Madam Speaker, we debate throughout the world the concept of global warming, but we don't call it that any more; we call it climate change. All the big leaders of the world are in Denmark talking about how they can figure out a way to control man, to make sure that man, the evildoer, the polluter of the world, does not continue to pollute our wonderful climate.
The consensus has been for some time that global warming, climate change, continues because man is the perpetrator. Now we are beginning to learn that may not be true, that there is not a consensus that there is global warming or climate change. We now have heard about Climategate, where the expert scientists hid emails in England that disagreed with the so-called consensus that there is global warming and global climate change. We have heard now new evidence that even NASA is involved in not revealing evidence that contradicts climate change.
I think a history lesson is in order, Madam Speaker, and I would like to read from a couple of well thought of, in the science community, a couple of magazine articles. One of them is under the Science section of Time magazine. It's dated June 24, but the year is 1974. The article begins with this comment, "Another Ice Age?" So much for global warming.
As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather patterns of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory events are occurring in global climate upheaval. The weather widely varies from place to place and time to time.
When meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe, they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler the last three decades and the trend shows no indication of reversing. Let me repeat that. According to scientists in 1974, the trend shows no indication of reversing the cooling trend.
Scientists are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another Ice Age.
If we were to live in 1974, and, you know, I actually lived in 1974, I read this article then, I believed it. I believe we were all going to freeze in the dark. It goes on to say that a part of the problem is man polluting the atmosphere with farming. Because man farms and the dust gets up into the air, that blocks the sun rays from coming to Earth, and that actually cools the Earth. Maybe that's another new idea of carbon emission cooling that was in 1974.
The following year that notable news magazine, Newsweek, April 28, 1975, under its Science section in the back, talks about the cooling world. There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may be bringing a drastic decline in food production throughout the world.
To scientists these dramatic incidents represent the advanced signs of a fundamental change in the world's whether. The central fact, you got that word, fact, is that after three-quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the Earth's climate seems to be cooling down. And that's from Newsweek.
Here is a chart they put in their expert scientific article, and it's entitled--I think it's nice they put it in the ice-blue color--Newsweek, "The Cooling World," and it shows that average temperatures are getting colder. Of course, it goes off the chart, colder and colder, April 28, 1978.
Like I said, Madam Speaker, I believed we were all going to freeze in the dark. The scientists told us that we were going to freeze in the dark because of the weather patterns. Climates do change, Madam Speaker. In the 1970s it was getting cooler. Now they say it's getting warmer. Now they just say it's climate change.
Climates do change. That's what seasons are. Most of the world up here in the north has seasons. Now, we don't have seasons in Houston. We have two seasons--we have summer, and we have August. Other than that, the seasons change. In most parts of the world they get warm, they get cold.
We are going to try to trust the world's climate predictions to a group of people from the 1970s and now, 2000, to a group of people who can't even predict correctly tomorrow's weather. You know, people in the weather industry are the only people I know who consistently can be wrong and keep their jobs. But yet, these same people who can't predict tomorrow's weather are trying to predict the weather from now on, that climate change is occurring because man is the culprit.
And that's just the way it is.
From Newsweek, Apr. 28, 1975
The Cooling World
There are ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may have drastic decline in food production--with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only ten years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the north, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas--parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia--where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.
The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it.
In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant over-all loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree--a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in thirteen U.S. states.
Trend: To scientists, these incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth's climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. ``A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,'' warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, ``because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.''
A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3 percent between 1964 and 1972.
To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the earth's average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about 7 degrees lower than during its warmest eras--and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the ``little ice age'' conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900--years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.
Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. ``Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climat- ic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,'' concedes the National Academy of Sciences report ``Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.''
Extremes: Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in over-all temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly, winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases--all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.
"The world's food-producing system," warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA's Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, "is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago." Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.
Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientist see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.