CONGRESS ACTION: January 11, 1998
================

COLDEST YEAR ON RECORD: "In the lower stratosphere 1993 was extremely cold, the coldest temperatures on record." -- National Climatic Data Center of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Did you miss the headlines across the country which revealed that 1993 was the coldest year on record? How about the news that the most reliable measurements of atmospheric temperatures have shown a consistant COOLING trend for nearly the last 20 years? (The lower tropospheric temperature trend has been calculated to be -0.04 degrees C/decade. -- NASA Marshall Space Flight Center). Missed that headline also? Don't worry, you didn't miss anything. Those two items might rank among the best kept secrets of environmental science. But you didn't miss the more recent news screamed across the newspapers of the nation: "1997 Was Hottest Year on Record". (That might come as a surprise to the representatives who attended the Kyoto Boondoggle in December: The Washington Post reported that "...the thousands of environmental and industrial activists and journalists covering the event shivered through the wee hours in a press gallery where the heat had apparently been turned off.")

According to Tom Karl, a senior researcher at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as reported by the Associated Press, "The increasing trend of temperatures that we see, we believe, is at least partially attributed to human activities...". "...the odds that we would be wrong, that there is no relation to human activity, is in the area of 5 to 10 percent." Bill Clinton, of course, wasted no time capitalizing on the 'news': "We need a national consensus to do something on global warming. It is significant and what we need is an understanding that we can grow the economy and still preserve the environment." Even Karl admitted, however, "Based on the data we see, we certainly couldn't predict a catastrophic event." But how many stories on the 'proof' of global warming which Karl announced will include that little reservation?

Anyway, there is no fundamental conflict betweem 1993 being the coldest, and 1997 being the hottest, is there? After all, didn't Bill Clinton tell us about an "...increase in highly disruptive weather events"? And didn't Al Gore tell us about "...extreme weather events...that have long been predicted to become more common in a world where temperatures are rising even slightly."? Yes, the Bill and Al juggernaut did say those things, but perhaps they simply made them up because they sounded good. Because such statements are not based on any science, not even based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. "...NOAA...has documented a decrease in the intensity of hurricanes, and the total number of hurricanes has also followed suit. Overall, it seems unlikely that tropical cyclones will increase significantly on a global scale. ...observations have suggested that this variability in much of the northern hemisphere's midlatitudes has decreased...". Those statements came, not from some "fringe" scientists, as Al Gore would call them, but from scientists who served on the IPCC itself! Those evaluations are contained in an article published in May, 1997, in the journal Scientific American by three IPCC scientists: one a senior scientist in the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, another a climate modeler at the United Kingdom Meteorological Office, and the third scientist none other than Tom Karl of NOAA himself.

Among the other minor items which NOAA researcher Tom Karl somehow forgot to mention were some other findings from his own agency: "There are inadequate data to determine whether consistent global changes in climate variability or weather extremes have occurred over the 20th century." "The range of natural year-to-year temperature variations is quite similar to the size of the warming that appears to have occurred over the past century (0.3-0.6 C). Moreover, the 16th to 18th centuries appear to have been unusually cold, and the climate may still be recovering from that time. So scientists cannot yet claim to have found an unambiguous temperature related 'greenhouse signal'." "The earth's climate varies naturally for many reasons...". No kidding.

Global warming, of course, is based on no observable scientific data whatsoever, but rests entirely on theory propounded by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). At least, allegedly propounded by the IPCC. Unfortunately for scientific integrity, the IPCC itself doesn't support the scenarios attributed to it: "Any human­induced effect on climate will be superimposed on the background 'noise' of natural climate variability, which results both from internal fluctuations and from external causes such as solar variability or volcanic eruptions." -- Summary for Policymakers: The Science of Climate Change, IPCC (1995). "Our ability to quantify the human influence on global climate is currently limited because the expected signal is still emerging from the noise of natural variability and because there are uncertainties in key factors." "None of the studies...has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed changes to...increases in greenhouse gases." -- IPCC report (1995). In fact, one of the scientists involved in the IPCC process, Professor Frederick Seitz, a past president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, is pretty upset at the political way the IPCC report is being used, and distorted. Fortunately for the fearmongers, nobody cares what the IPCC report really says, and the fearmongers themselves only care about what political mileage can be wrung out of lying about what the IPCC report says.

Anyone who disagrees with the official line on global warming has been subjected to personal vilification from everyone from the Vice President on down to every liberal extremist. Those poor misguided naysayers are part of a "disinformation campaign being run by the fossil fuel industry", was the conclusion of a representative of the Union of Concerned Scientists, voiced at a symposium sponsored by Environmental Media Services at the National Press Club, Washington, D.C., December 18, 1997. Also in attendance at the symposium were representatives of the World Wildlife Fund, World Resources Institute, National Environmental Trust, Natural Resources Defense Council, Senator John Kerry (D-MA) (by telephone), the U.S. Department of Energy, and various other assorted environmental extremists committed to reducing the American living standard to a Third World level: According to the New York Times, "As for enforcing a national energy diet, no one knows what combination of rewards and punishments might be needed to change course and head toward the targets that would be imposed under the new regime." Note carefully those words "punishment" and "imposed".

Well, the secret is out! Global warming doomsayers are also part of a disinformation campaign! It may surprise people to learn that virtually all of the global warming hysterics are up to their eyeballs in a massive conflict of interest: they are in the pay of...the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT!!

And what about all those other scientists continually touted by the administration to justify their socialist schemes? The Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation researched the backgrounds of those 2600 'scientists' and found lawyers, landscape architects, a philosopher, a dermatologist and a diplomat. The Foundation found that only 11% of the signatories were specialists in anything even vaguely related to climate science. And just 15 clearly specialized in atmospheric science. As for the other 89%, they ranged from anatomy to zoology, certainly not experts in climate science.

"International discussions by political leaders are currently underway that could constrain energy use and mandate reductions in carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. Although we understand the motivation to eliminate what are perceived to be the driving forces behind a potential climate change, we believe this approach may be dangerously simplistic. Based on the evidence available to us, we cannot subscribe to the so-called 'scientific consensus' that envisages climate catastrophes and advocates hasty action. ...there does not exist today a general scientific consensus about the importance of greenhouse warming from rising levels of carbon dioxide. On the contrary, most scientists now accept the fact that actual observations from earth satellites show no climate warming whatsoever. ...we consider 'carbon taxes' and other drastic control policies -- lacking credible support from the underlying science - to be ill-advised, premature, wrought with economic danger, and likely to be counterproductive." -- The Leipzig Declaration On Global Climate Change.

FOR MORE INFORMATION...

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration http://www.noaa.gov/
National Climatic Data Center http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/


Kim Weissman
BEVDAV@worldnet.att.net
CONGRESS ACTION newsletter is available on the Internet:
http://www.aimnet.com/~jbv/congress_action.html


Go to BigEye