mr. cousteau was telling the kids there is no future in the ocean. he was saying there would be no life in the ocean. the ocean will be black, lifeless masses, black goo. and i felt it was a bit pessimistic. and when i interviewed him afterwards, i turned on my tape recorder and introduced myself and he was ready for the interview and i said aren't there optimistic signs about the ocean that perhaps someday we will be able to farm them like shellfish and regular fish perhaps, ranch them in the ocean? and that might be a great source of protein for the whole world that we would have it better under control. and he came up to me and all the students were watching and he put my face right up next to my nose and he said didn't you hear

me? the oceans will be dead in 10 years, black goo. black. dead. his nose was almost touching my nose. i could smell the garlic on his french breath and i can tell you it was an experience. and i thought about about that two days ago while i was surfing and the fish were jumping and the dolphins were swimming and the pelicans were landing and picking up the fish in the water, the oceans totally alive and i'm totally alive and grateful to have the oceans we have. obviously, mr. cousteau was wrong. i can't tell you he was lying, but he was dead wrong. . i try to see every student that comes from my district.

i try to see them and talk to them, give them a chaps to ask me questions, but i always ask them a question, too. so my students from southern california, young high school students, i always ask them, is the air in our congressional district, in our area of southern california, is it cleaner or dirtier than it was 45 years ago when i went to high school in this very same area? and almost 90% of the students adamantly insist that the air back then was so much cleaner. oh, you're so lucky to have lived in an age in southern california when the air was so clean. and now it's so dirty and all of us are destined to die and to be infected with this pollution in our lungs. well, the fact is, that is dead wrong as well. someone continues to misinform our young people, perhaps for political reasons, whatever, but the fact is, when i tell them

that they are 180 degrees wrong, that in fact the air is so much cleaner now, that there's almost no comparison to what it was when i was a young person in high school, they are incredulous. many of them don't believe me when i say that. but they know afterwards when they check up on it that they have been lied to. well, whatever the reason, whatever the motive behind this misinformation that's being provided to young people, whether it was jacques cousteau or whether it's the education establishment or any of the other people we're talking about who have ties to the radical environmental movement, whatever reason they are misinforming our students, it's not just the students. it's our general population as well. for decades, phony, frightening predictions, false climate assumptions and inaccurate information fed into computer climate models have been hoisted

on the american people, including our young people, and people throughout the world. even worse, honest discussion on these issues of climate have been stifled and critics have been silenced in order to create an illusion of a consensus that the climate is going hay wire and that we're in for a global warming calamity. so why is this? why do we have this specter of man-made global warming being pour trade as a global calamity in the making? well, the being used to stampede the public and, yes, stampede elected officials into accepting what appears to be the biggest power grab in history. one doesn't have to be a conspiracy nut to realize there are a significant number of people who really believe in centralizing the power of

government into the hands of elected and even unelected officials. central idsing that pure -- centralizing that power into washington and elsewhere. and these unelected officials who now will be given so much power are expected to be competent and expected to be well motivated and they are expected to do things consistent with the goals of the values who of course, of the people who are pushing to centralize power in their hands. so, that we have a group of leftists who believe in centralizing power should not surprise anyone. but what do we have here? as the leftist politicos in this country have been willing to go along and exaggerate and, yes, playing fast and loose with the facts in order to promote this notion of manmade global warming.

but we didn't expect these people who have a motive of trying to centralize power or whatever the motive is of these alarmists and the radical environmental movement, we didn't expect them to act any other way. but we need to ask ourselves, why did it take prominent members of the science community so long to step forward and to be counted in the face of this massive and heavy-handed campaign of deceit? well, i traced the reluctance of our scientists to step up back to the abrupt dismissal of dr. william happener who is then the top scientist of the department of energy back in 1993. he was too professional, too objective for what vice president gore had in mind. so, off with his head. immediately that was one of the first actions taken when the clinton administration took power.

out the door with dr. happer. well, this man, this prominent and very well respected ph.d., his dismissal in that way was a message to the science community. if you want a grant, you tow the line and what followed was, a one-sided drum beat, one-sided promotions, one-sided research grants and one-sided thinking. those were the order of the day for the eight years of the clinton presidency. the media bies, which of course went along with that and played hand in glove, has never let up with that bias. we just had a major conference here in washington with hundreds of prominent individuals, many of whom were great scientists, ph.d.'s and heads of major university science departments, yet that conference which was

skeptical of global warming, of man made global warming, didn't get any pub blissity. very, very -- publicity. very, very few news articles came out of this. yet these were very prominent and important people. in this kind of repressive atmosphere where the press doesn't report that and that we had years and years where people were not being able to get grants unless they toed the line that vice president gore wanted, in this repressive atmosphere, many leaders of the scientific community just remained silent. they sort of became turtles. they tucked their heads in and figured they'd hunker down and live through it. but that ignoring of the a camp of deceit that was utilizing the prestige of the science community has taken -- has taken its toll and it's taken a long time to get these scientists out of their shell and to step forward with integrity as is expected of men and women of

science. so here we are on the edge. laws, taxation, controls, regulation mandates are about to be enacted and we've had 15 years of stifled debate. even my g.o.p. colleagues are afraid to take on the phony science that is at the heart of the manmade global warming propaganda juggernaut. and again these people in the g.o.p., they oppose this theory, but they just want to say that what is being proposed by the democrats will cost too much and will have too little impact on climate or temperature for us to justify this huge cost. well, they're right. what's being proposed will have a huge cost and very little impact. but if indeed we are facing a global warming calamity that's being caused by human activity,

the cost shouldn't matter. so i have to argue that principle and basic science is the important element of the discussion of the manmade global warming theory and the laws and regulations and controls and taxation that we are now on the verge of passing here in washington, d.c. the bottom line is that science -- the science behind the manmade global warming proposals in congress and the draconian laws which will follow are based on faulty science, the science is wrong. what has been presented to us by vice president gore and the radical environmental community and liberal leftists who want to centralize power in government, that the facts that they presented us have not been accurate, this is either -- this has either been an intent to deceive or perhaps just an -- a

benevolent intent to save the world. so it's not just a cost analysis of current legislative proposals that show that the proposals claiming to thwart manmade global warming would obliterate jobs. we know that. all these proposals, let's say, well, we're going to try to thwart global warming this way and that way with this regulation, this taxation, this requirement of cap and trade, we've had major economists, these things will destroy the american economy. but if they claim that it's about saving the planet, people are going to listen to them. but it will destroy the economy and the irony of it, this will have nothing to do with saving the planet, but will in fact perhaps make the environment of our planet worse rather than better. that is why they have tried to stifle the debate. the real scientific justification for their power

grab is the -- is science and an honest discussion of that science will show that the science being presented to justify this power grab is at best inaccurate and at worst a total lie. you've all heard it and everyone knows about this. i mean, people in washington, we don't need to be told that there's been an attempt to stifle debate. but the american people, i would ask that the american people think about what they have heard about the manmade global warming theory over these 15 years, but especially over these last four years. how many have heard the words case closed? well, isn't it ironic that all of a sudden everybody started using the words case closed? what does that mean? that that means no more debate. the words case closed was a clumsy and i might add a heavy-handed attempt to shut off

discussion even before we had a chance to have an honest discussion of the issues, because as i said, the scientists in the eight years before hpped had been denied research grants unless they were wanting to toe the line on global warming. well how many of you heard case closed? we all have. well, how many have heard that mr. gore speaks about global warming he never takes questions? hm. why would it be that someone who believes in something so adamantly refuses to debate the issue on tv, refuses to take questions? i have certainly a lot less invested in this issue than vice president gore. i give speeches and always take questions. and i have certainly been willing to debate this issue in public and on television. so why do we hear the words case closed, stifling debate, and mr. gore, one of the prime advocates of this issue, not willing to

take questions? why is it that people who have, you know, there's skepticism about global -- manmade global warming, why is it that they complain like robert gray, former chairman of the american meteorological association, why do we hear from them that they were turned down for grant applications so many times? why do we hear that from a man who mentioned that he had received 13 such research grants prior, prior to the clinton administration and then been totally cut off? isn't that say something when someone of that caliber, a ph.d., a president of the meteorological association, can't get a grant to study the frequencies of hurricanes and even today this man points out, contradictory information. his view is, a man with decades

of experience, and credentials, ph.d.'s and credentials in meteorology, says, no, global -- deciding that mankind's human actions are maersking more hurricanes is false and there's no evidence of that. well, and then what else do we hear? we hear name calling. i was on a television show recently where they called me a tragulite. maybe that's the word. that i'm anti-science and that i'm bigoted in some way. . i kept presenting evidence about global warming but all i got was name calling. case closed. and anybody who disagrees with us is a low-life who doesn't believe in science. can you imagine, moving forward on an honest discussion about man-made global warming and being discussed and then after

discussing four, five issues on science, not having those arguments answered and instead having my religion questioned. dismissing, rather than answering legitimate challenges to the man-made global warming theory is par of the course. standard operating procedures. case closed. standard operating procedures. no questions. no grants for conceptics. these people have been trying their best to basically steamroll over anyone who would get in their way without having the honest discussion. all of it is a herculean effort

not to discuss the basis of the man made global warming concept. why are they not discussing the science? all is about is shutting down the science without combating the ideas. well, the reason why they have tried so hard and have case closed and all of these things that i have just mentioned, it's because their basic theory, the science theory behind man-made global warming is wrong. it is dead wrong. and that's why they won't discuss it. and if they won't discuss it, we can discuss it. and i would suggest that if there is anyone in this congress who would like to debate me on this issue for an hour sometime between now and the time this congress has to vote on cap and

trade legislation, i will gladly meet them for an hour and discuss this issue. so, let's start discussing it tonight and maybe someone from the other side will take that offer to debate this issue. if it's so important, let's have an open and honest discussion. let's look at some of the real science-based discussions to an oncoming man-made global warming calament -- calamity. over the years in briefing after briefing on garm global warming. i couldn't help but notice the charts that we have increased the temperature of the planet by one degree, i could not help but

notice where they started, down here. and down there was 1850. 1850 is actually the line, the baseline that is used for temperature comparisons by the global warming community, by the people who believe in man-made global warming. but 1850 has some significance. 1850, in those few years there, that was the end of the little ice age. that was the end of a 500-year decline in world temperatures. ok. so why is it that people who want us to be concerned about a one-degree temperature increase are making the baseline of comparison the bottom of a 500-year decline? well, if it's at the bottom of a 500-year decline, if it's that low point they are comparing it to, what is the hysteria about

if we are talking about a one degree rise in temperature or even a two-degree rise in temperature? the fact is that we know there have been weather cycles and climate cycles throughout the history of the world. they are now trying to use a low point of a cooling cycle to compare it to say we should be upset when there is a one-degree change. what about the other weather cycles? how can you use that as a baseline? number two, what about the other weather sigh calts? what about the weather cycle that went down 500 years? over 1,000 years ago, the weather was very warm. it was a lot warmer than it is today, the one degree that we have. the fact is there were big areas of greenland that were green that had agriculture and a green part of that area. iceland was an area that had plants and crops.

people thought they were claiming that there were vines there. no. the temperature was different. it was warmer 1,000 years ago. so there have been numerous weather cycles that have had nothing to do with human activity, unless you believe that the vikings that there was something they were doing that was changing the weather. and if there was a warming cycle -- and again, if we have had a warming cycle since that time, it has been one degree. but these past climate cycles, there is one thing we have to figure out. why is it then that we have had these cycles? why is it then -- and why is this cycle claiming a one-degree rise in temperature from a 500-year low, why is this different? why are we trying to change the

rules of the game and centralize power and look at this as some sort of cry cyst when it is another cycle and what is causing the cycle then? it seems that cycles of climate follow solar activity. the cycles we have had before mankind even emerged can betraysed back through ice cores to solar activity. now, we have seen it here on earth and we have seen it on other planets. when i was in debate the other night, a good friend went on how horrible it was, of course we are having man-made global warming. looks like what is happening in the arctic. the polar bears are being destroyed. that is not true. there is a polar bear explosion in terms of their explosion. there are two types of polar

bears that are losings and not able to keep up with the changes in climate. most polar bears are living better and the population is going up. how ironic we end up putting them on an endangerered species list when their numbers are increasing. something's going on in the arctic. and my friend and colleague is saying, how horrible it is and going into detail and touching people's hearts. i said this is caused by human activity and thus we have to have all these taxes and controls and things to save the planet from this? yes, that's what he's saying. well, i said exactly what i have said to governor schwarzenegger, yes, the ice cap is retreating. there's no doubt about that. but when i say that, i'm not talking about our ice cap.

that's clear to us. but what about the ice cap on mars? there is an ice cap on mars. and it is retreating at exactly the same time that our ice cap is retreating. doesn't it indicate that it might be the sun and not us driving s.u.v.'s or modern technology that's creating these many cycles we have had, including the one we are already in? yes, an ice cap is retreating on mars and on the world. is that a coincidence? well, let's have an answer to that. so, we have polar ice caps melting on mars and it's not just a coincidence, i believe. so tell me why this doesn't indicate to us that what we're really talkic about -- talking about and what we are facing about is that it has to do with

solar activity. so -- remember, by the way, ice caps may have been melting in the arctic, but one thing people miss, the ice caps are not melting everywhere. just the northern ice cap. in ant artica to the south, ice is accumulating. there is a polar bear population. the rest is expanding their population. and i understand now, the ice is beginning to return. the ice has been accumulating there overall these years. it's if the whole world is increasing in temperature but don't talk about where the ice is accumulating.

global warming has been focused on co-2. let's talk about the science of these issues. co-2 is a miniscule part, a miniscule part of our atmosphere. if you ask the ordinary person, they will think it is 20%. it is actually .023. it's less than one quarter of 1% of the atmosphere is co-2. and of that, at least 90% of the co-2 in the atmosphere is not traced to human activity. i have been in hearings where most people claim it's more like 5% in the atmosphere that is traced to human activity. and by the way, one huge volcano or even massive fire like they

have had in various countries would dwarf everything we are trying to do to reduce the amount of co-2. co-2 is not a significant part of the atmosphere. it's a miniscule -- it's like a thread being put across the line on a football field and that's what you're changing by focusing not just on the co-2, which is .023% but of that, 90% of that is not manmade, it's by nature. the most important discussion in terms of manmade co-2, it's a small contributor to a very tiny element in the atmosphere and suggesting that that is changing our climate is ludicrous. in fact, it is warming and has

released co-2 -- it is warming a little bit and has been over the years until recently. and over the years, there has been times when co-2 was going up dramatically and down dramatically, but had nothing to do with the climate of the planet. for example, man made -- here's the basic question, another science challenge -- if manmade co-2 causes warming why as co-2 levels were rising dramatically in the 1940's, 1950's, 1960's and 1970's, if the co-2 was rising in those decades, where was -- actually cooling of our climate in those decades? ok. let's hear the science. come on. i just had the science. i had five or six points. why is everyone afraid to take on these scientific answers?

if co-2 causes it to warm, well how come when we had massive increases in co-2, it got cooler and not warmer? the calculations on global warming have been based on fraudulent numbers. a recent study showed that over 80% of america's temperature and weather stations, which have been the source of temperature readings that supposedly indicate a warming trend, supposedly, these very same monitoring facilities have been compromised and are faulty in the information they're providing. the numbers have been skewed. they are suspect because the monitors that have been relied upon do not meet the basic scientific standards that are required of them for us to believe in the numbers that they're giving uts.