![]() |
|
![]() |
|
![]() Inhofe Responds to White House Reversal on Bailout INHOFE SAYS NO TO $14 BILLION AUTO BAILOUT INHOFE OUTLINES CONCERNS ON AUTO BAILOUT BILL Inhofe Notes Continued Improvement in Afghan Security Situation INHOFE ANNOUNCES SENATE CONFIRMATIONS OF OKLAHOMA MILITARY OFFICERS Inhofe Says New ESA Rule a Step in the Right Direction ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Enid McAlester Oklahoma City Tulsa Washington |
Inhofe Responds to White House Reversal on Bailout
Today, Senator Inhofe issued a statement in response to the White House's announcement this morning that they are considering using the remaining $15 billion of the first $350 billion of the financial bailout legislation Congress passed earlier this year to bailout the Big Three automakers.
"How have we come to a point that Congress-the institution that represents the will of the American people-has handed over so much money and authority to the Treasury Secretary that, if the democratic process fails to achieve a certain desired outcome, the outcome is simply ignored? The stated purpose of $700 billion bank bailout was to rescue us from a catastrophic breakdown of the financial system. Now we're told that the money might be used to bailout the auto companies because legislating their multi-billion dollar gift from the U.S. taxpayer might come with conditions that were too inconvenient for interested parties. I've been a U.S. Senator for some time, and I have never seen anything like this.
INHOFE SAYS NO TO $14 BILLION AUTO BAILOUT
On Thursday, Senator Inhofe gave a speech on the Senate Floor calling on Congress to learn from its own mistakes and reject another major bailout that gives unfettered power to an unelected Washington bureaucrat, in the form of a ‘car czar’ to oversee a $14 billion bailout of the Big Three automakers. Late Thursday night, the Senate failed to gain the 60 votes needed to proceed to final passage. Senator Inhofe has been an outspoken critic of the $700 billion bailout and its administration by Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, and will continue working to represent the majority of Americans who oppose this near-nationalization of industry. Senator Inhofe has introduced legislation, S.3683 and S.3697, to freeze unexpended expenditures of the first $350 billion installment of the $700 billion and require an affirmative vote of Congress to access the remaining $350 billion. The following are excerpts of Senator Inhofe’s speech:
“In Congress, we are currently considering an irresponsible $14 billion bailout of the Big Three auto manufacturers,” Senator Inhofe. “This legislation empowers one unelected bureaucrat, which has come to be known as the ‘car czar,’ to spend money how he sees fit to keep the auto companies afloat and make the U.S. government part owners of the companies.
“There are no provisions in the language that specifically direct the car czar to take any specific restructuring actions, such as renegotiating union contracts which has led to nearly a doubling of the cost per worker for the Big Three auto makers compared to their foreign competitors here in the U.S. The ‘car czar’ will also be empowered to dictate how these companies are to structure and run their business. This is a bureaucratic, command and control approach to industrial policy in lieu of market forces and Chapter 11. I believe it only delays critical business restructuring decisions.
“Why do we now believe that government bailouts and government ownership of shares of these companies without a clear idea of what these companies will do to significantly alter their business models, at least until well into next year, is going to be a successful venture? The history of even the last couple decades clearly shows that the approach we are considering in this legislation has a track record of waste and failure. We need to ask ourselves: Are we not simply throwing good money after bad? More importantly, are we not simply throwing taxpayer dollars down the drain?
“I cannot and will not support Congress using taxpayer dollars to bailout yet another industry, and I think we were in this same situation not too long ago with the massive $700 billion financial bailout legislation. This Congress has set an extremely dangerous precedent.
“This has been and will continue to be a difficult time for all Americans. The unwinding of past mistakes is never a pleasant process. These auto companies have very difficult decisions to make, but no one can argue these circumstances and subsequent tough decisions have been a long time in the making. However, many of us believe additional government attempts to only patch the situation for the moment will not only be futile, but will also move this country further from those first principles that have made us the great nation we are today.”
INHOFE OUTLINES CONCERNS ON AUTO BAILOUT BILLEarlier in the week, Senator Inhofe issued a statement outlining his concerns with the Senate package to bailout the Big Three automakers. “The Democratic majority seems to believe D.C. politicians and bureaucrats are the best suited to build the car industry of the future,” Senator Inhofe said. “A political solution to a business crisis is the wrong approach. Nationalizing industries in an attempt to save them has been tried before. The track record is abysmal. “The legislation before us creates a ‘car czar’ to provide $14 billion in bailout funds to the Detroit Three automakers and oversee the long-term restructuring of the entire industry. The ‘car czar’ will also be empowered to dictate how these companies are to structure and run their business. This is a bureaucratic, command and control approach to industrial policy in lieu of market forces and some type of Chapter 11 process. In meetings with associations that represent auto dealerships in Oklahoma, it was clear that they did not support the idea of a ‘car czar,’ because the prospect of a Washington bureaucrat telling the car manufacturers how to run their businesses and what kind of cars to make did not give them confidence in the future efficiency and viability of the industry. I am extremely pessimistic, to say the least, that having Washington get itself into the business of restructuring industries is going to be a successful experiment. “Additionally, it seems to me that we are again making the mistake we made on the $700 billion bailout of the financial system by giving a single bureaucrat the ability to administer taxpayer bailout dollars more or less as he sees fit with only a nod and wink to ‘oversight.’ Therefore, just as I opposed the massive $700 billion bailout in October, I will be opposing the massive $14 billion auto bailout when it comes to the Senate floor. “If Congress is going to provide bridge financing to the auto industry to keep it afloat, it seems to me that the right approach would be to have these companies make the hard decisions about long-term restructuring up front in return for a helping hand. This bill only extracts the promise of future long-term reform in return for taxpayer funding. Furthermore, if the ‘car czar’ does not stringently administer his duties under this bill, the assistance granted in it will quickly become a substitute for making the long-term restructuring decisions that are absolutely essential for the success of these auto companies. For example, there are no provisions in the language that specifically direct the ‘car czar’ to take any specific restructuring actions, such as renegotiating union contracts or debt obligations. You don’t need a crystal ball to know that this is merely a down payment on future, more expensive bailouts of the car industry.” Inhofe Notes Continued Improvement in Afghan Security Situation
View More Pictures from the Senator's Trip to Afghanistan
On Monday, Senator Inhofe, a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, returned from a Congressional Delegation trip to Africa and Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, Senator Inhofe, along with the other members of the delegation, Representatives Robert Aderholt (R-AL), Randy Neugebauer (R-TX), and Jeff Miller (R-FL), met with General David McKiernan, Commander International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and U.S. Forces Afghanistan, at ISAF Headquarters in Kabul who briefed them on the status of U.S. and ISAF operations in Afghanistan. They also met with General Abdul Raheem Wardak, Afghanistan’s Minister of Defense, who gave the delegation an overview of the current situation in Afghanistan, the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF), and the outlook for Afghanistan’s future. The Members also visited Camp Eggers in Kabul where they talked with troops from Oklahoma and around the nation.
“The highlight of every trip I make to Afghanistan and Iraq is talking with our troops,” Senator Inhofe said. “In Afghanistan, our troop morale remains high and our forces remain dedicated to defeating the deadly insurgency in Afghanistan by relentlessly taking the fight to the enemy. I was especially proud to meet with some of Oklahoma’s own Soldiers, Airmen and Marines who are serving their country. I would like all their families and loved ones back home to know that they are working hard and standing strong and that we are all proud of their sacrifice.
“I was pleased to meet with General David McKiernan and General Abdul Raheem Wardak during my trip, who updated us on the status of operations in Afghanistan. General Wardak was educated in the United States and actually trained at Ft. Sill in Oklahoma. They informed us that improvements continue to be made in assisting Afghanistan in establishing and maintaining their security. Together with ISAF, Afghanistan’s government is taking a regional approach to winning by building the will and capacity of the Afghanistan National Security Forces (ANSF) and the Afghan government. There continues to be a need for additional ISAF troops in the role of trainers and mentors of the Afghan National Army (ANA), as well as ANSF troops. “The ‘Clear – Hold – Build Strategy’ that has been implemented in Afghanistan seeks to clear segmented areas of Afghanistan of all Taliban and extremists, then puts the ANSF in place to maintain security, allowing the Afghan government and ISAF to rebuild the area with a renewed focus on the Afghan people. In order for Afghans to begin to feel secure, the Afghan Government must work to establish trust and credibility with the people. In doing so, they must also work to establish governance at local and regional levels. “Despite their efforts to establish regional shadow governments and courts in the southern region and contrary to recent press reports, Taliban influence has not increased. Their efforts for the most part have been ineffective and incoherent.
“Over 60% of the Afghan National Army is now capable of leading operations in Afghanistan. They still require enabling support by ISAF, to include firepower, air mobility, reconnaissance, close air support, and medical needs. General Wardak informed me that 89% of the population of Afghanistan respects the ANA and believes it to be effective. Supporting the ANA is smart investment of our resources, as it is 80 times less expensive than deploying ISAF troops and has the dual result of allowing more Afghans to defend their own nation. “While improvements in governance have been made in the Afghan provinces along the Pakistan/Afghanistan border, the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) in Pakistan remain a concern that will require continued improvement and increased cooperation between ISAF, ANA and the Pakistani Military to guard against their common threat and enemy in the Taliban. Substantive work is being accomplished through the Tripartite Commission and Border Security Subcommittee Meetings, made up of senior leaders from Afghanistan, Pakistan, and ISAF, improving and increasing cooperation between these three parties.” INHOFE ANNOUNCES SENATE CONFIRMATIONS OF OKLAHOMA MILITARY OFFICERSSenator Inhofe also announced this week the Senate confirmations of the appointments of two Oklahoma generals. Air Force Maj. Gen. Harry M. “Bud” Wyatt III, currently serving as the Adjutant General of Oklahoma, was confirmed to his appointment as the Director of the Air National Guard. Air Force Maj. Gen. Loren M. Reno, serving as commander of the Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center, Air Force Material Command at Tinker Air Force Base in Oklahoma, was confirmed to his appointment as Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, Installations and Mission Support. Both officers will be promoted to the grade of Lieutenant General in their new roles. “The confirmations of Major General Wyatt as the Director of the Air National Guard and Major General Reno as Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, Installations and Mission Support will greatly benefit both our state and our nation,” Senator Inhofe said. “Both of these officers are fine men who have worked hard on behalf of the state of Oklahoma and our United States Armed Forces; no one could be more deserving of these honors. “General Wyatt’s leadership of the Oklahoma National Guard as the Adjutant General has been nothing short of flawless. Since 2003, he has successfully overseen an increase in operations and deployments of the men and women of the Oklahoma National Guard. His dedication to duty and tireless devotion to his state and nation have been paralleled by few in my experience as a Member of Congress for over 20 years. I am confident that under his leadership, the United States Air National Guard will see the same success that General Wyatt has brought to each organization in which he has served. “I had the opportunity to travel with General Wyatt to the Middle East and Africa on a week-long congressional delegation earlier this year, and had the chance to speak to him extensively about the threats our nation faces and the demands these threats have placed on our National Guard and Reserve. We also spoke about the impact that current operations are having on Guard equipment and personnel. General Wyatt is more than professionally acquainted with these issues, as his son is an Army Captain who recently returned from his service in Iraq with the Oklahoma National Guard’s 45th Infantry Brigade Combat Team. I was heartened by the great degree of conviction with which General Wyatt believes in the ability of the Guard and Reserve to meet these demands, and I know he will lead the Air National Guard with that same skill and conviction. “Major General Reno has served Oklahoma with distinction in his years as the Commander of the Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center at Tinker Air Force Base. Tinker is the third largest employer in Oklahoma, and General Reno helped shepherd through one of the biggest growth opportunities for the Base with the joint acquisition between the Air Force and local community of the abandoned GM plant that is located adjacent to the base. Because of this partnership, our state stands to make great economic gains by attracting new businesses as well as further integrating Tinker into the Oklahoma City community. At Tinker, he worked to ensure the Air Logistics Center provided effective and efficient weapon system acquisition and sustainment, depot maintenance, purchasing and supply chain management, and installation, information and services support. “In his new role as the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, Installations, and Mission Support at Air Force Headquarters at the Pentagon, Major General Reno will be responsible to the Chief of Staff for leadership, management and integration of Air Force logistics, readiness, aircraft and missile maintenance, civil engineering and security forces. He will also help set policy and prepare budget estimates that reflect enhancements to productivity, combat readiness and quality of life for members of the Air Force. The Air Staff is gaining an officer of strong moral character and dedication to his job and nation, and I look forward to continue working with him from his new post.” Inhofe Says New ESA Rule a Step in the Right DirectionAlso on Thursday, Senator Inhofe, the Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, commented on the release of a final rule by the Department of Interior (DOI) that makes modest changes to the regulations governing the ESA Section 7 "Consultation" process. The DOI proposed the rule in August of this year, and the public comment period ended October 15. The DOI has also completed an environmental impact statement for the proposed changes. "The final rule released today by DOI is a step in the right direction," Senator Inhofe said. "I am pleased that the new rule clarifies what is meant by the effects of a federal action in a way that makes it more difficult to the claim that any alleged effect (e.g. climate change, CO2 emissions) has a direct enough impact to be considered an actual threat to a species under ESA. Specifically, the revision requires that indirect effects must be essential causes that are reasonably certain to occur based on substantiated information. "The rule also allows other agencies considering the impacts of ‘major federal agencies' to make threshold determination of whether of the action has ‘no effect' on any listed species, potentially relieving that agency of the requirement to seek informal or formal consultation with DOI. However, in order to qualify for the ‘no effect, no consultation' determination, the action agency must meet very strict criteria. This process is a good first step towards true ESA reform, but it is designed only to relieve the obligation the consult on the actions that most obviously have no potential to affect a listed species: very few federal actions will meet the strict requirements to get out of consultation so species protections are not compromised. "Though some liberal activists allege that this rule dismantles ESA protections, nothing could be further from the truth. These are commonsense changes to a law much overdue for reform," Inhofe concluded. Inhofe EPW Press Blog: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming ClaimsFrom the Inhofe EPW Press Blog Link to Full Printable PDF Report INTRODUCTION:
Over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernemntal Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 231-page U.S. Senate Minority Report report -- updated from 2007’s groundbreaking report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” -- features the skeptical voices of over 650 prominent international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated report includes an additional 250 (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the initial release in December 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.
The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grow louder in 2008 as a steady stream of peer-reviewed studies, analyses, real world data and inconvenient developments challenged the UN and former Vice President Al Gore's claims that the "science is settled" and there is a "consensus." On a range of issues, 2008 proved to be challenging for the promoters of man-made climate fears. Promoters of anthropogenic warming fears endured the following: Global temperatures failing to warm; Peer-reviewed studies predicting a continued lack of warming; a failed attempt to revive the discredited “Hockey Stick”; inconvenient developments and studies regarding CO2; the Sun; Clouds; Antarctica; the Arctic; Greenland; Mount Kilimanjaro; Hurricanes; Extreme Storms; Floods; Ocean Acidification; Polar Bears; lack of atmosphieric dust; the failure of oceans to warm and rise as predicted.
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”. An American Physical Society editor conceded that a “considerable presence” of scientific skeptics exist. An International team of scientists countered the UN IPCC, declaring: “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate”. India Issued a report challenging global warming fears. International Scientists demanded the UN IPCC “be called to account and cease its deceptive practices,” and a canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is “settled.”
This new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's office of the GOP Ranking Member is the latest evidence of the growing groundswell of scientific opposition challenging significant aspects of the claims of the UN IPCC and Al Gore. Scientific meetings are now being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists' equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [See Full report Here: & see: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: '2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC' ]
Even the mainstream media has begun to take notice of the expanding number of scientists serving as “consensus busters.” A November 25, 2008 article in Politico 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 cap-and-trade legislation.” Canada’s Financial 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)," Revkin wrote. (LINK) 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 recogniction 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.” Briggs, in a March 4, 2008, report, described the behavior as “really outrageous and unethical behavior on the parts of some editors. I was shocked.” (LINK) [Note: An August 2007 report detailed how proponents of man-made global warming fears enjoy a monumental funding advantage over skeptical scientists. LINK and a July 2007 Senate report detailing how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation - LINK & LINK ] Highlights of the Updated 2008 Senate Minority Report featuring over 650 international scientists dissenting from man-made climate fears: “I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever. “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” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD 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.” 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.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.
“So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.” - Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace member. “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.” - Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth. “The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA. “Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ. “After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review. “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 round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. 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,” Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher. “Nature's regulatory instrument is water vapor: more carbon dioxide leads to less moisture in the air, keeping the overall GHG content in accord with the necessary balance conditions.” – Prominent Hungarian Physicist and environmental researcher Dr. Miklós Zágoni reversed his view of man-made warming and is now a skeptic. Zágoni was once Hungary’s most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol. “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?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden. “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.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee. “The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil... I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” - South Afican Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications. “Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh. “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” - Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut, served as staff physicist at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) “Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles. “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.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan. “The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.
“Whatever the weather, it's not being caused by global warming. If anything, the climate may be starting into a cooling period.” Atmospheric scientist Dr. Art V. Douglas, former Chair of the Atmospheric Sciences Department at Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska, and is the author of numerous papers for peer-reviewed publications. “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.” - Chemist Dr. Patrick Frank, who has authored more than 50 peer-reviewed articles. “The ‘global warming scare’ is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making. It has no place in the Society's activities.” - Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist 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. “Earth has cooled since 1998 in defiance of the predictions by the UN-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.’” - Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado. “I have yet to see credible proof of carbon dioxide driving climate change, yet alone man-made CO2 driving it. The atmospheric hot-spot is missing and the ice core data refute this. When will we collectively awake from this deceptive delusion?” - Dr. G LeBlanc Smith, a retired Principal Research Scientist with Australia’s CSIRO. (The full quotes of the scientists are later in this report) This Senate report features the names, biographies, academic/institutional affiliation, quotes and of literally hundreds of additional international scientists who publicly dissented from man-made climate fears. This report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies, scientific analyses and original source materials as gathered from directly from the scientists or from public statements, news outlets, and websites in 2007 and 2008. 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 UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore. Additionally, these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; the Belgian Weather Institute; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Abo Akademi University in Finland; University of La Plata in Argentina; Stockholm University; Punjab University in India; University of Melbourne; Columbia University; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London. Background: Only 52 Scientists Participated in UN IPCC Summary The notion of "hundreds" or "thousands" of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny. (See report debunking "consensus" LINK) 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. (LINK) (LINK) & (LINK) (Note: The 52 scientists who participated in the 2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers had to adhere to the wishes of the UN political leaders and delegates in a process described as more closely resembling a political party’s convention platform battle, not a scientific process - LINK) One former UN IPCC scientist bluntly told EPW how the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers “distored” the scientists work. “I have found examples of a Summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said,” explained South Afican Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications. Proponents of man-made global warming like to note how the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) have issued statements endorsing the so-called "consensus" view that man is driving global warming. But both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to directly vote on these climate statements. Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions produced the "consensus" statements. This report gives a voice to the rank-and-file scientists who were shut out of the process. (LINK) The most recent attempt to imply there was an overwhelming scientific "consensus" in favor of man-made global warming fears came in December 2007 during the UN climate conference in Bali. A letter signed by only 215 scientists urged the UN to mandate deep cuts in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. But absent from the letter were the signatures of these alleged "thousands" of scientists. (See AP article: - LINK ) The more than 650 scientists expressing skepticism, comes after the UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri implied that there were only “about a dozen" skeptical scientists left in the world. (LINK) 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 the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona." (LINK) & (LINK) Examples of "consensus" claims made by promoters of man-made climate fears: Former Vice President Al Gore (November 5, 2007): "There are still people who believe that the Earth is flat." (LINK) Gore also compared global warming skeptics to people who "believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona." (June 20, 2006 - LINK) CNN's Miles O'Brien (July 23, 2007): "The scientific debate is over," O'Brien said. "We're done." O'Brien also declared on CNN on February 9, 2006 that scientific skeptics of man-made catastrophic global warming "are bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry, usually." (LINK) On July 27, 2006, Associated Press reporter Seth Borenstein described a scientist as "one of the few remaining scientists skeptical of the global warming harm caused by industries that burn fossil fuels." (LINK) Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC view on the number of skeptical scientists as quoted on Feb. 20, 2003: "About 300 years ago, a Flat Earth Society was founded by those who did not believe the world was round. That society still exists; it probably has about a dozen members." (LINK) Agence France-Press (AFP Press) article (December 4, 2007): The article noted that a prominent skeptic "finds himself increasingly alone in his claim that climate change poses no imminent threat to the planet." Andrew Dessler in the eco-publication Grist Magazine (November 21, 2007): "While some people claim there are lots of skeptical climate scientists out there, if you actually try to find one, you keep turning up the same two dozen or so (e.g., Singer, Lindzen, Michaels, Christy, etc., etc.). These skeptics are endlessly recycled by the denial machine, so someone not paying close attention might think there are lots of them out there -- but that's not the case." (LINK) The Washington Post asserted on May 23, 2006 that there were only "a handful of skeptics" of man-made climate fears. (LINK) UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland on May 10, 2007 declared the climate debate "over" and added “it's completely immoral, even, to question” the UN’s scientific “consensus." (LINK) The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer said it was “criminally irresponsible” to ignore the urgency of global warming on November 12, 2007. (LINK) 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. (LINK) |