January 8, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S197 

American dollar-denominated debt because they have their own economic 

issues, their own need for the use of 

capital at home. This could have enormous consequences for us going forward in terms of interest rates and 

what it will take to attract foreign 

capital to float this economic boat. 

One final point. Last year, of the new 

debt financing for this country, 68 percent of it came from abroad. Madam 

President, 68 percent of our new debt 

financing came from abroad. The fact 

that the Chinese, who have been the 

most significant contributors to financing that debt, are expressing a reluctance to take on more of our debt, 

do more of our debt financing, should 

send a warning signal to all of us as we 

fashion long-term fiscal and economic 

policy. 

I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island. 

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I wish to ask, through the Chair, 

a question of the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee with respect to the $10 trillion debt the country is now carrying. 

At the time the current administration that is leaving office came into office 8 years ago, my understanding is 

the situation in America was rather 

different. It is my understanding that 

at that time we were actually looking 

at surpluses in our country, and the $10 

trillion deficit is largely the responsibility of the policies that have been 

followed over the past 8 years. 

Mr. CONRAD. The Senator is exactly 

right. The debt of the country at the 

beginning of the last administration 

was about $5 trillion. They have approximately doubled the debt of the 

country on their watch, dramatically 

more than doubled foreign holdings of 

U.S. debt. So the current administration, the outgoing administration, has 

left the incoming administration in a 

very deep hole, not to mention the economic difficulties and the extreme 

need for an economic recovery plan to 

give lift to this economy. 

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. So through the 

good times, we could have been laying 

money aside so that when this situation came, we would be in a strong economic condition. Instead, by squandering all those years, we have put the 

incoming administration in a very 

challenging position. 

Mr. CONRAD. Yes, not only the incoming administration, the whole 

country because our ability to cope 

with an economic downturn, the flexibility is substantially limited by what 

has already been done to dramatically 

increase the debt, as the Senator described, in good economic times. Unfortunately, that is the reality we now 

confront. 

Today’s news by the Congressional 

Budget Office of not only the $1.2 trillion deficit this year but massive deficits as far as the eye can see should 

sober us all. 

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I thank the very 

distinguished chairman of the Budget 

Committee for being willing to engage 

in this colloquy with me. 

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator 

from Rhode Island and look forward to 

working with him on the Budget Committee as we attempt to come up with 

a plan to deal with these multiple challenges. 

f 

RECESS 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under 

the previous order, the Senate will 

stand in recess until 4:45 p.m. 

Thereupon, the Senate, at 3:34 p.m., 

recessed until 4:45 p.m. and reassembled when called to order by the Presiding Officer (Ms. KLOBUCHAR). 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized. 

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, 

under the rules, have we been in a 

quorum call or in recess? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. We have 

been in a recess. 

f 

GLOBAL WARMING 

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, first 

of all, I appreciate your coming from 

your meeting to preside. As we begin 

the new Congress and a new administration, we begin a new chapter on energy and environmental policy, and it 

is a time that environmental activists, 

the United Nations, and many of my 

Democratic colleagues have been salivating for for years. The stars are all 

aligned. Democrats control both sides 

of Pennsylvania Avenue, and the Supreme Court has spoken now that carbon dioxide is a pollutant under the 

Clear Air Act, even though it was a 5- 

to-4 decision. It is kind of interesting 

how something can be a pollutant with 

a 5-to-4 decision. 

It is believed the stage has been set 

for a home run on mandatory Kyotolike climate controls and the dawn of a 

new bustling green energy economy. 

However, before many of my colleagues 

rush to leap before they look, I wish to 

remind them of some very unfortunate 

developments that may complicate 

their early action on items on their 

wish lists. I ask my colleagues to at 

least consider some of the facts I will 

be revealing over the next series of 

speeches and to keep an open mind before rushing to sweeping action after 

waiting for so many years. 

The scale and pace of the climate 

proposals and the regulatory actions 

we have debated in the past, including 

the recently failed Lieberman-Warner 

bill and the ones we will likely be debating this Congress, leave little room 

for error in this fragile, recession-ridden economy, and the inflated promises 

of a sweeping green jobs revolution 

need an honest and frank reality. The 

proponents of mandatory global warming controls need to be honest with the 

American people. The purpose of these 

programs is to ration fossil-based energy by making it more expensive and 

therefore less appealing for public consumption. It is a regressive tax that 

imposes a greater burden relative to resources on the poor than it does on the 

rich. Let me say that again. The purpose of these programs is to ration the 

fossil fuel-based energy by making it 

more expensive to all Americans and 

therefore less appealing for public consumption. But it is a regressive tax, 

and we have talked about this before. 

It is one that punishes those whose resources have to be used for such purposes as being able to operate their vehicles and heat their homes. 

Advocates may argue that the redistribution of wealth toward the income 

consumers will offset the balance of 

revenue or taxes being taken in, but we 

learned firsthand during the 

Lieberman-Warner debate that this 

simply is not true. I don’t like the argument that we have equal distribution of wealth efforts that are going to 

take a regressive nature out of the punitive values of this type of program. 

To me, there is something un-American about that. But while the bill’s 

sponsors try to convince us there is actually tax relief in the bill, we learn 

that families—now I am talking about 

the Lieberman-Warner bill, and this 

was only about 8 months ago, the 

Lieberman-Warner bill—we learn that 

families with workers will still have to 

pay $6.7 trillion into the system in the 

form of higher energy costs to get back 

an estimated $802 billion in tax relief. 

That is a return of $1 out of every $8.40 

paid. It is time that proponents of climate policies be honest. It is expensive, and it is going to cost taxpayers a 

lot of money. 

You know, it doesn’t really matter 

which form we use. We have gone 

through, first of all, the Kyoto Treaty. 

We came this close to passing the 

Kyoto Treaty, and it wasn’t until the 

Wharton School of Economics came 

along with the econometrics survey 

and they determined it would cost 

some $300 billion a year to join onto 

and actually try to achieve the emission requirements of Kyoto. Then 

along came the McCain-Lieberman bill 

and then after that the WarnerLieberman bill. And cap and trade is 

going to be about the same amount. 

They may massage it a little bit, but 

we are still talking in the neighborhood of $300 billion a year. That 

equates to over $2,000 for each taxpaying family in America. So it is 

huge. 

In the coming weeks, I will go into 

more detail about other false promises 

proponents of mandatory global warming policies are advocating. Among 

them are a reality check on green 

projects—the number of new green jobs 

from a climate regime are overstated 

compared to the number of manufacturing jobs lost, and we know from the 

National Association of Manufacturers 

how many jobs would have been lost 

with any of these schemes in the past; 

a review of the weaknesses of offset 

policies—companies have bought offsets which are not real; and a review of 

the attempts to estimate the cost of inaction. Many advocates are claiming it 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with SENATE
S198 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 8, 2009 

is more expensive to do nothing than 

the cost of a cap and trade, but they 

are untested and nontransparent economic modeling. 

All these issues will play a vital role 

in the debate on both energy and global 

warming policy, which have become 

unavoidably intertwined. You can’t 

really talk about one without the 

other. You can’t talk about what you 

are going to do on greenhouse gases or 

CO2 or cap and trade without affecting 

our overall energy policy. 

When there are sensible proposals debated in Congress that can achieve 

double benefits of reducing emissions 

and making America’s energy supply 

more stable, diverse, and affordable, 

then we will look forward to working 

on a bipartisan basis to achieving these 

goals. Increasing our domestic energy 

production and lowering our dependence on foreign oil are two issues that 

are critically important to myself and 

my State of Oklahoma, and of course 

this will include renewables and new 

green jobs. 

However, we need to be smart and realistic about these policies. Unfortunately, I fear that the scale and pace 

many of my colleagues will be advocating with mandatory climate policies 

are unrealistic, extraordinarily narrowly expensive, and ill-advised. What 

is the driver for these unrealistic proposals that seem to make unnecessarily abrupt and painful increases in 

our energy costs in the near term? It is 

all rooted in global warming science. 

I have given over 12 speeches, averaging over an hour apiece, on the 

science of global warming over the past 

few years. Today, I wish to update my 

colleagues on some of the latest 

science that has not yet been reported 

in the mainstream media. I will simply 

be a disseminator of this information 

and not a commentator. I have to say 

that because I am not a scientist, nor 

is anyone else that I know of in this 

body a scientist. So the statements I 

will make will be quoting people who 

are qualified and are scientists, and 

this is what my role will be. 

Before I do that, I ask all my colleagues to think about the issue. 

Science should not be reviewed through 

any one frame. It is not partisan, it is 

not regional; however, the political 

process has largely engulfed science behind climate change. As I have documented in speeches before, the politicizing of the global warming science 

has become one of the most unfortunate developments in the last 8 years. 

Anytime one questions a hypothesis or 

a conclusion that does not fall in line 

with ‘‘the sky is falling’’ doom and 

gloom scenario of global warming 

alarmists, it is ridiculed, written off, 

denigrated, and not reported by the 

mainstream media. Yet anytime a 

more severe interpretation or alarming 

statistic is related, it is headline grabbing in the news. Objective, transparent, and verifiable science gets lost 

in the public dialog. 

Funding has a way of influencing this 

debate. The other day there was an article in the Bloomberg News—and I say 

this for those individuals who might be 

feeling sorry for Al Gore—it was reported that his net worth in 2000 was 

between $1 million and $2 million and 

it is now in excess of $100 million 

today, so he will be all right. 

When the stakes of the policy outcomes with cap and trade and other 

mandatory climate proposals are this 

high for the American people, I hope 

the Senate this year will embrace my 

calls for objectivity and transparency 

in science and modeling. As policymakers, it is our duty to make sure 

models developed by agencies and used 

in policy are useful for their intended 

purpose, articulate major assumptions 

and uncertainties, and separate scientific conclusions from policy judgments. 

However, with global warming 

science this has not been the case. 

With many left-of-center scientists, 

the environmental activists now realize the so-called consensus on manmade global warming is not holding up. 

The leftwing blog Huffington Post— 

this is a left-leaning organization—surprised a lot of people by featuring an 

article on January 3, 2008, by Harold 

Ambler demanding an apology from 

Gore for promoting unfounded global 

warming fears. The Huffington Post— 

again, left leaning—article accused 

Gore of telling the biggest whopper 

ever sold to the American public in the 

history of mankind because he claimed 

the science was settled on global warming. The Huffington Post article, entitled ‘‘Mr. Gore: Apology Accepted,’’ 

adds, ‘‘It is Mr. Gore and his brethren 

who are flat-Earthers, not the skeptics.’’ Again, it is not myself, not Jim 

Inhofe saying this about Gore; it is the 

leftwing blog, the Huffington Post, saying these things. 

The Huffington Post article continues: 

Let us neither cripple our own economy by 

mislabeling carbon dioxide a pollutant nor 

discourage development in the Third World, 

where suffering continues unabated day after 

day. 

Another left-of-center atmospheric 

scientist who has descended on the 

manmade climate fears is the U.K.’s 

Richard Courtney, a U.N.—and let’s 

keep in mind where all this started. A 

lot of people forget this was started by 

the United Nations—the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. They came out and said: 

Oh, it is manmade gases, anthropogenic gases, CO2, methane that are 

causing climate change. And this person used to be on that panel. He was an 

expert reviewer in the U.K.-based climate and atmospheric science, a consultant, and a self-described Socialist 

who also happens to reject manmade 

climate fears. 

Joining Courtney are many of the 

other progressive environmental scientists. Former Green Peace member 

and Finnish scientist Dr. Jarl Ahlbeck, 

a lecturer of environmental technology 

and a chemical engineer at the University of Finland who has authored 200 

scientific publications, is also skeptical of manmade climate doom. 

Ahlbeck wrote in 2008: 

Contrary to common belief, there has been 

no or little global warming since 1995, and 

this is shown by two completely independent 

data sets. But so far, real measurements give 

no ground for concern about catastrophic future warming. 

This is kind of interesting because 

what he is saying—and this is a guy 

who started out with the United Nations in the beginning, with the IPCC— 

is that right now we are actually in a 

cooling period. I think no one debates 

that now. We have had the most severe 

weather, and I will have another talk I 

will try to get in next week about what 

is happening around the country right 

now. It isn’t global warming, it is global cooling. People forget God is still up 

there and we go through these cycles. I 

can remember the middle 1970s when 

they were saying there is another ice 

age coming and we are all going to die. 

Those same people—and there was an 

article in Time magazine at that 

time—are the ones now saying we are 

going to die, but it is for a different 

reason, it is global warming. 

Lifelong liberal Democrat Dr. Martin 

Hertzberg, a retired Navy meteorologist with a Ph.D. in physical chemistry, also declared his dissent of 

warming fears in 2008. He said: 

As a scientist and life-long liberal Democrat, I find the constant regurgitation of the 

anecdotal, fear mongering claptrap about 

human-caused global warming to be a disservice to science. 

Finally, CNN—not a bastion of conservatism—had yet another of its meteorologists dissent from warming 

fears. Meteorologist Chad Myers, a meteorologist for 22 years, certified by the 

American Meteorological Society, 

spoke out against anthropogenic climate claims on CNN in December. 

You know, to think that we could affect 

weather all that much is pretty arrogant. 

Mother Nature is so big, the world is so big, 

the oceans are so big—I think we are going 

to die from the lack of fresh water or we are 

going to die from some type of ocean acidification before we die from global warming, 

for sure. 

Myers joins fellow CNN meteorologist—by the way, CNN has been very 

biased all this time. I think we know 

that, as has the Weather Channel, because there is a lot of money in perpetuating this myth. Myers was joined by 

his fellow CNN meteorologist, Rob 

Marciano, who compared Gore’s film to 

fiction in 2007, and CNN anchor Lou 

Dobbs just said of a global warming 

fear promotion on January 5 of this 

year, ‘‘It’s almost a religion without 

any question.’’ 

Recently, I released a new report on 

climate scientists which documents 

many of the studies ignored by the 

mainstream media. 

Here it is right here. This is one that 

is actually too large to put into the 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. In here, in the 

report, are 650 scientists who have 

challenged manmade global warming 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with SENATE
January 8, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S199 

claims made by the United Nations 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change. We talked about that. I have 

been detailing these science issues for 

a number of years. 

In a July 28, 2003, floor speech in this 

Chamber I said: The issue of global 

warming ‘‘is far from settled, and indeed is seriously disputed.’’ The science 

continues to evolve. 

I explained that ‘‘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 natural disasters.’’ 

I noted—and this is what I said in 

2003: 

Not only is there a debate, but (at least in 

certain corridors) the debate is shifting away 

from those who subscribe to global warming 

alarmism. 

That was in 2005. After that speech, I 

led the charge against the McCainLieberman global warming cap-andtrade bill—that would be in 2003, then 

again in 2005—both times easily defeating the bills. At the time it was a lonely battle. Only a few people came down 

to help me on the floor. I remember so 

well in 2005 when I was alone down here 

on the floor of the Senate for 5 consecutive days that we had it on the 

floor, about 10 hours a day. Very few 

people came down and were willing to 

join me on the Senate floor. 

That has changed. If you fastforward 

from 2005 to 2008, we had the WarnerLieberman bill on the floor. At that 

time I had over 25 Senators come down 

and join me. You are seeing people who 

no longer fear the money generated by 

the moveon.orgs, the Hollywood 

elitists, those individuals who have 

millions of dollars to put into campaigns, to throw into the system. We 

are getting a lot of encouragement. 

Things have changed. In fact, at the 

end of the bill that we had that is referred to sometimes as either the 

Lieberman-Warner bill or the Boxer 

climate tax bill, they are only able to 

get about 37 people from their own 

party, from this side of the aisle over 

here, who would support it. That is a 

major change from the past. 

After this election that number has 

only gone up from 37 to 39. You are not 

getting close to the 60 votes necessary 

to try to inflict this economic damage 

on the United States. 

The Republicans were prepared to debate the bill—this is the WarnerLieberman bill—and were ready to 

offer amendments, but the Democrats 

didn’t want to debate, much less vote, 

on our amendments that were aimed at 

protecting American families and 

workers from the devastating economic 

impacts of the bill. When faced with 

the inconvenient truth of the bill’s impact on skyrocketing gas prices, it was 

Democratic Senators who wanted to 

see the bill die a quick death. 

By the way, we had a list of some 10 

Democratic Senators who, in a very responsible way, said we will go ahead 

and vote on some of these amendments, 

but when it comes to final passage, we 

are not going to vote on it. 

After the bill failed, the Wall Street 

Journal aptly noted that environmentalists are stunned that their global warming agenda is in collapse. The 

paper added: 

The green groups now look as politically 

intimidating as the skinny kid on the beach 

who has sand kicked in his face. 

The paper quoted a political analyst 

who noted that ‘‘this issue is starting 

to feel like the Hillary health care plan 

again.’’ 

Despite the claims that we must act 

now to prevent climate crisis, the climate tax bill would not have resulted 

in any action whatsoever. The bill, 

often touted as an insurance policy 

against global warming, would instead 

have been all economic pain and no climate gain. This is because without a 

global treaty, the binding commitments by both the developing and developed countries is not going to work. 

Let’s say we believed that manmade, 

anthropogenic gases were the major 

cause of climate change and the debate 

was over if we do something just unilaterally in the United States of America. All that would do is cause a flight 

of our manufacturing jobs overseas to 

countries such as India and China and 

Mexico—places where they do not have 

any kind of a restriction on the greenhouse gases. So it would have a net increase, if we were to pass one of these. 

Yet we are the ones who would be saddled with a $300 billion-a-year tax bill. 

Americans are suspicious of the need 

for solutions to global warming. The 

Gallup Poll released on Earth Day 2008 

revealed the American public’s concern 

about manmade global warming has remained unchanged since 1989. According to Gallup, and this is a quote from 

the report, they said: 

Despite the enormous attention paid to 

global warming over the past several years, 

the average American is in some ways no 

more worried about it than they were in 

years past. 

In other words, after all the money, 

all the hype, all the biased media over 

the past few years, people have not 

moved in that direction. They know 

better. They know when they have 

been duped. 

What perhaps is the most striking is 

that, aside from the economics of global warming solutions, the science has 

continued to move in the direction I 

predicted in 2003. In 2007 I released a 

Senate minority report detailing over 

400 scientists disputing manmade global warming claims. In the inconvenient 

real world climate study, developments 

are refuting global warming fears. That 

was 2007, just a year ago. 

In 2008, in the tail end of 2008, for the 

benefit of public dissemination we have 

updated our report, and the so-called 

consensus on global warming is even 

more in dispute. That is the report I 

have right here. Over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe challenge manmade global warming claims 

made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

and by former Vice President Al Gore. 

Our new 233-page U.S. Senate minority 

report features the skeptical voices of 

over 650 prominent international scientists, including many current and 

former U.N. IPCC scientists who have 

now turned against the U.N. IPCC. 

This updated report includes an additional 250—and growing, I might add; it 

has grown since then—scientists and 

climate researchers since the initial release in December of 2007. The over 650 

dissenting scientists are more than 12 

times the number of the U.N. scientists—only 52 of them—who authored 

the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary 

for Policymakers. 

This is very significant. I know it is 

kind of heavy lifting to understand 

this, but the U.N. IPCC, that started 

this whole thing, they have this analysis that is made and updated, but you 

never get the full report by any of the 

scientists. It is merely the summary 

for policymakers. That is us. That is 

for the politicians out there. So they 

only have 52 scientists who signed this 

report. We are talking about 650 scientists versus 52. 

The chorus of skeptical scientific 

voices grew louder in 2008 as a steady 

stream of peer-reviewed studies, analyses, real-world data, and inconvenient 

developments challenged the U.N.’s and 

former Vice President Al Gore’s claims 

that the ‘‘science is settled,’’ and there 

is a ‘‘consensus.’’ Despite what is now 

being portrayed in the media on a 

range of issues, 2008 proved to be devastating for the promoters of manmade 

climate fears. 

In addition, the following developments further secured 2008 as the year 

the ‘‘consensus collapsed.’’ Russian scientists ‘‘rejected the very idea that 

carbon dioxide may be responsible for 

global warming. 

Frankly, they laugh. I have had 

meetings with them. They laugh at it. 

In Milan, when they had one of the big 

United Nations meetings where they 

tried to coerce countries into supporting this, the Russians at that time 

were in a position, since they have 

these vast areas that are totally undeveloped—I remember flying across Siberia a few years ago. I am a pilot and 

flew an airplane across the world, and 

I remember flying across Siberia and 

looking down and seeing time zone 

after time zone where you don’t see 

any people, nothing but natural resources. Yet all of those would go in 

the formula, so they would be great big 

recipients if they are able to get some 

kind of international treaty. 

In addition to that, the American 

Physical Society editor conceded that 

‘‘a considerable presence’’ of scientific 

skeptics exists. An international team 

of scientists countered the U.N. IPCC, 

declaring, ‘‘Nature, not human activity, rules the climate.’’ 

India issued a report challenging 

global warming fears. A team of international scientists demanded the U.N. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with SENATE
S200 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 8, 2009 

IPCC ‘‘be called to account and cease 

its deceptive practices,’’ and a canvass 

of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists 

revealed that 68 percent disagree that 

global warming science is ‘‘settled.’’ 

We are not talking about politicians, 

people, Senators like me and others in 

this room. We are talking about real 

scientists who are out there. We are 

talking about 68 percent of the scientists in Canada now have come to 

recognize this. That was not true 5 

years ago. Most were on the other side 

of this issue, but they have now looked 

at it and realize they have been duped. 

This new report is the latest evidence 

of the growing groundswell of scientific 

opposition challenging significant aspects of the claims of the United Nations IPCC and Al Gore. Scientific 

meetings are now being dominated by a 

growing number of skeptical scientists. 

The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologist’s 

equivalent of the Olympic Games, and 

held in very high esteem, was held in 

Norway in August 2008, just a few 

months ago, and prominently featured 

the voices of scientists skeptical of 

manmade global warming fears. The 

conference was reportedly overwhelmed with skeptical scientists, 

with ‘‘two-thirds of the presenters and 

question-askers who were hostile to, 

even dismissive of, the United Nations 

IPCC.’’ 

Even the mainstream media in 2008 

began to take notice of the expanding 

number of scientists serving as ‘‘consensus busters.’’ A November 25, 2008, 

article in Politico—everyone in Washington reads that—noted that a ‘‘growing accumulation’’ of science is challenging warming fears, and added that 

the ‘‘science behind global warming 

may still be too shaky to warrant capand-trade legislation.’’ Canada’s National Post noted on October 20, 2008, 

that ‘‘the number of climate change 

skeptics is growing rapidly.’’ New York 

Times environmental reporter Andrew 

Revkin noted on March 6, 2008, ‘‘As we 

all know, climate science is not a numbers game (there are heaps of signed 

statements by folks with advanced degrees on all sides of this issue).’’ I 

agree with him, and it’s a shame that 

we have had to resort to a numbers 

game. It should be focused on objective, transparent and peer reviewed 

science, and debate should not be quarantined. In 2007, Washington Post staff 

writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics 

‘‘appear to be expanding rather than 

shrinking.’’ 

Skeptical scientists are gaining recognition despite what many say is a 

bias against them in parts of the scientific community and are facing significant funding disadvantages. Dr. 

William M. Briggs, a climate statistician who serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and 

Statistics Committee, explained that 

his colleagues described ‘‘absolute horror stories of what happened to them 

when they tried getting papers published that explored non-‘consensus’ 

views.’’ In a March 4, 2008, report 

Briggs described the behavior as ‘‘really outrageous and unethical . . . on the 

parts of some editors. I was shocked.’’ 

Again, this is not me saying this; 

there are scientists. Here are some of 

the highlights of my 2008 Senate minority report featuring over 650 international scientists dissenting from 

man-made climate claims. 

Incidentally, this report I have—it 

was my intention to make this report 

of these 650 scientists a part of the 

RECORD. However, very wisely this 

body has said we do not want the expense. Something like this would be so 

overwhelming that some Senators who 

are conservatives would rather not do 

it. The report is here. It is a matter of 

public record. You can get a lot of this 

on my Web site, ewo.senate.com. 

Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar 

Giaever, stated: 

I am a skeptic . . . Global warming has become a new religion. 

Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne 

Simpson, the first woman in the world 

to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, and 

formerly of NASA, who has authored 

more than 190 studies and has been 

called ‘‘among the most preeminent 

scientists of the last 100 years,’’ stated: 

Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can 

speak quite frankly. . . . As a scientist I remain skeptical . . . The main basis of the 

claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases 

is the cause of the warming is based almost 

entirely upon climate models. 

We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system. 

Here, no one can argue with Dr. 

Simpson. 

The United Nations IPCC Japanese 

scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an awardwinning Ph.D. environmental physical 

chemist, stated—this is from all over 

the world now, this is in Japan. 

Warming fears are the worst scientific 

scandal in the history. . . .When people come 

to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists. 

Indian geologist Dr. Arun Ahluwalia 

of Punjab University, and a board 

member of the U.N.-supported International Year of the Planet, stated: 

The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it does not listen to others. It does not 

have open minds. I am really amazed that 

the Nobel Peace Price has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people 

who are not geologists. 

Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space 

Center in Oslo, has published more 

than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the Sun and solar interaction 

with the Earth. Brekke stated: 

Anyone who claims that the debate is over 

and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of 

the most momentous issues of our time. 

These are all top scientists. No one 

can discredit these people. You might 

wonder, why is it that so many people 

want us to believe that maybe bad old 

man is responsible for those horrible 

things that are going to happen, that 

are not going to happen? There are a 

lot of reasons for that. A lot of money 

behind this comes from organizations 

such as those we find in some of the 

Hollywood groups, moveon.org, George 

Soros, and different foundations such 

as the Hines Foundation that do want 

to stop the progress in this country. 

But, anyway, back to some of these 

scientists. Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of 

Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico—I am covering all of these countries now. These 

are the top scientists in these countries—states: 

Models and forecasts of the UN IPCC are 

incorrect because they only are based on 

mathematical models and presented results 

and scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity. 

Surprise, surprise. The Sun warms 

things. 

U.S. Government atmospheric scientist Stanley Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA stated: 

It is a blatant lie put forth in the media 

that makes it seem that there is only a 

fringe of scientists who do not buy into anthropogenic global warming. 

Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the 

Department of Chemical and Materials 

Engineering of the University of Auckland in New Zealand, stated: 

Even doubling or tripling the amount of 

carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapor and water condensed on 

particles as clouds dominate the worldwide 

scene and always will. 

This has always happened. We have 

gone through these stages. I do not 

want to make this part without documentation, but when we went through 

one of the other warming periods in 

this country, it was back before they 

had the combustion engine, back before 

CO2 was even around yet. Here we are 

today with all of these people, the 

names are the top scientists in the 

world who are making these statements. A lot of them used to be on the 

other side of this issue. That was back 

when they were being threatened with 

withdrawal of various funding for the 

projects they had, and now they are 

back on the other side. 

Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer 

and Antarctic ice core researcher, stated: 

The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that 

triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in 

the atmosphere, not the other way around 

. . . A large number of critical documents 

submitted at the 1995 United Nations conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. 

As a result, the discussion was one-sided and 

heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global 

warming to be a scientific fact. 

Prominent Hungarian physicist and 

environmental researcher Dr. Miklos 

Zagoni reversed his view. He was on 

the other side of this issue, on manmade warming. He is now a skeptic. 

Zagoni, once Hungary’s most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol, stated that: 

Nature’s regulatory instrument is water 

vapor: more carbon dioxide leads to less 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with SENATE
January 8, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S201 

moisture in the air, keeping the overall 

greenhouse gases content in accord with the 

necessary balance conditions. 

Again, that is a very prominent scientist, perhaps considered the most 

prominent scientist in Hungary. 

Geologist Dr. David Gee, the chairman of the science committee of the 

2008 International Geological Congress, 

who has authored 130-plus peer-reviewed papers, who is currently at 

Uppsala University in Sweden, stated: 

For how many years must the planet cool 

before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must 

cooling go on? 

Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, 

who reversed his belief—he was another 

one on the other side of this issue, another one of the many scientists who 

reversed his belief on manmade warming to become a skeptic—is a former 

member of the Dutch U.N. IPCC committee. He stated: 

Gore prompted me to start delving into the 

science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp . . . Climate models 

can at best be useful for explaining climate 

changes after the fact. 

South African nuclear physicist and 

chemical engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd was 

also one of them who was very prominent in the United Nations IPCC in 

years past. He was the co-coordinating 

lead author who has authored over 150 

refereed publications, and he stated: 

The quality of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of natural circulation between 

air, water and soil . . . I am doing a detailed 

assessment of the U.N. IPCC reports and the 

Summaries for Policymakers, identifying 

the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science. 

I am actually getting that report. As 

we have said, we have been looking at 

these reports for policymakers for a 

long time. And those people on the 

other side would have you believe that 

is the National Academy of Sciences, 

that is the United Nations. It is not 

scientists. This is a summary for policymakers. These are politicians who 

have an agenda. 

Atmospheric physicist James A. 

Peden, formerly of the Space Research 

and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh, 

stated: 

Many scientists are now searching for a 

way to back out quietly (from promoting 

warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined. 

This is the intimidation I was talking about. 

Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an 

astronautical engineer and former 

NASA astronaut, who served as staff 

physicist at MIT, stated: 

All those urging action to curb global 

warming need to take off the blinkers and 

give some thought to what we should do if 

we are facing global cooling instead. 

Which, incidentally, happens to be 

going on right now. Environmental scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of 

Portugal, the founder of the Numerical 

Weather Forecast Group, who has more 

than 150 published articles—these guys 

are smart guys. This is not politicians 

talking, these are the incontrovertible 

scientists who cannot be challenged— 

stated: 

Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is dangerous nonsense . . . The present 

alarm on climate change is an instrument of 

social control, a pretext for major business 

and political battle. It became an ideology, 

which is concerning. 

Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice chancellor 

of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University 

in Japan, stated: 

CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another . . . Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say 

so . . . Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and 

developing nations walking barefoot. 

Award-winning paleontologist Dr. 

Eduardo Tonni of the Committee for 

Scientific Research in Buenos Aires 

and the head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata 

said: 

The global warming scaremongering has 

its justifications in the fact that it is something that generates funds. 

There we go again. All of these different groups and these foundations 

who will fund people who will agree to 

support their political positions. 

Atmospheric scientist Dr. Art Douglas, former chair of the Atmospheric 

Sciences Department at Creighton University in Omaha, NE, and author of 

numerous peer-reviewed publications, 

stated: 

Whatever the weather, it’s not being 

caused by global warming. If anything, the 

climate may be starting into a cooling period. 

And this is, by the way, something 

that nobody questions now; we are 

going well into a cooling period. 

Chemist Dr. Patrick Frank, who has 

authored more than 50 peer-reviewed 

articles, stated: 

But there is no falsifiable scientific basis 

whatever to assert this warming is caused by 

human-produced greenhouse gasses, because 

current physical theory is too grossly inadequate to establish any cause at all. 

Award-winning NASA astronaut and 

moonwalker Jack Schmitt, who flew 

on the Apollo 17 mission and formerly 

of the Norwegian Geological Survey, 

and for the U.S. Geological Survey, 

stated: 

The global warming scare is being used as 

a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decisionmaking. It has no place in the Society’s 

activities. 

By the way, I would have to add to 

that, another one of the motivations in 

the United Nations is they are always 

critical of us when we threaten to 

withhold some of the funding, when 

they are advocating policies that are 

contrary to our policies in the United 

States. They would love nothing more 

than to have some type of a funding 

mechanism where they did not have to 

be accountable to the United States or 

any other nation. 

Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen, of 

the Department of Atmospheric and 

Oceanic Sciences at the University of 

Colorado, stated: 

Earth has cooled since 1998 in defiance of 

the predictions by the U.N. IPCC . . . The 

global temperature for 2007 was the coldest 

in a decade and the coldest of the millennium . . . which is why global warming is 

now called climate change. 

This is kind of interesting. Next 

week I am going to put together what 

has been happening recently in this 

cooling period, the fact that we have 

had records that are set all around the 

United States and all around the world, 

and that is exactly what Dr. Richard 

Keen is talking about now. We are in a 

cooling period. It has to drive these 

global warming people nuts to have to 

recognize that. 

Dr. G. LeBlanc Smith, a retired principal research scientist with Australia’s CSIRO, stated: 

I have yet to see credible proof of carbon 

dioxide driving climate change, let alone 

manmade CO2 driving it. The atmosphere 

hot-spot is missing and the ice core data refute this. When will we collectively awake 

from this deceptive delusion? 

That is G. LeBlanc Smith of Australia, one of the top scientists in Australia. 

The distinguished scientists featured 

in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including climatology, 

geology, biology, glaciology, biogeography, meteorology, oceanography, 

economics, chemistry, mathematics, 

environmental sciences, astrophysics, 

engineering physics, and paleoclimatology. 

Some of those profiled have won 

Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and 

many shared a portion of the U.N. 

IPCC Nobel Peace Price with Al Gore. 

The notion of hundreds or thousands 

of U.N. scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to 

scrutiny—just not true. 

Recent research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC’s peer-review 

process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. The 

52 scientists who participated in the 

2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers 

had to adhere to the wishes of the 

United Nations political leaders and 

delegates in a process described as 

more closely resembling a political 

party’s convention platform battle, not 

a scientific process. 

Only 52 scientists wrote the mediahyped U.N. summary for policymakers, 

and it was actually published by the 

politicians and not the scientists. One 

former U.N. IPCC scientist bluntly told 

EPW, our committee, how the United 

Nations’ IPCC summary for policymakers distorted the scientists’ work. 

He said: 

I have found examples of a Summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said. 

This was from South African nuclear 

physicist and chemical engineer Dr. 

Philip Lloyd, a U.N. IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored 

over 150 referred publications. A 2008 

international report of the U.N. found 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with SENATE
S202 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 8, 2009 

its climate agency ‘‘rife with bad practices.’’ Others like to note that the National Academy of Sciences and the 

American Meteorological Society have 

issued statements endorsing the socalled consensus view that man is driving global warming. But both the NAS 

and the AMS never allowed member 

scientists to directly vote on these climate statements. Essentially only two 

dozen or so members of the governing 

bodies of these institutions produced a 

consensus statement. This report gives 

a voice to the rank-and-file scientists 

who were shut out of the process. So 

they are very thankful. 

Many of these scientists are glad 

that we have this report so that they 

now have access to the truth and they 

can come out from hiding. 

The more than 650 scientists expressing skepticism comes after the U.N. 

IPCC Chairman Pachauri implied that 

there were only about a dozen skeptical scientists left in the world. 

Former Vice President Gore has 

claimed that scientists skeptical of climate change are akin to flat Earth society members and similar in number 

to those who believe that the moon 

landing was actually staged in a movie 

lot in Arizona. It is a shame that proponents have now been reduced to 

name calling. That is what we are getting now, name calling and insults. 

When you lose your logic, this is what 

happens. They start the name calling 

and insults because they don’t have 

logic. 

Examples of consensus claims made 

by promoters of manmade climate 

fears: The U.N. special climate envoy 

Dr. Gro Harmel Brundtland, on May 10, 

2007, declared that the debate is over 

and added that ‘‘it’s completely immoral, even, to question the U.N.’s scientific consensus.’’ 

The U.N. Framework Convention on 

Climate Change Executive Secretary 

said it was criminally irresponsible to 

ignore the urgency of global warming. 

This was on November 12, 2007. 

ABC News global warming reporter 

Bill Blakemore reported on August 30, 

2006: 

After extensive searches, ABC News has 

found no such [scientific] debate on global 

warming. 

While the dissenting scientists contained in the report hold a diverse 

range of views, they generally rally 

around four key points. No. 1, the 

Earth is currently well within national 

climate variability. We are talking 

about 650 of the top scientists in the 

world. No. 2, almost all climate fear is 

generated by unproven computer model 

predictions. No. 3, an abundance of 

peer-reviewed studies continues to debunk rising CO2 fears. No. 4, consensus 

has been manufactured for political 

and not scientific purposes. Those four 

things, all of these 650 top scientists in 

the world agree to. 

Since I released the report on December 11, other scientists have contacted 

us to be included. 

On December 22, 11 more scientists 

were added, including meteorologists 

from Germany, the Netherlands, and 

CNN. Even CNN, very much on the 

other side of this issue, two more of 

their meteorologists have come over 

and become skeptics, as well as professors from MIT, the University of Arizona, and other institutions. One 

prominent scientist added was awardwinning Princeton University physicist 

Will Happer, who was reportedly fired 

by former Vice President Al Gore in 

1993 for failing to adhere to Gore’s scientific views. Happer has now declared 

manmade global warming fears as mistaken. Happer is a professor in the Department of Physics at Princeton University and former director of energy 

research at the Department of Energy 

who has published over 200 scientific 

papers and is a fellow of the American 

Physical Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Scientists, and the National Academy of 

Sciences. Happer does not mince words 

when it comes to warming fears. He 

said: 

I am convinced that the current alarm 

over carbon dioxide is mistaken . . . Fears 

about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. 

As we face a new administration and 

a U.N. eager to draw the U.S. into its 

climate policy, let’s not forget that 

this aspect of the debate is still alive 

and well and only growing. We should 

not become weary of calling into question policy choices when they are driven by still evolving scientific assessment, especially when the stakes are so 

high and the costs are so extraordinary. Let us hope this administration 

and our news media recognize this new 

reality as we move forward into this 

new Congress. 

On a personal note, it has been a 

lonely fight. For the last 6 years I have 

been talking about the Hollywood and 

media-driven fear that tries to convince us that those who are fueling this 

machine called America are somehow 

evil and fully responsible for global 

warming. This is absurd. We all know 

better. It does take power to run this 

machine we call America. In the past, 

the only argument that defeated all 

the cap-and-trade schemes was the economic argument. I think you can argue 

each one differently, saying no, this 

wouldn’t cost the same as adhering to 

emissions required by Kyoto back in 

the Kyoto treaty days. But any time 

you get into a cap and trade of CO2, it 

is going to cost about $300 billion annually in taxes. I was critical of my colleagues, the 75 Senators who voted to 

give an unelected bureaucrat, Secretary Paulson, $700 billion to do with 

as he wished with no oversight. I was 

critical of that. Of course, that is a 

one-shot deal. This was every year, a 

$300 billion annual tax increase. It was 

too much, even if the science was fully 

settled. 

Now the science is shifting dramatically to the other side. So I believe we 

need to be looking, even if we use their 

own figures of $6.7 trillion as the cost 

of the life of a similar bill to the 

Lieberman-Warner bill. 

I conclude by repeating something I 

have said many times: Even if you believe this, if you believe that manmade 

gas is a major cause of climate change, 

what good would it do for us unilaterally in the United States to impose a 

financial hardship, $300 billion a year, 

on people in the United States, when 

all that would do logically is cause our 

manufacturing base to further erode 

and to go to countries such as China 

and India and Mexico, other countries 

that have no emission restrictions at 

all. It would be a $300 billion tax on us 

every year, and it would have the effect 

of increasing the net amount of emissions worldwide. 

Last year I didn’t say very much 

about the science. In fact, when we had 

the Lieberman-Warner bill up, I made 

the statement: Let’s assume, for debate 

of this bill, that the science is all there 

and that it is settled. Then I pursued 

the economic argument. The other side 

didn’t like it because they wanted to 

debate the science. I said: Let’s assume 

you are right. You are not, but let’s assume you are. This is something that 

we could not afford, the cost. Sometimes we throw around big figures. I 

often have said about the $700 billion 

bailout that I opposed and that 75 Senators voted for, if you stopped and realized the number of taxpayers or families who file a tax return and do the 

math, this comes to $5,000 a family. If 

you look at this, this would be over 

$2,000 a family every year. We want to 

be sure we are right if we do something. Let’s go forward. Let’s look at 

it, but let’s pay attention more than 

anything else at this time not just to 

the economics but the fact that without doubt, the science is shifting. This 

report, 650 of the top scientists and 

growing every day, is conclusive in my 

mind that many of those individuals 

who were on the other side of this issue 

are now standing up to the intimidation and have become skeptics. 

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 

WHITEHOUSE). The clerk will call the 

roll. 

The legislative clerk proceeded to 

call the roll. 

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

ECONOMIC CHALLENGES 

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I rise 

to discuss the urgent need to address 

our Nation’s economic challenges and 

to suggest that a major part of our approach should be to invest in clean alternative energy and energy efficiency. 

Before I get into my remarks, it has 

been a very exciting few days for me. 

Since being sworn in as the junior Senator from New Hampshire, and as this 

is my first speech on the Senate floor, 

I want to begin by thanking Majority 

Leader REID, Minority Leader MCCONNELL, our senior Senator from New 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with SENATE