueled and burning required a major
amount of time, preventing the people from engaging in other
less environmentally damaging pursuits.
I've always believed that establishing a series of coal-
fired power plants in countries such as Kenya (with simple
electrification to the villages) would be the best
advancement for the African people and the African
environment. An electric light bulb, a microwave oven and a
small heater in each home would make a dramatic difference in
the overall standard of living. No longer would a major
portion of time be spent on gathering inefficient and toxic
fuel. The serious health problems of hauling heavy loads and
lung poisoning would be much reduced. Women would be freed to
engage in activities of greater productivity and advancement.
Light on demand would allow for more learning to take place
and other activities to be completed. Electricity would also
foster a more efficient transfer of important information
from radio or television. And finally, the preservation of
some of the most beautiful and diverse habitats on the planet
would be possible if wood were eliminated as a source of
Providing energy from sources other than biomass (wood and
dung), such as coal-produced electricity, would bring longer
and better lives to the people of the developing world and
greater opportunity for the preservation of their natural
ecosystems. Let me assure you, notwithstanding the views of
extreme environmentalists, that Africans do indeed want a
higher standard of living. They want to live longer and
healthier with less burden bearing and with more
opportunities to advance. New sources of affordable,
accessible energy would set them down the road of achieving
These experiences made it clear to me that affordable,
accessible energy was desperately needed in African
As in Africa, ideas for limiting energy use, as embodied in
the Kyoto protocol, create the greatest hardships for the
poorest among us. As I mentioned in the Hearing, enacting any
of these noble-sounding initiatives to deal with climate
change through increased energy costs, might make a wealthy
urbanite or politician feel good about themselves, but they
would not improve the environment and would most certainly
degrade the lives of those who need help now.
Some in this body have introduced Kyoto-like legislation that would
seriously hurt low-income and minority populations.
Last year, Tom Mullen, president of the Cleveland Catholic Charities,
testified against S. 556, the Clean Power Act of last year, which would
have had a lot of Kyoto-type implications; that it would impose onerous
and unrealistic restrictions, including a Kyoto cap on carbon monoxide
emissions by electricity.
That was Tom Mullen before the committee which I chaired. He is the
president of Catholic Charities in Cleveland. He has devoted his whole
life to helping poor people.
He noted that this regime would mean higher electricity prices for
the poorest citizens of Cleveland.
For those on fixed incomes, as Mr. Mullen pointed out, higher
electricity prices present a choice between eating and staying warm in
the winter. As Mr. Mullen said:
The overall impact on the economy in Northeast Ohio would
be overwhelming, and the needs that we address at Catholic
Charities in Ohio with the elderly and poor would be well
beyond our capacity and that of our current partners in
government and the private sector.
That is the sworn testimony of Mr. Mullen before my committee.
I see that Senator Voinovich from Ohio has approached the floor. He
remembers very well when Tom Mullen of Catholic Charities of Ohio was
in testifying. Senator Voinovich made several comments as to the
seriousness that he believed this would impose upon the poor people of
Ohio. There is no one more concerned about the poor people in Ohio than
In addition to its negative economic impacts, Kyoto still does not
satisfy Byrd-Hagel's concerns about developing countries. Though such
countries as China, India, Brazil, South Korea, and Mexico are all
signatories to Kyoto, they are not required to reduce their emissions
even though they emit nearly 30 percent of the world's greenhouse
It says we have to treat the developing nations the same as these
countries that have signed onto the protocol. But they don't have to do
it. Within a generation, they will be the largest emitters of carbon,
methane, and other such greenhouse gases.
Despite the fact that neither of Byrd-Hagel's conditions has been
met, environmentalists echoed by the liberal media have bitterly
criticized President Bush for abandoning Kyoto. But one wonders why.
Why don't they assail the 95 Senators--both Democrats and Republicans--
who, according to Byrd-Hagel, presumably oppose ratification if the
treaty came up on the Senate floor?
Why don't they assail former President Clinton or Vice President Gore
who signed the treaty but never submitted it for ratification?
To repeat, it was a unanimous vote saying we cannot ratify Kyoto--the
Kyoto Treaty that the President had
signed--unless they would take care of these needs; that is, treating
developing countries the same as other countries and if it would
provide for any kind of damaging economic effect.
So when you look at it, you see it was 95 to 0. You have Senators who
are of the liberal persuasion--fine people but certainly a different
philosophy than mine; Senators Boxer, Collins, Feingold, Dorgan,
Graham, Jeffords, Kennedy, Kerry, Lieberman, Moseley-Braun,
Rockefeller, and many others--who are really sincerely talking in favor
of this Kyoto Treaty, but they cast their vote against it. They said:
We don't want to ratify this treaty, and we are not going to ratify
this treaty unless it treats the developing countries the same as it
does the developed nations and unless it doesn't perform any kind of
damage to the economy.
If Byrd-Hagel would not ratify Kyoto if it caused substantial harm
and if the developing countries were not required to participate in the
same timetable, now it brings us to a very significant question: If the
Byrd-Hagel conditions are ever satisfied, should the United States
ratify Kyoto? Answering that question depends on several factors,
including whether Kyoto would provide significant needed environmental
First, we should ask what Kyoto is designed to accomplish. According
to the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Kyoto will
achieve ``stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the
atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic
interference with the climate system.''
What does this statement mean? The IPCC offers no elaboration and
doesn't provide any scientific explanation about what that level would
be. Why? The answer is simple: thus far no one has found a definitive
Recently scientists have answered that question.
Dr. Fred Singer, an atmospheric scientist at the University of
Virginia, who served as the first Director of the U.S. Weather
Satellite Service, which is now part of the Department of Commerce, and
more recently has served as a member and vice chairman of the National
Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere, said:
No one knows what constitutes a ``dangerous''
concentration. There exists, as yet, no scientific basis for
defining such a concentration, or even of knowing whether it
is more or less than current levels of carbon dioxide.
One might pose the question: If we had the ability to set the global
thermostat, what temperature would we pick? Would we set it colder or
warmer than it is today? What would the optimal temperature be? The
actual dawn of civilization occurred in a period climatologists call
the ``climatic optimum,'' when the mean surface temperature was about 1
to 2 degrees Celsius warmer than it is today. If we could choose, what
would we choose? Why not go 1 degree or 2 degrees higher, or 1 degree
or 2 degrees cooler, for that matter?
The Kyoto emissions reduction targets are arbitrary, lacking any real
scientific basis. Kyoto, therefore, will have no impact on global
temperatures. This is not just my opinion but the conclusion that is
reached by the country's top climate scientists.
Dr. Tom Wigley, a senior scientist at the National Center for
Atmospheric Research, found that if the Kyoto protocol were fully
implemented by all signatories--now, I will note this next point
assumes that the alarmist science is correct, which, of course, it is
not--if the Kyoto protocol were fully implemented, it would reduce
temperatures by a mere .07 degrees Celsius by 2050 and .13 degrees
Celsius by 2100.
What does this mean? Such an amount is so small that ground-based
thermometers cannot even measure it. If you look at this chart, this
shows the difference all the way from 2000 to 2050. You can see, while
we have ups and downs, it is not measurable. We do not have equipment
that could measure that precisely.
Dr. Richard Lindzen, an MIT scientist and member of the National
Academy of Sciences, who has specialized in climate issues for over 30
years, told the Committee on Environment and Public Works--the
committee I chair--on May 2, 2001, that there is a ``definitive
disconnect between Kyoto and science. Should a catastrophic scenario
prove correct, Kyoto would not prevent it.''
Similarly, Dr. James Hansen of NASA, considered the father of global
warming--he is the guy who thought of all this stuff--said the Kyoto
protocol--keep in mind, he is the father of this concept--``will have
little effect'' on global temperature in the 21st century. In a rather
stunning followup, Hansen said it would take 30 Kyotos--let me repeat
that--30 Kyotos to reduce warming to an acceptable level. If 1 Kyoto
devastates the American economy, what would 30 Kyotos do?
So this leads to another question: If the provisions in the protocol
do little or nothing measurable to influence global temperatures, what
does this tell us about the scientific basis for Kyoto?
Answering that question requires a thorough examination of the
scientific work conducted by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change. I am going to refer to this as the IPCC. It is the
U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which provides the
scientific basis for Kyoto. In other words, that is what everything is
based on. So I want to talk about that for a few minutes. The
international climate negotiations and substance of claims were made by
In 1992, several nations from around the world gathered in Rio de
Janeiro for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
This meeting was premised on the concern that global warming was
becoming a problem. The United States, along with many other countries,
signed the Framework Convention, committing them to making voluntary
reductions in greenhouse gases. OK. That was 11 years ago.
Over time, it became clear that signatories were not going to reach
their reduction targets as stipulated under Rio. This realization led
to the Kyoto protocol of 1997, which was an amendment to the Framework
Convention and which prescribed mandatory reductions only for developed
nations; that is, the United States. Of course, you know that is
another violation of Byrd-Hagel, that it would just affect the
developed nations, not the developing nations.
The science of Kyoto is based on the assessment reports conducted by
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC. Over the last
13 years, the IPCC has published three assessments, with each one, over
time, growing more and more alarmist.
The first IPCC assessment report, in 1990, found that the climate
record of the past century was ``broadly consistent'' with the changes
in the Earth's surface temperature, as calculated by climate models
that incorporated the observed increase in greenhouse gases.
This conclusion is absurd, considering the climate cooled between
1940 and 1975, just as industrial activity grew rapidly after World War
II. It has been difficult to reconcile this cooling with the observed
increases in greenhouse gases.
Let's be sure we understand what is happening. In 1940, and then
after the war, is when we had the huge increase in CO2 and
the greenhouse gases. Yet that precipitated a cooling period, not a
warming period, totally contradicting the science.
After its initial publication, the IPCC's second assessment report,
in 1995, attracted widespread international attention, particularly
among scientists who believed that human activities were causing global
warming. In their view, the report provided the proverbial smoking gun.
The most widely cited phrase from that report--which actually came
from the report summary, as few in the media actually read the entire
report--was that ``the balance of the evidence suggests a discernible
human influence on global climate.'' This, of course, is so vague that
it is essentially meaningless.
What do they mean by ``suggests''? For that matter, what do they mean
by ``discernible''? How much human influence is discernible? Is it a
positive or negative influence? Where is the precise scientific
Unfortunately, the media created the impression that man-induced
global warming was fact. On August 10, 1995,
the New York Times published an article titled ``Experts Confirm Human
Role in Global Warming''--not just inaccurate but just an outrageous
lie. According to the Times account, the IPCC showed that global
warming ``is unlikely to be entirely due to natural causes.'' That is
what they said.
Of course, when parsed, this account means fairly little. Not
entirely due to natural causes? Well, how much then? One percent?
Twenty percent? Eighty-five percent?
The IPCC report was replete with caveats and qualifications,
providing little evidence to support anthropogenic theories--and
``anthropogenic'' means manmade--of global warming. The preceding
paragraph in which the ``balance of evidence'' appears makes exactly
that point. It reads:
Our ability to quantify the human influence on global
climate is currently limited because the expected signal is
still emerging from the noise of natural variability, and
because there are uncertainties in key factors.
That is the IPCC. Those are their words which totally refute the case
they are trying to make. Moreover, the IPCC report was quite explicit
about the uncertainties surrounding the link between human actions and
Although these global mean results suggest that there is
some anthropogenic component in the observed temperature
record, they cannot be considered compelling evidence of a
clear cause-and-effect link between anthropogenic forcing and
changes in the Earth's surface temperature.
Remember the IPCC provides the scientific basis for the alarmists'
conclusion about global warming. But even the IPCC is saying their own
science cannot be considered compelling evidence.
Dr. John Christy, professor of Atmospheric Science and director of
the Earth Systems Science Center at the University of Alabama, a key
contributor to the 1995 IPCC report, participated with the lead authors
in drafting the sections in the detailed review of the scientific text.
He wrote--this isn't the IPCC; this is Dr. John Christy--in the
Montgomery Advertiser, February 22, 1998, that much of what passes for
common knowledge in the press regarding climate change is ``inaccurate,
incomplete, or viewed out of context.''
Many of the misconceptions about climate change originated from the
IPCC's six-page executive summary. It was the most widely read and
quoted of the three documents published by the IPCC working group but--
and this point is crucial--it had the least input from scientists and
the greatest input from nonscientists.
Let me go to the third assessment. Five years later, the IPCC was
back again, this time with the Third Assessment Report on Climate
Change. In October of 2000, the IPCC ``Summary for Policymakers''--that
is not what the scientists said; that is what the politicians said--was
leaked to the media which, once again, accepted the IPCC's conclusions
as fact. Based on the summary, the Washington Post wrote on October 30:
The consensus on global warming keeps strengthening.
In a similar vein, the New York Times competently declared on October
The international panel of climate scientists, considered
the most authoritative voice on global warming, is now
concluding that mankind's contribution to the problem is
greater than originally believed.
Look at how these accounts are couched. They are worded to maximize
the fear factor. But upon closer inspection, it is clear that such
statements have no compelling intellectual content. ``Greater than
originally believed,'' what is the baseline from which the Times makes
that judgment? Is it .01 percent or 25 percent? And how much greater?
Double? Triple? An order of magnitude greater?
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 2.)
Mr. INHOFE. The scientists wrote that the Canadian Prime Minister
essentially ignored an earlier letter they drafted in 2001. In it, they
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
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
That is Dr. Frederick Seitz, former president of the National Academy
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
If you study that, you will come to the same conclusions. These are
objective scientists, not fundraisers for some far-left environmental
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
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.
[From the Washington Post, July 7, 2003]
Climate Change: The Science Isn't Settled
(By James Schlesinger)
Despite the certainty many seem to feel about the causes,
effects and extent of climate change, we are in fact making
only slow progress in our understanding of the underlying
science. My old professor at Harvard, the great economist
Joseph Schumpeter, used to insist that a principal tool of
economic science was history--which served to temper the
enthusiasms of the here and now. This must be even more so in
climatological science. In recent years the inclination has
been to attribute the warming we have lately experienced to a
single dominant cause--the increase in greenhouse gases. Yet
climate has always been changing--and sometimes the swings
have been rapid.
At the time the U.S. Department of Energy was created in
1977, there was widespread concern about the cooling trend
that had been observed for the previous quarter-century.
After 1940 the temperature, at least in the Northern
Hemisphere, had dropped about one-half degree Fahrenheit--and
more in the higher latitudes. In 1974 the National Science
Board, the governing body of the National Science Foundation,
stated: ``During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature
has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the
last decade.'' Two years earlier, the board had observed:
``Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the
present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end
. . . leading into the next glacial age.'' And in 1975 the
National Academy of Sciences stated: ``The climates of the
earth have always been changing, and they will doubtless
continue to do so in the future. How large these future
changes will be, and where and how rapidly they will occur,
we do not know.''
These statements--just a quarter-century old--should
provide us with a dose of humility as we look into the more
distant future. A touch of that humility might help temper
the current raging controversies over global warming. What
has concerned me in recent years is that belief in the
greenhouse effect, persuasive as it is, has been transmuted
into the dominant forcing mechanism affecting climate
change--more or less to the exclusion of other forcing
mechanisms. The CO2/climate-change relationship
has hardened into orthodoxy--always a worrisome sign--an
orthodoxy that searches out heretics and seeks to punish
We are in command of certain essential facts. First, since
the start of the 20th century, the mean temperature at the
earth's surface has risen about 1 degree Fahrenheit. Second,
the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has been
increasing for more than 150 years. Third, CO2 is
a greenhouse gas--and increases in it, other things being
equal, are likely to lead to further warming. Beyond these
few facts, science remains unable either to attribute past
climate changes to changes in CO2 or to forecast
with any degree of precision how climate will change in the
Of the rise in temperature during the 20th century, the
bulk occurred from 1900 to 1940. It was followed by the
aforementioned cooling trend from 1940 to around 1975. Yet
the concentration of greenhouse gases was measurably higher
in that later period than in the former. That drop in
temperature came after what was described in the National
Geographic as ``six decades of abnormal warmth.''
In recent years much attention has been paid in the press
to longer growing seasons and shrinking glaciers. Yet in the
earlier period up to 1975, the annual growing season in
England had shrunk by some nine or 10 days, summer frosts in
the upper Midwest occasionally damaged crops, the glaciers in
Switzerland had begun to advance again, and sea ice had
returned to Iceland's coasts after more than 40 years of its
When we look back over the past millennium, the questions
that arise are even more perplexing. The so-called Climatic
Optimum of the early Middle Ages, when the earth temperatures
were 1 to 2 degrees warmer than today and the Vikings
established their flourishing colonies in Greenland, was
succeeded by the Little Ice Age, lasting down to the early
19th century. Neither can be explained by concentrations of
greenhouse gases. Moreover, through much of the earth's
history, increases in CO2 have followed global
warming, rather than the other way around.
We cannot tell how much of the recent warming trend can be
attributed to the greenhouse effect and how much to other
factors. In climate change, we have only a limited grasp of
the overall forces at work. Uncertainties have continued to
abound--and must be reduced. Any approach to policy formation
under conditions of such uncertainty should be taken only on
an exploratory and sequential basis. A premature commitment
to a fixed policy can only proceed with fear and trembling.
In the Third Assessment by the International Panel on
Climate Change, recent climate change is attributed primarily
to human causes, with the usual caveats regarding
uncertainties. The record of the past 150 years is scanned,
and three forcing mechanisms are highlighted: anthropogenic
(human-caused) greenhouse gases, volcanoes and the 11-year
sunspot cycle. Other phenomena are represented poorly, if at
all, and generally are ignored in these models. Because only
the past 150 years are captured, the vast swings of the
previous thousand years are not analyzed. The upshot is that
any natural variations, other than volcanic eruptions, are
overshadowed by anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
Most significant: The possibility of long-term cycles in
solar activity is neglected because there is a scarcity of
direct measurement. Nonetheless, solar irradiance and its
variation seem highly likely to be a principal cause of long-
term climatic change. Their role in longer-term weather
cycles needs to be better understood.
There is an idea among the public that ``the science is
settled.'' Aside from the limited facts I cited earlier, that
remains far from the truth. Today we have far better
instruments, better measurements and better time series than
we have ever had. Still, we are in danger of prematurely
embracing certitudes and losing open-mindedness. We need to
be more modest.
The Hon. Paul Martin, P.C.,
Member of Parliament, House of Commons, Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Mr. Martin: We understand from media reports that you
believe that more consultation with the provinces should have
taken place before moving forward with ratification of the
Kyoto Accord. We would like to alert you to the fact that the
current government neglected to conduct comprehensive science
consultations as well. The statements by current Minister of
the Environment David Anderson that Prime Minister Jean
Chretien's decision to ratify the Kyoto accord was based
merely on a ``gut feeling,'' not an understanding of the
issue, clearly illustrates that a more thorough examination
of the science should have taken place before a ratification
decision was made.
If you are to lead the next government, we believe that a
high priority should be placed on correcting this situation
and conducting wide ranging consultations with non-
governmental climate scientists as soon as possible in order
to properly consider the range of informed opinion pertaining
to the science of Kyoto.
Many of us made the same suggestion to the Prime Minister
in an open letter on Nov. 25, 2002, in which we alerted Mr.
Chretien to the fact that Kyoto was not justified from a
scientific perspective. That letter called on the government
of Canada ``to delay a decision on the ratification of the
Kyoto Accord until after a thorough and comprehensive
consultation is conducted with non-governmental climate
specialists.'' It was explained to the Prime Minister that,
``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.''
Unfortunately, the Prime Minister took no action on the
issue and proceeded to ratify the accord without the
government and the public having had the benefit of hearing a
proper science debate on an issue that is sure to affect
Canadians for generations to come.
We strongly believe that important environmental policy
should be based on a strong
foundation of environmental science. Censoring credible
science out of the debate because it does not conform to a
pre-determined political agenda is clearly not a responsible
course of action for any government. Your openness to re-
examining the recent approach to the Kyoto file encourages us
to believe that you may also be open to reconsidering the way
in which the scientific debate was suppressed as well. We
certainly hope so. 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.
In the meantime, we would be happy to provide you with more
information on this important topic and, for those of us who
are able, we would like to offer to meet with you personally
to discuss the issue further in the near future.
Above letter signed by:
Dr. Tim Ball, Environmental Consultant, 28 years Professor
of Climatology, University of Winnipeg.
Dr. Madhav Khandekar, Environmental Consultant, former
Research Scientist with Environment Canada. 45-year career in
the fields of climatology, meteorology and oceanography.
Dr. Tad Murty, private sector climate researcher.
Previously Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries and
Oceans; conducted official DFO climate change/sea level
review; Former Director of the National Tidal Facility of
Australia; Current editor--``Natural Hazards''.
Dr. Chris de Freitas (Canadian), Climate Scientist and
Professor--School of Geography and Environmental Science, The
University of Auckland, NZ.
Dr. Vaclav Smil, FRSC, Distinguished Professor of
Geography; specialization in climate and CO2,
University of Manitoba.
Dr. I.D. Clarke, Professor, Isotope Hydrogeology and
Paleoclimatology, Department of Earth Sciences (arctic
specialist), University of Ottawa.
Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia.
Climate Consultant, Past Meteorology Advisor to the World
Meteorological Organization and other scientific bodies in
Marine Meteorology. Recent Research Scientist in Climatology
at University of Exeter, UK.
Dr. Chris Essex, Professor of Applied Mathematics,
University of Western Ontario--focuses on underlying physics/
math to complex climate systems.
Dr. Keith D. Hage, climate consultant and Professor
Emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta, specialized
in micrometeorology, specifically western prairie weather
Dr. Kenneth Green, Chief Scientist, Fraser Institute,
Vancouver, BC--expert reviewer for the IPCC 2001 Working
Group I science report.
Dr. Petr Chylek, Professor of Physics and Atmospheric
Science, Dalhousie University, Nova Scotia.
Dr. Tim Patterson, Professor, Department of Earth Sciences
(Paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario.
David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), Fellow of the Royal
Meteorological Society, Canadian member and Past Chairman of
the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa.
Dr. Fred Michel, Professor, Department of Earth Sciences
(Paleoclimatology), Carleton University, arctic regions
Dr. Roger Pocklington, Ocean/Climate Consultant, F.C.I.C.,
Researcher--Bedford Institute of Oceanography, Nova Scotia.
Rob Scagel, M.Sc., Forest microclimate specialist,
Principal Consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants,
Dr. David Wojick, P.E., Climate specialist and President,
Climatechangedebate.org, Sioux Lookout, Ontario/Star Tannery,
Dr. S. Fred Singer, Distinguished Research Professor at
George Mason University and Professor Emeritus of
Environmental Science at the University of Virginia.
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of
Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary
Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
George Taylor, State Climatologist, Oregon Climate Service,
Oregon State University, Past President--American Association
of State Climatologists.
Doctorandus Hans Erren, Geophysicist/climate specialist,
Sittard, The Netherlands.
Dr. Hans Jelbring--Wind/Climate specialist, Paleogeophysics
& Geodynamics Unit, Stockholm University, Sweden. Currently,
Manager Inventex Aqua Research Institute, Stockholm.
Dr. Theodor Landscheidt, solar/climate specialist,
Schroeter Institute for Research in Cycles of Solar Activity,
Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, Climate expert, Chairman of the
scientific council of CLOR, Central Laboratory for
Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland.
Dr. Art Robinson, Founder--Oregon Institute of Science and
Medicine--focus on climate change and CO2, Cave
Dr. Craig D. Idso, Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon
Dioxide and Global Change, Tempe, Arizona.
Dr. Sherwood B. Idso, President, Center for the Study of
Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Tempe, Arizona.
Dr. Pat Michaels, Professor of Environmental Sciences,
University of Virginia; past president of the American
Association of State Climatologists and a contributing author
and reviewer of the IPCC science reports.
Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Reader, Department of
Geography, University of Hull, UK, Editor, Energy &
Dr. Robert C. Balling, Jr., Director--Office of
Climatology, Arizona State University.
Dr. Fred Seitz, Past President, U.S. National Academy of
Sciences, President Emeritus, Rockefeller University, New
Dr. Vincent Gray, Climate specialist, expert reviewer for
the IPCC and author of ``The Greenhouse Delusion; a Critique
of `Climate Change 2001' '', Wellington, NZ.
Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, energy and climate consultant,
official scientific IPCC TAR Reviewer, Langensendelbach,
Dr. Roy W. Spencer, Principal Research Scientist, Earth
System Science Center, The University of Alabama in
Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, Atmospheric Consultant--four
decades experience as a USAF weather officer and climate
consultant at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, CA.
Dr. Asmunn Moene, Former head of the National Forecasting
Center, Meteorological Institute, Oslo, Norway.
Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, Emeritus Professor of Physics,
Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, New Jersey.
Dr. James J. O'Brien, Professor of Meteorology and
Oceanography, Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction
Studies, Florida State University. Co-chaired the Regional
Climate Change Study for the Southeast USA.
Dr. Douglas V. Hoyt, climate consultant, previously Senior
Scientist with Raytheon/ITSS; Broadly published author of
``The Role of the Sun in Climate Change''.
Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Scientific Director, Center for Climate/
Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, California.
Prof. Dr. Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Academician, Counsellor
RAS, Research Centre for Ecological Safety, Russian Academy
of Sciences and Nansen International Environmental and Remote
Sensing Centre, St. Petersburg, Russia.
Dr. Paal Brekke--Solar Physicist, specialist in sun/UV
radiation/Sun-Earth Connection, affiliated with the
University of Oslo, Norway.
Dr. Richard S. Courtney, climate consultant, expert IPCC
peer reviewer, Founding Member of the European Science and
Environment Forum, UK.
William Kininmonth, Managing Director, Australasian Climate
Research. Formerly head of Australia's National Climate
Centre and a member of Australia's delegations to the Second
World Climate Conference and the UN Intergovernmental
Negotiating Committee for a Framework Convention on Climate
Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, Docent in environmental technology/
science, Process Design Laboratory, the Swedish University of
Finland, Biskopsgatan, Finland.
Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, Principal Geologist, Kansas Geological
Survey; Adjunct Professor, Colorado School of Mines; Noted
author and geological expert on climate history.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Harkin are printed in today's Record under