compromised. the figures coming out of the equipment cannot be relied upon. and our system, with 80% of our monitors who do not meet the standards that are necessary, the scientific standards for us to rely on their numbers, our system has been here aleded as the best in the world. so think about that. what's going on in the rest of the world when we're talking about one little rise, one-degree rise in temperature since the end of the little ice age, which was a 500-year low of temperature? so even that, we can't -- even with that one degree, we don't even know, because the monitors have been placed in faulty ways or have not been kept or maintained in the right way. and so, what we've had is a lot of people who have been making predictions over the last 20 years, especially vice president gore, but in the science

community, have been given these grants but only if they're going to come to the conclusion about global warming that we want you to, these science people and the political people who have got their own motive behind this bulldozer approach and steamroller approach to accomplish what they are set to accomplish, those people have been telling us that we are facing a man-made global warming calamity and we were told if the temperatures were to go up and up and reach a certain point and reach a tipping point, it would jump up by a number of temperature points. it would be five or six points or whatever they were predicting, a huge jump in temperature at some point. well, that's not what's happened. i have heard that from 10 years, 10 years from the people who have been giving out the grants,

10 years from the people who are shutting out any real debate, 10 years of don't ask any questions, case closed. . they've been warning us about man made global warming that's about to get out of hand but for over a decade it's not gotten any warmer. yes, 11 years ago in 1998 it was a very hot year and that was the year since then, every year has been cooler, it has not gotten warmer since then, and they say, well, that was a very hot year. well, so was 1931, was a very hot year and it was followed by decades, i might add, of cooling. so that doesn't mean anything that was just an anomaly that we had a hot year in 1998 because ever since then the temperature has in the been going up. the global warming alarmists' predictions were wrong.

all right? come and debate that. there's a scientific challenge. i keep giving scientific challenges and what i get back in this debate is, you're a bigot, you're anti-science, you're stupid, name calling, i mean, the people on the other side who always are willing to call people names rather than confront their arguments are very easy to spot. you look at, you just take a look, you listen to what's being said, who is offering an argument that needs to be discussed, who's calling names, they have been trying to shut down this debate by calling anybody who disagrees with them horrible person name -- personal names. well, let me repeat this one point. it is not gotten any warmer for over a decade. and we're still, it looks like, even still getting cooler. that is totally contradictory to the predictions that were aggressively made to us as they

only gave their grants to the people who would agree with that over the years. this is why global warming alarmists have now en masse changed the wording that they use. they were wrong, so let's just change the way we talk about things. now it's climate change. ok, everybody think about it. all these same people were talking about global warming 20 years ago, spending billions of dollars on research that was bogus research, you know, it was intended to come out with what they were buying from the scientists. they were telling us, it was going to get warmer and warmer. they kept using the word manmade global warming and now they he will call it climate change and all of a sudden they all changed. it all became climate change. well, every time you hear that word used by an environmental radical, by one of these alarmists, it is an admission

that they were wrong and that they refused to admit that they were wrong. refusing to admit you're wrong after you've been so aggressive in promoting something is certainly not an honest debate and an honest discussion. if i'm proven wrong on a point, i will apologize and change my position. i won't try to change my wording so it sounds like i was never wrong in the first place. these people were wrong, remember it, every time the word climate change is used, remember these were the same people who were talking about global warming and they want to have it both ways. no matter if it gets warmer or colder, they want to blame it on human activity when in fact all the evidence suggests that cycles come from solar activity. expert after expert is now pointing to the flaws in the central argument and the other thing you hear is, of course,

that all the scientists agree. there's your other way of shutting down debate. all the scientists, all the prestigious ph.d.'s and sign tufts agree he. that is not true -- agree. that is not true. it hasn't been true for years. so, al gore's scientific mumbo jumbo was wrong. all the scientists agreeing with him is wrong. the temperature predictions have been wrong. and the manmade co-2 premise is wrong. now we find out that the monitors used to collect the data were placed next to air conditioning exhaust vents which made the temperature higher and in parking lots and on top of buildings and near other heat sources which of course made all of their statistics totally unreliable. we hear that. we also know the methodology of using computer models has been

questionable from the very beginning. we all know the saying, garbage in, garbage out. but no one was permitted to hear the questions, no one was permitted to ask follow-up questions as to -- no one has been permitted to totally understand the software that went into that questionable computer modeling. the observations have been wrong. the attempt to stifle debate and shut up those people who disagree by calling them names, denying grants and making personal attacks has been wrong. thus i would suggest the biggest power grab in newer -- in our history is wrong and the public should wake up, the public should understand that what we are seeing is a brazen power grab that is wrong. so let's review the scientific challenges to manmade global warming theory, see if anybody ever bothers to come and try to

have an argument about the science. the baseline comparison at the bottom -- is at the bottom of a 500-year decline in temperature. that is not a scientific way of determining whether a slight rise in temperature is significant. the science measurements were partly or severely flawed by a monitoring system that did not meet the standards necessary to have accurate information. past climate cycles were frequent, even before the emergence of man kind. psych ams -- mankind. cycles like the reteating ice caps are similar to those on mars. increasing co-2 levels did not cause the warming -- did not cause warming which can be shown in the 1940's, 1950's and 1960's and 1970's where there was an increasing level of co-2 but yet it was getting cooler. so let's have an honest debate. let's quit calling names, let's

quit dismissing legitimate science-based questions. address the scientific issues being raised, rather than slogan earring about a consensus of ine civility scientists that does not exist. again, the so-called consensus, case closed, that consensus does not exist. more and more thousands of scientists are signing on as skeptics to this manmade global warming theory. this leads to an important point that needs to be made. perhaps the biggest lie the public must deal with is that all the prominent scientists in the world totally agree with the manmade global warming theory. that's probably the biggest lie as i'm mentioning. instead of answering scientific questions, alarmists have simply claimed all the scientists agree. i've been interviewed on this at least a half a dozen times and every interview begins with, well, all the scientists agree that manmade global warming is a

reality, how you can disagree with all of them? it is just another tactic aimed at repressing an honest discussion of something that should be a scientific issue and discussed with all sincerity. i would now submit the names of 10 prominent scientists, one of 10 of the thousands of scientists who have signed on to suggest that manmade global warming is far from accepted by all signtivities. these are the heads of science departments, the presidents of scientific and academic associations, people with doctorates in the areas of study and they are coming forward at last to -- they're coming out of their shell at last after all of these years of intimidation. this is only a list of 10. but there are thousands more who are stepping forward to voice honest skepticism, if not total rejection to the claim that human activity is creating a

global warming climate catastrophe. first one is dr. richard lindson, top scientist from the massachusetts institute of technology. dr. william gray, colorado state university. former president of american meteorological association. david -- dr. david know he will, former chairman of the nato -- former chairman and nato meteorology from canada. dr. gerard karam, university of alaska and fairbanks. dr. yuri israel of the russian academy of sciences, a senior member of the senior academy of sciences who i met and spoke to and also a member of the ipcc, united nations report who now makes it very clear that he does not believe in that report or manmade global warming. dr. ian pill in her of the university of melbourne. dr. diean douglas, climateologist. dr. harry listen, co-chairman of

the ipcc, hydroology and water resources working group. dr. antonio zakiki, world federation of sciences. dr. iber gyver. so, this idea that all the scientists are in lock step in favor of the theory of manmade global warming is a lie. not just a lie, a damnedble lie aimed at cutting out honest communication. and who's doing that? who's making this adamant statement that all the scientists are in agreement with this? well, we've had people who say these things and have said things all along, there's the global warming alarmists now who are making these statements but let us just remember, these scarce have happened in the past. i remember when my mother wouldn't serve cranberries at thanksgiving because they caused cancer. i remember when professor meryl

streep warned us of alar causing cancer which just about ruined the apple industry for two years, that also was wrong. we heard about other things causing cancer which caused the industry billions of dollars and disrupted very healthy patterns of nutrition that could have been based on psychly mates rather than high fructose corn syrup. that, too, is wrong. we remember the nuclear power catastrophe at three-mile island when dr. jane fonda, that ph.d. genius, taught us that nuclear power was so dangerous, that what we have done instead of using nuclear power we've begun relying on overseas oil and gas and burning coal. then remember the acid rain? that was a near high pitch. that's what we hear about global warming. ronald reagan stood up, put his hand and said, no, we are going to have a scientific research on this acid rain issue before we

commit all sorts of regulations and taxes that will destroy our economy. luckily rage did that and when a $500 million study was complete, it verified the fact that acid rain was a minimal problem, not a major problem and minimal problem that didn't justify any of the draconian and raises in taxes and controls that were being suggested by those environmental alarmists. then, of course, the granddaddy of them all was many of the same people are now talking about global warming, were then talking about global cooling back in the early 1970's. some of the very same people, yes, and what happened to global cooling? yeah, the trend started -- the cycle started going in another direction. then it became, oh, my god, it's global warming. now it's back to global cooling. so it this all caused by us diving -- driving in s.u.v.'s? no. maybe it's caused by the sun, maybe there are natural reasons for the cycles of climate on this planet.

the so-called experts were wrong when they told us about all of these things. all of these were exaggerated problems, exaggerated threats to our well-being and the american people were deceived in many of these cases, whether it was about nuclear energy or whether it was about cranberries. and we had fanatics who were fast and loose with the truth and fast and loose with facts. well, that's exactly what's going on today. to focus on co-2 as a primer and what's the problem with that? well, the problem is there are serious side effects when one gets you focused on something that's not true. like cranberries causing cancer. or nuclear energy being such a threat. you end up doing things that are actually harmful to you that you wouldn't do otherwise. when you have co-2 being called the primary pollutant for concern, are you doing a horrendous disservice to the people of this country by focusing on co-2 which is not harmful to the human beings at all and in fact is a plant food.

. co-2 doesn't harm human beings. if we reduce co-2, we will be doing a disservice because we won't be concentrating on pollutants that are harmful. out of diesel trucks, the particulars that are very harmful to people. i have three children. i have three babies, i love those babies and i do not want them to breathe in dirty air. and if we focus on co-2, we are doing a disservice to them and their generation and a disservice to the older people of this country who will also breathe in the dirty air and focusing on co-2 to save the planet, because what is happening here, these people are

out there to save the planet, but not out to save the people of this planet. one solution to a nonexistent threat, which also caused a huge destruction of people was, of course, the eliminating of d.d.t. d.d.t., we were told was destructive to the environment, especially to bird egg shells. d.d.t. is banned. and what is the result of d.d.t. being banned? malaria where it was almost eliminated. it made a comeback and millions of children have died because of this nonsense. i can't tell you if pelican egg shells are a bit more fragile or less fragile because of d.d.t. i can tell you the tradeoff with millions of young children dying

in third-world countries -- unfortunately the people driving policy here and out to save our planet are not out to save our children or seniors or any other people on the planet. that is the same mindset that would damage our economy. in order to save our planet with no consideration to ordinary people that would result from the draconian controls and taxation that's being proposed here in washington right now as an answer to the global warming threat, the man-made global warming threat. now that it has been driven into the public consciousness, the alarmists have it right here in washington. what should we expect unless the public changes its perception? there is a price to pay, just like the millions dying in africa of malaria. and there is a price to pay to

listening to alarmists. excessive mandates are now being proposed in washington and they will reduce our gross domestic product over $7 trillion, destroy nearly two million jobs by 2012 and raise electricity rates by 90% above inflation, in occur $3,300 for every man, woman and child in america and help the chinese steal businesses from us. and even with this monstrous cost, here's back to the central point that republicans want to make, that cost isn't going to be worth what we're go to go get out of it. and co-2 isn't harmful to people or this world.

the real calamity will be the economy-killing taxes and regulations that are put in place to solve a nonexistent problem. that economic decline that we're talking about is round one. round two is easy to predict. global and international bodies will be given by our own government and our own congress will be given the right and power to intervene in our lives to prevent man-made global warming. that's what it's all about. globalism. if man makes it, man must be decontrolled. that is why it was important to steamroll over anybody who asks questions. they want nobody to ask questions about their theory about man-made global warming because they believe people need to be controlled.

that is part of their theory of government. it will make a whole new been eff lent world. the american government, the international mandates from unelected bodies that we will then pass on power and authority to, which is supported by many of the people right here in this congress. for example, you can face in the future -- we're going to face mandates and controls from the federal government and from the international scene. some of these would be, for example, mandated increases in parking fees. did they tell you that now? all your local communities are going to have to raise the parking fees. and there will be jor impedements to the private use of automobiles. and they have frequent flyer miles and end that and because

airplanes -- no one has been telling you this, because they believe airplanes is the biggest co-2 foot threep print of all. your frequent flyer miles and discount tickets have got to go. and the elite will be able to fly in private planes getting donations from planting trees and thus they can fly in private planes. but the rest of us can't see our sick relatives on a discounted tickets. no one has heard about this but we have heard about these type of controls that will be mandated on our own people, perhaps by the united nations perhaps. what has been the view of local government will be transferred to higher authorities. local government will be required to follow international guidelines, climate guidelines when it comes to building, zoning, even local planning. this is part of our liberty. where we live, what we eat, how

we run our lives, this is what it's at stake. this is a fight between the globalists and those people who do believe in liberty and justice. we call them patriots. we call them people around the world who do believe in these western values of dignity for the individual and freedom and justice. even our diet has been targeted by those claiming that animal flat lens make meat the enemy of climate. we won't have bash be cues in our back yard even hamburgers. no one could ever go that far? what is going on here is laying the foundation for a large -- for extensive controls that are now up to the individual or up to the local government being given to a central government. if you aren't frightened by

this, you should be. we have a movement of zealots who cannot admit they made a mistake and always attack the other person rather than having an honest discussion, with coupled with self-serving interests. they have joined in a political coalition that believes they have the right to run the economy, run business, run local schools and run our lives. they have been looking for an excuse to assume power. now the left has always wanted to have power. they believe that they can do better and make humankind and make it a better world by having absolute power over the people that have choices in this world. they can threaten them in order to stampede them into a monstrously horrific policy and that's what we are on the edge of here in washington.

hundreds of billions, even trillions of dollars have been shoveled into the covers and no one knows where this money is going to. there have been looters from all over the world in our financial system who have benefited from that. the american people know that this congress was stampeded into giving away trillions of dollars because we were told there was going to be an economic calamity. i'm proud i never got into that hysteria. that was the greatest ripoff. the stampede is designed to cover up the bringingest power grab and it, too, will be costly. wake up, america. wake up, america. we shouldn't be giving our power and our liberty, not to the central government in washington, d.c., certainly not to the united nations, which is composed of countries who are governed by crooks and cooks and the united nations having the

power to set regulations in order to save the world from a climate sfroof, which itself would be a catastrophe to the freedom-loving people of the world. al gore must be a bit embarrassed now that he has to clues the word climate change rather than global warming. it's an inconvenient truth for him. he must think we are stupid to think that we haven't noticed that it is climate change and not global warming and there are a large number of scientists that are opposing -- he must think we are stupid that these taxes and laws that are being proposed are things that we will just accept because we have been frightened into submission. wake up, america. we need to save our country and future generations.

and we need to save the world from this incredible power grab, the greatest power grab and worst power grab in the history. and with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair would entertain a motion -- mr. rohrabacher: i move that the congress do adjourn. the speaker pro tempo: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to.

which includes u.s. peacekeeping. also possible, legislation that increases military and nonmilitary aid to pakistan. live coverage of the house when they return tomorrow, here on c- span. now some developments in the confirmation prague -- process for supreme court nominee sonia sotomayor then, republicans talk about judge sotomayor the confirmation process. we will hear from jeff sessions, minority leader mitch mcconnell, and minority whip jon kyl. >> for the sake of my colleagues, i want to talk about the time of the hearing of the

sotomayor -- judge sotomayor nomination. i talked with the distinguished ranking member last week on the schedule, and i would note the concerns he raised. but i am announcing today that the senate judiciary committee will hold a confirmation hearing on the nomination of judge sonia sotomayor to associate justice of the united states supreme court on july 13. it is a reasonable schedule. it will be the middle of next month. it is in line with past experience that will allow for several more weeks for committee members to prepare for the hearing -- and several more weeks that i had held the hearing this month. there is no reason to