Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I see.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I will make this very quick. And I appreciate this very much from the Senators from Maryland and California. Mr. President, I just want to get on the record. Last summer, I had an intern in my office from Rwanda. I have been active in Rwanda in kind of a mission thing for quite some time. She came to this country 10 years ago after the genocide that was taking place. She went through all the problems in becoming a legal resident. And, of course, she is going to actually become a citizen. I have been privileged for a number of years to be chosen to speak at the various naturalization ceremonies in Oklahoma. These people go through all of the procedures. I daresay that most of those who go through the naturalization process become better citizens than some who are born here. Certainly, they know more about the history of this country. That is one of the reasons I have opposed, historically, any type of an amnesty program. Now, the one that is before us by my very good friend from Idaho has four steps of amnesty in AgJOBS. The first one is a temporary resident status, so that this jobs bill states that upon application to DHS, the immigration status of an illegal immigrant shall--not ``will,'' not ``may be,'' but ``shall''--be adjusted to lawful temporary resident status as long as the immigrant worked in an agricultural job for at least 575 hours or 100 workdays, whichever is less. The next step is to take that same person and give them permanent resident status. The third step would be to make an adjustment not only for those individuals coming in but also for the spouses and the minor children. So we are talking about opening that gate for many more people. Fourthly, the reentry. Now, this means if somebody left the country under any circumstances, they would be allowed to come back and go through this process. On top of that, another thing I do not like about the legislation is it does have a taxpayer-funded legal services provision in it. So I just want to get on record and say this is something I do not think is in the best interests of this country. Mr. President, I do thank the Senator from California and yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President.

Mr. INHOFE. I respond to the Senator from California, I could do anywhere between 2 minutes and an hour. Your choice.

Mr. INHOFE. I was going to make a unanimous consent request to have a very short statement concerning S. 359. I recognize your amendment is pending, but I would do that through unanimous consent. This is the Agriculture Job Opportunity Benefits and Security Act.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. INHOFE. Three minutes.

Mr. INHOFE. That would be fine.

Mr. INHOFE. I can make it very short.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to proudly introduce legislation to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 123 W. 7th Street in Holdenville, OK, as the ``Boone Pickens Post Office''. Thomas Boone Pickens, Jr. emulates the Oklahoma spirit of hard work, entrepreneurship and philanthropy. He is an excellent example of the potential to achieve success in our American free enterprise system. I honor, I proudly seek to name the post office in his hometown of Holdenville, OK, where he was born in 1928. As the son of a landman, Pickens quickly appreciated the business potential of oil exploration. Oklahoma State University awarded Pickens a bachelor of science in geology in 1951. He grew frustrated with the bureaucracy of working for a large company and decided to start his own in 1956. This company was the basis for what became one of the leading oil and gas exploration and production firms in the nation, Mesa Petroleum Company. Not only did Pickens lead in the energy industry itself, he possessed the unique ability to recognize and acquire undervalued companies. Repeatedly, markets eventually realized the worth of these companies, and shareholder profits soared. His innovative thinking and business skills amassed the fortune and wisdom he unselfishly shares with others. Oklahoma State University has benefited from his generous investment in academics and athletics. He is also a dedicated supporter of a wide range of medical research initiatives. He is an energetic advocate for the causes he believes in, devoting his time to serve on numerous boards and receiving recognition through countless awards. He often said, ``Be willing to make decisions. That's the most important quality in a good leader. Don't fall victim to what I call the ready-aim-aim-aim-aim syndrome. You must be willing to fire.'' That is exactly the Oklahoma mentality of leadership, the ability to make tough decisions and stick to them. I encourage my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation as we commemorate an outstanding citizen so that future generations will be challenged by his example, just as we have been.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to proudly introduce legislation to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 123 W. 7th Street in Holdenville, OK, as the ``Boone Pickens Post Office''. Thomas Boone Pickens, Jr. emulates the Oklahoma spirit of hard work, entrepreneurship and philanthropy. He is an excellent example of the potential to achieve success in our American free enterprise system. I honor, I proudly seek to name the post office in his hometown of Holdenville, OK, where he was born in 1928. As the son of a landman, Pickens quickly appreciated the business potential of oil exploration. Oklahoma State University awarded Pickens a bachelor of science in geology in 1951. He grew frustrated with the bureaucracy of working for a large company and decided to start his own in 1956. This company was the basis for what became one of the leading oil and gas exploration and production firms in the nation, Mesa Petroleum Company. Not only did Pickens lead in the energy industry itself, he possessed the unique ability to recognize and acquire undervalued companies. Repeatedly, markets eventually realized the worth of these companies, and shareholder profits soared. His innovative thinking and business skills amassed the fortune and wisdom he unselfishly shares with others. Oklahoma State University has benefited from his generous investment in academics and athletics. He is also a dedicated supporter of a wide range of medical research initiatives. He is an energetic advocate for the causes he believes in, devoting his time to serve on numerous boards and receiving recognition through countless awards. He often said, ``Be willing to make decisions. That's the most important quality in a good leader. Don't fall victim to what I call the ready-aim-aim-aim-aim syndrome. You must be willing to fire.'' That is exactly the Oklahoma mentality of leadership, the ability to make tough decisions and stick to them. I encourage my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation as we commemorate an outstanding citizen so that future generations will be challenged by his example, just as we have been.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for up to 30 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today I continue my series of talks on the four pillars of climate alarmism. Last week I showed the first pillar, the 2001 climate change report by the National Academy of Sciences. It was really a farce, and we documented it very well. The same is true of the 2001 report of the IPCC. That is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It supposedly provides irrefutable evidence of the global warming consensus. Simply put, it does not, as my speech today will demonstrate. The media greeted the release of the IPCC's Third Assessment Report with the predictable hysteria with which they normally respond to things such as this. From the Independent newspaper of London: In a report published today by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), hundreds of the world's leading scientists give their unqualified support to the view that global warming is real and that the release of manmade greenhouse gases is largely responsible. It continues: The latest three-volume report, amounting to 2,600 pages of detailed analysis, leaves the reader in little doubt that the scientific uncertainties of the previous decade are being resolved in favor of an emerging, and increasingly pessimistic consensus. The preceding quotes, and many that followed in the Independent's report, came from the Third Assessment's ``Summary for Policymakers.'' In fact, the media based much, if not all, of its reporting on the summary itself. It did this even though in some respects the summary distorted the actual context of the full report. The National Academy of Sciences, in its 2001 report, criticized both how the summary was written and how the media portrayed it, as in this chart No. 1: The IPCC Summary for Policymakers could give an impression that the science of global warming is settled, even though many uncertainties still remain. This clearly contradicts the claim of the Independent that there is little doubt that the scientific uncertainties in the previous decade are settled. Another claim the media featured prominently was that temperature increases over the last century are unprecedented, at least when considered on a time scale of the last 1,000 years. According to the IPCC, the 1990s were the warmest decade on record, and 1998 was the warmest year since temperature records began in 1861. The basis for this claim is a so-called hockey stick graph, shown in chart No. 2. This is an interesting one because this plots out the temperatures over a period of time and then shows the blade, when it gets to be the 19th century, coming up. The graph was constructed by Dr. Michael Mann of the University of Virginia and his colleagues using a combination of proxy data and modern temperature records. The hockey stick curve showed a gradual cooling period around 1400 A.D., which is the hockey stick handle--that is the horizontal line--then a sharp warming starting about 1900, the hockey stick blade. Its release was revolutionary, overturning widespread evidence adduced over many years confirming significant national variability long before the advent of SUVs. The IPCC was so impressed that the hockey stick was featured prominently in its Third Assessment Report of 2001. As Dr. Roy Spencer, the principal research scientist at the University of Alabama, noted: This was taken as proof that the major climate event of the last 1,000 years was the influence of humans in the 20th century. One of its authors, Dr. Michael Mann, confidently declared in 2003 that the hockey stick ``is the indisputable consensus of the community of scientists actively involved in the research of climate variability and its causes.'' The hockey stick caused quite a stir, not just in the scientific community but also in the world of politics. It galvanized alarmists in their push for Kyoto. It is supposedly ironclad proof that manmade greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet at an unsustainable degree. But here again, one of the essential pillars of the alarmists appears to be crumbling. Two Canadian researchers have produced the most devastating evidence to date that the hockey stick is bad science. Before I describe their work, I want to make a prediction. The alarmists will cry foul, saying this critique is part of an industry conspiracy. And true to form, they will avoid discussion of the substance and engage in personal attacks. That is because one of the researchers, Stephen McIntyre, is a mineral exploration consultant. Dr. Mann already has accused them of having a conflict of interest. This is nonsense. First, Stephen McIntyre and his colleague, Ross McKitrick, an economist with Canada's University of Guelph, received no outside funding for their work. They are both very well recognized professional people. Second, they published their peer-reviewed critique in geophysical research letters. This is no organ of big oil, but an eminent scientific journal, the same journal, in fact, which published the version of Dr. Mann's hockey stick that appeared in the IPCC's Third Assessment Report. Apparently the journal's editor didn't see much evidence of bias. The remarks of one editor are worth quoting in full: S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick have written a remarkable paper on a subject of great importance. What makes the paper significant is that they show that one of the most widely known results of climate analysis, the ``hockey stick'' diagram of Mann [and company], was based on a mistake in the application of a mathematical technique known as principle component analysis. Further, he said: I have looked carefully at the McIntyre and McKitrick analysis, and I am convinced that their work is correct. What did McKitrick and McIntyre find? In essence, they discovered that Dr. Mann misused an established statistical method called principal components analysis, PCA. As they explained, Mann created a program that ``effectively mines a data set for hockey stick patterns.'' In other words, no matter what kind of data one uses, even if it is random and totally meaningless, the Mann method always produces a hockey stick. After conducting some 10,000 data simulations, the result was nearly always the same. ``In over 99 percent of cases,'' McIntyre and McKitrick wrote, ``it produced a hockey stick shaped PCI series.'' Statistician Francis Zwiers of Environment Canada, a government agency, says he agrees that Dr. Mann's statistical method ``preferentially produces hockey sticks when there are none in the data.'' Even to a non-statistician, this looks extremely troubling. But that statistical error is just the beginning. On a public web site where Dr. Mann filed data, McIntyre and McKitrick discovered an intriguing folder titled ``BACKTO_1400-CENSORED.'' What McIntyre and McKitrick found in the folder was disturbing: Mann's hockey stick blade was based on a certain type of tree--a bristlecone pine--that, in effect, helped to manufacture the hockey stick. Remember, the hockey stick shows a relatively stable climate over 900 years, and then a dramatic spike in temperature about 1900, the inference being that man-made emissions are the cause of rising temperatures. So why is the bristlecone pine important? That bristlecone experienced a growth pulse in the Western United States in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. However, this growth pulse, as the specialist literature has confirmed, was not attributed to temperature. So using those pines, and only those pines, as a proxy for temperature during this period is questionable at best. Even Mann's co- author has stated that the bristlecone growth pulse is a ``mystery.'' Because of these obvious problems, McIntyre and McKitrick appropriately excluded the bristlecone data from their calculations. What did they find? Not the Mann hockey stick, to be sure, but a confirmation of the Medieval Warm Period, which Mann's work had erased. This is very interesting because the chart will show, if you would include the calculation--what we refer to as the Medieval Warm Period which, as everybody now understands, is a reality--then temperatures at that time exceeded the temperatures in the blade of the hockey stick. In fact, when I was over in Milan, Italy, at one of the big meetings, I pointed this out as evidence it was done, and done intentionally. Why would he start with the year when you have a level line going for 900 years and totally ignore the Medieval Warming Period, at which time the temperatures of the Earth exceeded the temperatures in this century? As the CENSORED folder revealed, Mann and his colleagues never reported results obtained from calculations that excluded the bristlecone data. This appears to be a case of selectively using data-- that is, if you don't like the result, remove the offending data until you get the answer you want. As McIntyre and McKitrick explained, ``Imagine the irony of this discovery . . . Mann accused us of selectively deleting North American proxy series. Now it appeared that he had results that were exactly the same as ours, stuffed away in a folder labeled CENSORED.'' McIntyre and McKitrick believe there are additional errors in the Mann hockey stick. To confirm their suspicion, they need additional data from Dr. Mann, including the computer code he used to generate the graph. But Dr. Mann refuses to supply it. As he told the Wall Street Journal, ``Giving them the algorithm would be giving in to the intimidation tactics that these people are engaged in.'' What we are talking about is he refused to give him the necessary computerized data to come to the conclusion. There is no way of analyzing it. Who are ``these people''? And what ``intimidation tactics''? Mr. McIntyre and Mr. McKitrick are trying to find the truth. What is Dr. Mann trying to hide? For many scientists, McIntyre and McKitrick's work is earth- shattering. For example, Professor Richard Muller of the University of California at Berkeley recently wrote in the MIT Technology Review that McIntyre and McKitrick's findings ``hit me like a bombshell, and I suspect it is having the same effect on many others. Suddenly the hockey stick, the poster-child of the global warming community, turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics.'' Dr. Rob van Dorland, of the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, and an IPCC lead author, said, ``The IPCC made a mistake by only including Mann's reconstruction and not those of other researchers.'' He concluded that unless the error is corrected, it will ``seriously damage the work of the IPCC.'' Or consider Dr. Hans von Storch, an IPCC contributing author and internationally renowned expert in climate statistics at Germany's Center for Coastal Research, who said McIntyre and McKitrick's work is ``entirely valid.'' In an interview last October with the German Newspaper Der Spiegel, Dr. von Storch said the Mann hockey stick ``contains assumptions that are not permissible. Methodologically it is wrong: rubbish.'' He stressed that, ``it remains important for science to point out the erroneous nature of the Mann curve. In recent years it has been elevated to the status of truth by the U.N. appointed science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC. This handicapped all that research which strives to make a realistic distinction between human influences and climate and natural variability.'' If McIntyre and McKitrick's work isn't convincing enough, consider the recent paper published in the February 10 issue of Nature. The paper, authored by a group of Swedish climate researchers, once again undercuts the scientific credibility of the Mann hockey stick. The press release for the study by the Swedish Research Council says, ``A new study of climate in the Northern Hemisphere for the past 2000 years shows that natural climate change may be larger than generally thought.'' According to the paper's authors, the Mann hockey stick does not provide an accurate picture of the last 1,000 years. ``The new results,'' they wrote, ``show an appreciable temperature swing between the 12th and 20th centuries, with a notable cold period around AD 1600. A large part of the 20th century had approximately the same temperature as the 11th and 12th centuries.'' In other words, here's evidence of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, demonstrating that climate, long before the burning of fossil fuels, varied considerably over the last 2,000 years. The researchers note that changes in the sun's output and volcanic eruptions appear to have caused considerable natural variations in the climate system. ``The fact that these two climate evolutions,'' they contend, ``which have been obtained completely independently of each other, are very similar supports the case that climate shows an appreciable natural variability--and that changes in the sun's output and volcanic eruptions on the earth may be the cause.'' Another important development chipping away at the so-called scientific consensus has to do with economics and statistics, and how both are used by the IPCC. To determine how man-made greenhouse gases might affect the climate over the next century, the IPCC had to predict 100 years' worth of greenhouse gas emissions. Predicting emissions rates depends on several factors, including population growth, technological advances, and future economic growth rates in developed and developing countries. Based on these and other factors, the IPCC's Third Assessment Report projected an average global temperature increase by 2100 ranging between 1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius, which is about 2.7 to 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit. This temperature range was determined from several different emission scenarios. In each of those scenarios, the IPCC arbitrarily assumed that incomes in poor countries and rich countries would converge by the year 2100. According to Warren McKibbin of Australia National University's Center for Applied Macroeconomics and the Brookings Institution, this assumption is unwarranted. Even if it were to happen, McKibbin and his colleagues write: The empirical literature suggests that the rate of convergence in income per capita would be very slow. Even the IPCC agrees, stating: It may well take a century (given all the other factors set favorably) for a poor country to catch up to [income] levels that prevail in the industrial countries today, never mind the levels that might prevail in affluent countries 100 years in the future. Nevertheless, the IPCC assumed poor and rich countries would achieve parity by the end of the century. To measure that growth over time, the IPCC had to compare what income levels look like today. It did that by using market exchange rates, but this raises a major problem. Relying on exchange rates fails to account for price differences between countries. This has the effect of vastly overstating differences in wealth. ``This comparison is valid,'' says Ian Castles, formerly head of Australia's National Office of Statistics, now with the National Center of Development Studies at Australian National University. Castles and his colleague David Henderson, former chief economist for the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, now of the Westminster Business School, discovered the IPCC's error last year and have published their findings in the distinguished scientific journal Energy and Environment. Castles and Henderson note that using exchange rates is invalid because it is based on the assumption that ``[a] poor Bangladeshi family has converted the whole of its income into foreign currency, and spent it on goods and services at average world prices rather than [at much lower] Bangladeshi prices.'' Through the use of exchange rates, the IPCC concluded the average income of rich countries right now is 40 times higher than the average income in developing countries in Asia and 12 times higher than the average income in other non-Asian developing countries. As my colleagues can see, there is a huge gap, which raises a significant point. If the initial income gap is large, then poor countries will have to grow incredibly fast to catch up. According to the IPCC, the greater the economic growth, the greater the emissions released into the atmosphere, and hence higher temperatures. The IPCC, as the Economist Magazine wrote, is simply wrong. They said: The developing-country growth rates yielded by this method [market exchange rates] are historically implausible, to put it mildly. The emissions forecasts based on those implausibly high growth rates are accordingly unsound. Castles and Henderson have shown convincingly that the IPCC's temperature range rests on a majority of major economic error and, therefore, is wildly off the mark. Because of this error, even the IPCC's low end emission scenario is implausible. As the Economist Magazine wrote: But, as we pointed out before, even the scenarios that give the lowest cumulative emissions assume that incomes in the developing countries will increase at a much faster rate over the course of the century than they have ever done before. The Economist continued: Disaggregated projections published by the IPCC say that-- even in the lowest-emission scenarios--growth in poor countries will be so fast that by the end of the century Americans will be poorer on average than South Africans, Algerians, Argentines, Libyans, Turks and North Koreans. And I do not think any of us are ready to accept that. Let us get a better sense of why that is odd. Under the IPCC's low- end scenario, the amount of goods and services produced per person in developing countries in Asia would increase 70-fold by 2100, and increase nearly 30-fold for other developing countries. To put that in perspective, the United States only achieved a 5-fold increase in per capita income growth in the 19th century, and Japan achieved a nearly 20-fold increase in the 20th Century. The IPCC's mistakes are fatal. Jacob Ryten, a leading figure in the development, evaluation, and implementation of the United Nations International Comparisons Programme, said the IPCC suffers from ``manifest ignorance of the conceptual and practical issues involved in developing and using intercountry measures of economic product.'' The Economist said that the IPCC's method proved it was guilty of dangerous economic incompetence. Castles and Henderson, along with the Economist and other scientists, have pressed the IPCC to abandon its use of market exchange rates in its upcoming Fourth Assessment Report. They say this is essential to provide a more accurate projection of future emissions. Thus far, the IPCC has ignored their request, but this is no surprise. The IPCC has become politicized and appears more intent on pursuing propaganda over science. Consider the case of Dr. Christopher Landsea, the world's foremost expert on hurricanes. Dr. Landsea accepted an invitation to provide input on Atlantic hurricanes for the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report due out in 2007. But over time, Dr. Landsea realized that certain key members of the IPCC were bent on advancing a political agenda rather than providing an objective, fact-based understanding of climate change. As a result, he resigned from the IPCC process. Dr. Landsea was outraged that Dr. Kevin Trenberth, the lead author of observations for the upcoming Fourth Assessment, and other scientists participated in a politically charged press conference at Harvard University on the supposed causal link between global warming and extreme weather events. The press conference was promoted this way: Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity. In other words, they were trying to blame these catastrophes that come up on what they consider to be global warming. As Dr. Landsea explained, the topic was bogus. It has no scientific basis, and none of the scientists who participated had any expertise in the matter. In his resignation letter, Dr. Landsea wrote: To my knowledge, none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor were they reporting on any new work in the field . . . It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. What is the real state of the science on this topic? All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either the Atlantic or any other basin. Dr. Landsea wrote, and this is in the chart: Moreover, the evidence is quite strong and supported by most recent credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon hurricanes will likely be quite small. Dr. Landsea noted that the most recent science shows that ``by around 2080 hurricanes may have winds and rainfall about 5 percent more intense than today. It has been proposed that even this tiny change may be an exaggeration as to what may happen by the end of the 21st Century.'' Dr. Landsea concluded that because the IPCC process has been compromised, resigning was his only option. He said: I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by preconceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As with Castles and Henderson, the IPCC leadership has brushed off Dr. Landsea's concerns. This is outrageous. In doing so, the IPCC is seriously undermining its credibility. One can only hope that the IPCC will change its ways. Otherwise, we can expect yet another assessment report that is unsupported by facts and science. It is no surprising that alarmists want to fabricate the perception that there is consensus about climate change. We know the costs of this would be enormous. Wharton Econometrics Forecasting Associates estimates that implementing Kyoto would coast an American family of four $2,700 annually. Acknowledging a full-fledged debate over global warming would undermine their agenda. And what is that agenda? Two international leaders have said it best. Margot Wallstrom, the EU's Environment Commissioner, states that Kyoto is ``about leveling the playing field for big businesses worldwide.'' French President Jacques Chirac said during a speech at the Hague in November 2000 that Kyoto represents ``the first component of an authentic global governance.'' Look at this and you realize what is motivating these people. People ask me if science is not behind this and there is that much damage that can be effected, what is the motive? That is what the motive is. Facts and science are showing that the catastrophic global warming consensus does not exist. The IPCC has been exposed as a political arm of U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol, with a mission to prop up its flawed scientific conclusions. The Mann hockey stick, the flagship of the IPCC's claims that global warming is real, has now been thoroughly discredited in scientific circles. Projections of future carbon emissions--which drive temperature model conclusions--have been proven to be based on political decisions that, by the end of the century, countries like Bangladesh will be as wealthy, or wealthier, than the United States. A world renowned scientist has just resigned from the IPCC because it is too politicized, saying that the IPCC plans to make claims that contradict scientific understanding. Increasingly, it appears that the scientific case for catastrophic global warming is a house of cards that will soon come tumbling down. Despite this, there are still some who choose to ignore science. After I spoke about this last week, Duke Energy CEO Paul Anderson advocated a tax on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. In doing so, the company has seemingly bought into the spurious notion that the science is settled. But perhaps it is not. Unfortunately, to some global warming advocates, the science is irrelevant. As Myron Ebell of the competitive Enterprise Institute says: Duke Energy has now admitted that the costs will be significant. But the fact is it will only be expensive for their competitors. Nuclear plants don't emit carbon dioxide and Duke is already one-third nuclear generation. Moreover, the company has announced plans to build even more nuclear plants, giving it an even bigger competitive edge. This is a lot of scientific stuff. I have said several times since I became chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee that the first thing we did was study this because it was assumed that global warming is taking place and anthropogenic gases are causing it, methane and CO2, only to find out that is not the case. Virtually all the science since 1999 has refuted these assertions. I think we have an obligation to recognize these far-left environmentalist extremist groups are huge contributors to campaigns and they have a lot of political power, but in the long run we have to be more concerned about America than we are about political campaigns. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I would like to be recognized for two unanimous consent requests.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the two Senators from Washington, Senators Cantwell and Murray, be recognized now to speak for up to 30 minutes and that I be recognized to speak for up to 30 minutes at the conclusion of their remarks.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. I have been listening intently, and I applaud the Senator for all she has done. It is reminiscent that this is not something new. Back when I was serving in the other body in the late 1980s, Congressman Jim Oberstar and I actually made a trip to Europe--that was before the European Union days--both to Germany and France to find out the level of subsidy they had. At that time, we were not able to find out, and we did an exhaustive search. They were denying that they did, and later on they admitted they were subsidizing. With their type of accounting, perhaps it is even worse than the figures the Senator is expressing today. So I applaud the Senator for her efforts.

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield for a comment before yielding the floor?

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise for a second time in 8 days to update all of us on an issue of deepest importance. In my recent speech on China I delivered this past Monday, I detailed how China is indeed a growing threat. When the fragmented pieces of current events and policies are glued together, they form an alarming picture of the threat to our national security. I believe this threat is of the most serious order, and until we address it I will continue to draw America's attention to it. In 2000, Congress established the U.S.-China Security Economic Review Commission to act as the bipartisan authority on how our relationship with China affects our economy, industrial base, China's military and weapons proliferation, and our influence in Asia. I fear that the Commission's findings have largely been ignored. A major part of our economic relationship with China is the growing trade deficit. This deficit grew to $162 billion in 2004, by far the largest economic imbalance the United States has with any country. One potential key factor contributing to this imbalance is the undervaluation of the Chinese yaun. Through currency manipulation, China has been able to create an uneven economic playing field in its favor. Let's keep in mind this bipartisan commission worked on this for several years. The Commission recommends that Congress pursue legislation that will push the administration toward correcting these imbalances and for the U.S. Trade Representative and Department of Commerce to undertake an investigation of China's questionable economic practices. I think this is very sound advice. In fact, I voted last Wednesday to not table a Chinese currency manipulation amendment. China joined the World Trade Organization in December 2001. Their transition was to be overseen by the Transitional View Mechanism--TRM. Although China has made some progress in the areas of tariffs and other WTO commitments, they have consistently frustrated the TRM's ability to assess China's WTO compliance through lack of transparency. As the Commission recommends, the Bush administration must be encouraged to take action to preserve TRM's oversight and cooperate with other trading partners to create a cooperative effort to address China's shortfalls. Another problem area is that the Chinese Government has been listing State Owned Enterprises--SOEs--on international capital markets. These companies lack accountability standards that normally track the companies' cash flow. At least one Chinese SOE, China North Industries Corporation, has been sanctioned by the U.S. Government for proliferating illegal weapons technology. As the 2004 Commission report outlines: Without adequate information about Chinese firms trading in international capital markets, U.S. investors may be unwittingly pouring money into black box firms lacking basic corporate governance structures, as well as enterprises involved in activities harmful to U.S. security interests. Beyond dangerous investing, there are other security aspects to China's trade practices. The hard currency that China is gaining through its manipulative economy is buying foreign technology and modernizing their military. We used to be concerned about their nuclear capability, but now it is also conventional weaponry, as the Presiding Officer knows, since he sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee. We know China is pushing very hard to get the E.U. to remove their arms embargo. The embargo was put in place after the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre to protest China's appalling human rights record. The E.U. c1aims that the embargo is no longer effective, but ignores the obvious--why lift the embargo without replacing it with a better one? Their solution, an informal ``code of conduct'', allows for no comprehensive enforcement. We can also expect E.U. technology to proliferate beyond China's borders, to countries that would gladly use it against the U.S. The E.U. does not consider this a strategic threat. In fact, President Chirac just demanded an early lifting of the embargo. However, the Commission reports: Access to more advanced systems and integrating technologies from Europe would have a much more dramatic impact on overall Chinese capabilities today than say five or ten years ago. For fourteen years China has been unable to acquire systems from the West. Analysts believe a resumption of EU arms sales to China would dramatically enhance China's military capability. If the EU arms embargo against China is lifted, the U.S. military could be placed in a situation where it is defending itself against arms sold to the PLA by NATO allies. Think about this: we share military technology with our European allies and then find our security threatened and possibly our servicemen killed by this same technology. All this is made possible because China is exploiting economic grey areas to come up with the money to buy all this new technology. This is a critical issue to which Congress must respond to. Further, some experts believe that China's economic policy is a purposeful attempt to undermine the U.S. industrial base and likewise, the defense industrial base. Perhaps it is hard to believe that China's economic manipulation is such a threat to our Nation. In response, I would like to read from the book Unrestricted Warfare, written by two PLA--People's Liberation Army--senior colonels: Military threats are already no longer the major factors affecting national security . . . traditional factors are increasingly becoming more intertwined with grabbing resources, contending for markets, controlling capital, trade sanctions and other economic factors . . . the destruction which they do in the areas attacked are absolutely not secondary to pure military wars. The book goes on to argue that the aggressor must ``adjust its own financial strategy'' and ``use currency revaluation'' to weaken the economic base and the military strength of the other country. This is the Chinese saying this, not some American commentator. You need to hear that in context of the U.S.-China Commission's statement: One of Beijing's stated goals is to reduce what it considers U.S. superpower dominance in favor of a multipolar global power structure in which China attains superpower status on par with the United States. I think the picture is clear. We must link China's trading privileges to its economic practices. As China's No. 1 importing customer, accounting for 35 percent of total Chinese exports, we have the influence. As I said last Monday, a week ago, I agree that the way we handle an emerging China must be dynamic, but it must not be weak. The Commission puts it well: We need to use our substantial leverage to develop an architecture that will help avoid conflict, attempt to build cooperative practices and institutions, and advance both countries' long-term interests. The United States has the leverage now and perhaps for the next decade, but this may not always be the case. We also must recognize the impact of these trends directly on the domestic U.S. economy, and develop and adopt policies that ensure that our actions do not undermine our economic interests . . . the United States cannot lose sight of these important goals, and must configure its policies toward China to help make them materialize . . . If we falter in the use of our economic and political influence now to effect positive change in China, we will have squandered an historic opportunity. The bipartisan U.S.-China Commission has been doing an outstanding job in translating how recent events affect our national security. I plan on giving two more speeches highlighting the Commission's findings, followed by a resolution to effect their conclusions. I hope America is listening. It is so similar to what we are facing right now and what we voted on, the fact that the European Union is subsidizing a company which would undermine the aerospace industry here in the United States. At the same time, if the European Union lifts the sanctions which they have right now, they would be doing essentially the same thing to our country. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 7, 2005, for a hearing to consider the nomination of Mr. Jonathan B. Perlin to be Under Secretary for Health, Department of Veterans' Affairs. The hearing will take place in room 418 of the Russell Senate Office Building at 10 a.m.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, April 7, 2005 at 9:30 a.m., in Senate Dirksen Office Building Room 226. Agenda I. Nominations: Thomas B. Griffith, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit; Terrence W. Boyle II, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit; Priscella R. Owen, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit; Robert J. Conrad, Jr., to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of North Carolina; and James C. Dever III, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of North Carolina. II. Bills: Asbestos; S. 378, Reducing Crime and Terrorism at America's Seaports Act of 2005, Biden, Specter, Feinstein, Kyl, Cornyn; S. 119, Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act of 2005, Feinstein, Schumer, Durbin, DeWine, Feingold, Kennedy, Brownback, Specter; and S. 629, Railroad Carriers and Mass Transportation Act of 2005, Sessions, Kyl.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 7, 2005, at 2:30 p.m., in open session to receive testimony on ballistic missile defense programs in review of the defense authorization request for fiscal year 2006.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I am returning to the floor, as I have many times in the last few years, to further address what I have considered to be probably the greatest single hoax ever perpetrated on the American people, and that is this thing called global warming. As I noted in my last speech, there is a perception, especially among the media and the environmental elitists, that the scientific community has reached a consensus on global warming. As Sir David King, the chief science adviser to the British Government, recently said: There is a very clear consensus from the scientific community on the problems of global warming and our use of fossil fuels. Those problems amount to rising sea levels, floods, tsunamis, droughts, hurricanes, disease, and mass extinction of species--all caused by the ever-increasing greenhouse gas emissions. The alarmists confidently assert that most scientists agree with this, and they vehemently dispute claims of uncertainty about whether catastrophes will occur. It is interesting that most of the people who are talking about gloom and doom on global warming are the same ones, just a few years ago, in the 1970s, who were talking about global cooling, saying that a little ice age is coming and we are all going to die. But today, to question the science of catastrophic global warming is considered illegitimate. Consider Dr. Daomi Oreskes, who wrote in the Washington Post last December: We need to stop repeating nonsense about the uncertainty of global warming and start talking seriously about the right approach to address it. Global warming, then, is no longer an issue for scientific debate. It appears to have soared into the realm of metaphysics, reaching the status of revealed truth. Madam President, this is absurd. Since 1999, almost all scientific data has shown that this whole thing is, in fact, a hoax. More then 17,000 scientists have signed the Oregon Petition--ironically, after listening to the two Senators from Oregon who had excellent presentations--stating that fears of catastrophic global warming are groundless. These and other scientists who do not subscribe to the so- called consensus are condemned as skeptics and tools of industry. Now, in order to avoid professional excommunication, one must subscribe to the four principal beliefs underlying the alarmist consensus. I am going to call these the four pillars of climate alarmism, all of which, it is said, provide unequivocal support for that consensus view. What I am going to do is talk about all four pillars, but mainly only one today, and then wait a week and let that soak in and then maybe come back and talk about the other three. The four pillars are as follows: The 2001 National Academy of Sciences report summarizing the latest science of climate change, requested by the Bush administration. Pillar No. 2, which we will be talking about later, is the scientific work of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC--we have heard a lot about that, most especially its Third Assessment Report, released in 2001. The third pillar is the recent report of the international Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. No. 4 is the data produced by climate models. I will show over the next several weeks that none of these pillars support the consensus view. Today I will begin my four pillars series with the NAS. Before I delve into the NAS report, some historical CBO context is in order. Back in 2001 the Kyoto Treaty was on the verge of collapse. President Bush announced his rejection of the Kyoto Treaty, calling it ``fatally flawed in fundamental ways.'' Our friends in Europe expressed outrage, even shock, though it was never in doubt where the United States stood. We have not changed our position. In 1997, here on the floor of the Senate, we passed by a vote of 95 to nothing the Byrd-Hagel resolution. Primarily, the Byrd-Hagel resolution said if you come back from Kyoto with something that treats developing nations differently from developed nations, then we will reject it, we will not ratify it. Of course, that is exactly what happened. So we are supposed to do all these things, but not China and not Mexico, not the other countries--yet that passed 95 to nothing. There was not one dissenting vote. On June 11, 2001, President Bush delivered a speech detailing Kyoto's flaws. He also provided an overview of the current state of climate science as described in a report, which he requested, by the National Academy of Science. Although the report offered very modest conclusions about the state of climate science, as described in a report, which he requested, by the National Academy of Sciences. Though the report offered very modest conclusions about the state of climate science, alarmists repeatedly invoke it as ironclad proof of their consensus. So let's take a closer look at what the NAS had to say. The 2001 NAS report was wide-ranging and generally informative about the state of climate science. It stated that, ``Because there is considerable uncertainty in current understanding of how the climate system varies naturally and reacts to emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols, current estimates of the magnitude of future warming should be regarded as tentative and subject to future adjustments (either upward or downward).'' Let me repeat that: ``Considerable uncertainty in current understanding.'' ``Estimates should be regarded as tentative and subject to future adjustments.'' Does this sound like solid support for the consensus view? Surely there must be more. Well, in fact there is. Under the headline ``The Effect of Human Activities,'' the NAS addressed the potential impact of anthropogenic emissions on the climate system. Here's what it said: Because of the large and still uncertain level of natural variability inherent in the climate record and the uncertainties in the time histories of various forcing agents (and particularly aerosols), a causal linkage between the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the observed climate changes in the 20th century cannot be unequivocally established. Again, that's worth repeating: Because of the large and still uncertain level of natural variability . . . [u]ncertainties in the time histories of various forcing agents . . . cannot be unequivocally established. I read numerous press accounts of the NAS report, yet I failed to come across reporting of this quote. Is this what the consensus peddlers have in mind when they assert that everything is ``settled''? The NAS also addressed the relationship between climate change and aerosols, which are particles from processes such as dust storms, forest fires, the use of fossil fuels, and volcanic eruptions. To be sure, there is limited knowledge of how aerosols influence the climate system. This, said the NAS, represents ``a large source of uncertainty about future climate change.'' By any conceivable standard, this and other statements made by NAS cannot possibly be considered unequivocal affirmations that man-made global warming is a threat, or that man-made emissions are the sole or most important factor driving climate change. It certainly cannot provide the basis for the United States Congress to adopt economically harmful reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. It would be a grand folly to do that, especially considering what the NAS had to say about global climate models. The NAS believes much of the uncertainty about climate change stems from those models, which researchers rely on to make projections about future climate changes. These models, as the NAS wrote, contain serious technological limitations that cast doubt on their ability to simulate the climate system: [the models] simulation skill is limited by uncertainties in their formulation, the limited size of their calculations, and the difficulty of interpreting their answers that exhibit as much complexity as in nature.'' Model projections, as the NAS pointed out, rest on a raft of uncertain assumptions. Projecting future climate change first requires projecting the fossil-fuel and land-use sources of CO2 and other gases and aerosols, the NAS found. ``However, there are large uncertainties''--please note the phrasing again, ``large uncertainties''-- in underlying assumption about population growth, economic development, life style choices, technological change and energy alternatives, so that it is useful to examine scenarios developed from multiple perspectives in considering. strategies for dealing with climate change. For this reason, simulations produced by climate models provide insufficient proof of an absolute link between anthropoenic emissions and global warming. The fact that the magnitude of the observed warming is large in comparison to natural variability as simulated in climate models is suggestive of such a linkage, [according to NAS] but it does not constitute proof of one because the model simulations could be deficient in natural variability on the decadal to century time scale. That last point demands further elaboration and emphasis. The NAS thinks climate models could be off by as much as a decade, or perhaps 100 years. Why is this important? Global climate models constitute one of the Four Pillars. Alarmists frequently point to computer-generated simulations showing dramatic, even scary, pictures of what might happen decades from now: more floods, more hurricanes, more droughts, the Gulf Stream shutting down. In many cases, the media eagerly report what these models produce as pure fact, with little or no explanation of their considerable limitations. The NAS also addressed the work of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, another of the Four Pillars. The IPCC's 2001 Third Assessment Report, particularly its Summary for Policymakers, is frequently cited as proof of the consensus view. But the NAS disagrees. ``The IPCC Summary for Policymakers,'' the NAS wrote, could give an impression that the science of global warming is settled, even though many uncertainties still remain. Here again, the NAS is saying the science is not settled. The NAS also addressed the IPCC's future climate scenarios. These scenarios are the basis for the IPCC's projection that temperatures could increase to between 2.7 to 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100. The NAS said: The IPCC scenarios cover a broad range of assumptions about future economic and technological development, including some that allow greenhouse gas emission reductions. However, there are large uncertainties in underlying assumptions about population growth, life style choices, technological change, and energy alternatives. Once again, the NAS says ``there are large uncertainties in underlying assumptions.'' The same is true, the NAS said, about future projections of CO2 emissions. As the NAS stated: Scenarios for future greenhouse gas amounts, especially for CO2 and CO4, are a major source of uncertainty for projections of future climate. To bolster the point, the NAS found that actual CO2 emissions contradicted the IPCC, stating that: The increase of global fossil fuel CO2 emissions in the past decade, averaging 0.6% per year, has fallen below the IPCC scenarios. There are those troublesome words again: ``Large uncertainties in underlying assumptions.'' ``Major source of uncertainty.'' The NAS also expressed clear reservations about the relationship between carbon dioxide emissions and how they interact with land and the atmosphere: How much of the carbon from future use of fossil fuels will be seen as increases in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will depend on what fractions are taken up by land and by the oceans. The exchanges with land occur on various time scales, out to centuries for soil decomposition in high latitudes, and they are sensitive to climate change. Their projection into the future is highly problematic. Let me offer one final quote from the study before I turn to the media. Taking stock of the many scientific uncertainties highlighted in the report, the NAS issued explicit advice to guide climate research-- advice, by the way, that alarmists reject: The most valuable contribution U.S. scientists can make is to continually question basic assumptions and conclusions, promote clear and careful appraisal and presentation of the uncertainties about climate change as well as those areas in which science is leading to robust conclusions, and work toward a significant improvement in the ability to project the future. I am concerned about the media. I will talk about that in a minute. People are trying to say that the release of CO2 is the cause of climate change. These people have to understand that historically it doesn't work out that way. We went into a time right after World War II when we had an 85-percent increase in CO2 emissions. What happened there was that precipitated not a warming period but a cooling period. Again, that is too logical for some of the alarmists to understand. They want so badly to feel a crisis is upon us. It is kind of interesting. There is a well-known author, Michael Crichton, who wrote a book, ``State of Fear.'' I recommend that everyone read that. He is a scientist and a medical doctor who wrote this about how horrible things could happen with global warming. After he researched it, he came to the conclusion that it is a hoax. I recommend everyone read that book. It is very revealing. It is very accurate in the way the media and Hollywood are treating things. It's not surprising that the media distorted and exaggerated the NAS report. The public was told that the NAS categorically accepted that carbon dioxide emissions were the overwhelming factor causing global warming, and that urgent action was needed. One factually challenged CNN reporter said the NAS study represented ``a unanimous decision that global warming is real, is getting worse, and is due to man. There is no wiggle room.'' The New York Times opined that the report reaffirmed ``the threat of global warming, declaring fearlessly that human activity is largely responsible for it.'' Of course, as the preceding quotes from the report show, this is not true. This is the report we are talking about with all of the qualifications they have. Of course, the proceedings from this report show it is not true. It is an outrageous lie. Unfortunately, the media wasn't burdened with any actual knowledge of the report. Rather, it seized on a sentence fragment from the report's summary, and then jumped to conclusions that, to be charitable, cannot be squared with the full report. That fragment from the summary reads as follows: ``Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities. . .'' There's the smoking gun, we were told then and even now, proving a global warming consensus. However, the second part of the sentence, along with much else in the report, was simply ignored. The second part of the sentence reads: ``We cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability.'' And as we have seen, it is amazing how one could conclude that the NAS ``left no wiggle room'' that ``global warming is due to man.'' Dr. Richard Lindzen, a professor of meteorology at MIT, and a member of the NAS panel that produced the report, expressed his astonishment in an editorial in the Wall Street Journal on June 11, 2001. Dr. Lindzen wrote that the NAS report showed ``there is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long-term climate trends and what causes them.'' Yet to this day, the media continues to report exactly the opposite. As I noted earlier, raising uncertainties or questioning basic assertions about global warming is considered ``nonsense.'' I wonder if the same applies to the NAS. For on just about every page of the 2001 report, the NAS did exactly that. But for the alarmists, global warming has nothing to do with science or scientific inquiry. Science is not about the inquiry to discover truth, but a mask to achieve an ideological agenda. For some, this issue has become a secular religion, pure and simple. Dr. Richard Lindzen has written eloquently and powerfully on this point, so I will end with his words: ``Science, in the public arena, is commonly used as a source of authority with which to bludgeon political opponents and propagandize uninformed citizens. This is what has been done with both the reports of the IPCC and the NAS. It is a reprehensible practice that corrodes our ability to make rational decisions. A fairer view of the science will show that there is still a vast amount of uncertainty--far more than advocates of Kyoto would like to acknowledge--and that the NAS report has hardly ended the debate. Nor was it meant to.'' This is Dr. Lindzen. No one will question his credibility and his background. We know the economic damage that will be done to America. We have all talked about the report on the econometrics survey. That survey showed how much energy would increase, should we have to comply with the Kyoto Treaty. It shows it would cost the average American family of four $2,175 a year. So we know how expensive that is. That is all documented. You might say, Wait a minute. If this is true, if the science is not established and there is that much economic damage to the United States, why are we doing this? I think the answer to that could be given from quoting two individuals. One is not exactly an American hero, Jacques Chirac from France, who said: Kyoto represents the first component of an authentic governance. Then some of you may have heard of Margo Wallstrom, the Environmental Minister of the European Union. She said: Global warming is not about climate. It is about leveling the economic playing field worldwide. I hope the first pillar has been discredited, and next week we will start with pillar No. 2 in hopes that we can have a wake-up call for the American people--that these same alarmists who were concerned about global cooling two decades ago will quit worrying so much about their own agenda and start looking at the science. I feel an obligation as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee to look at the science. Certainly the Presiding Officer is a valued member of that committee. We have a commitment to look at sound science, as unpopular as it may be. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak for up to 20 minutes as in morning business.