climate change, whether it's more rain or less rain or whether it's warmer temperatures or cooler temperatures. and so i guess if you have a nice utility to blame it on, chamente change blames everything on an anomaly. and you aren't going to have to be around when science actually present difficulties. if anyone going to live behind 100 years. nobody is going to point at dr. jim hanson and say you're wrong or al gore and say you're wrong, because they will be in the same place i will be at that point. so it's a handly excuse to shift it off on to climate change and ask for a great growth in government. now, we had a meteorologyist speak last wednesday morning.

he is a nasa scientist and manages the collection data that collects the data from earth satellites and has 25 years of data. and as he talked about this, and this was a fairly quick won through, but as he talked about this data, he explained to us that the climate change models that they're using to predict global warming are they have to have assumptions. and i asked the question, why is it that physician sifts buy into the argument more so than meteorologist. he says they are trying to predict the weather for tomorrow. the climate czar. he can't predict the weather for tomorrow, but they are predicting the temperature 100 years from now. i have a son who is going to have an outdoor wedding in august and i would like to know

the weather. the climate czar isn't going to tell me. 100 years from now, he will make a prediction, but won't tell you what it's going to be like next week. but the presumptions that are there, meteorologists understand predicting the weather tomorrow tomorrow let alone 100 years from now. physician sifts have studied the exact science. when they put together a computer calculation that brings in a lot of factors, there always have to be assumptions. the assumptions are plugged in by the meteorologists and the numbers are calculated by the other exact science people and they have great confidence in their numbers and they understand the inter relationships of the factors they put on their calculations, but still based on assumptions. . the assumptions are this, they

assume the greenhouse gases emitted from manufacturing in the world bring about more clouds in our atmosphere. i don't know why that is, but they believe that is. if there's more clouds in the atmosphere, one assumption. second assumption, more clouds make the earth warmer. seems like an odd assumption to me, and they've been telling me this for years. dr. spencer says more clouds bring about a cooler earth and they've got 25 years of satellite data that shows that and that's what makes sense to me if a crud blocks out the sun, the earth went be as warm. if the crud go away, the sunshines on the earth and the earth gets warmer. that's the simple part of this. if their assumptions are, co 26rbings gas primarily in the atmosphere increases clouds and

increases clouds, you get one result. if you turn it around and use the data and back feed dr. spencer's data into the model, it turn this is argument around on the head. even then, dr. spencer is very conservative and careful he said it's not a four degree centigrade increase, but a half degree centigrade and the argument could be made the earth will get cooler. and we could argue that the earth has gotten cooler or the temperature has been flat since 2002. another 10 years of this kind of data, it's going to be hard for the alarmists to make the argument that we're faced with global warming that's only revocable if we follow their model. i look at that science and i understand dr. spencer's presentation. i do not understand dr. hanson's or al gore's presentation. it does not make sense to me

with the science i have in my background. so i simply, madam speaker, ask a question, the foundational question, what are we trying to do here and with what? that would be the logical think to sksm first thing is, how big is our atmosphere? our atmosphere happens to be, they measure there in rhett meth rick tons, 1.50 qua drillon tons of metric atmosphere. there's a lot of air in the atmosphere. what is the cumulative total of all the co-2 that's gone into the atmosphere emitted by the united states of america since the dawn of the industrial revolution. 45% of it goes away, they don't know where, 55% hangs out in the air. that sounds big, but not compared to the overall atmosphere. it works like this. madam speaker if you draw a circumstance that will

represented the size of the atmosphere of the earth and have that be an eight-foot circle so roughly the size of the wall in your house, two four by eight sheets of drywall, that big in iam ter that would represent the earth's atmosphere. draw a circle in the middle of that to demonstrate the size, the very dwhrisme co-2 that's accumulated in the earth's atmosphere since the dawn of the industrial revolution emitted by the united states. your eight foot circle is the atmosphere, in the center of that, you'd draw a circle .56 in diameter, a little over half an inch in diameter. that would be the key cumulative total of the co-2 the u.s. has emitted that's in the at miss fear today. we're talking, or the waxman-markey, that's 205 years of accumulation. we want to take 1/205 of that and reduce it by 20% a year,

then by 40% then 60% and 83%. with that little tiny bit in that eight-foot circle we are going to set the earth's thermostat and control the earth's temperature? what utter vanity to think that in that tiny little bit we can adju that tiny little half inch bit in a circle, only by a little bitting and we're going change the atmosphere in the earth in spite of looking at climate changes we've always had over time. we have ice ages and warming periods and sun spots and more solar activity on the sun and sometimes we see the earth cool because a volcano will erupt and cloud the earth and why would we think that more clouds in the atmosphere would warm the earth when more clouds in the atmosphere from an vo cano cool the earth. each of these questions are logical questions for third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh graders to ask.

even at that level, we're not getting answers from the people advocating this. it's as if they had to create a convoluted science to justify their idea that they want to do this cap and tax model. the cap and tax model is a large taxation scheme that for every $5 collected puts $1 in the treasury and wastes the other four. i yield to the gentleman from texas. mr. carter: i thank the gentleman for his description of what's going on. as he was saying it came to mind some of the things that just in my lifetime i can remember. if you study history you learn that when we put in the panama canal we had a horrible, horrible situation when we built the panama canal because of malaria and yellow fever that were insect bearing diseases and we invented d.d.t. and we used d.d.t. to hold down

those bug populations. by that, we were table build the panama canal. as a child, growing up in houston, texas, without air-conditioning, the d.d.t. truck went by every friday night. sprayed the whole neighborhood. and yet a lady wret a book called "a silent spring" in which she said that all the research showed, i hate it when people say all the research shows, all the research shows that if we continue to use d.d.t., we will have no insect life on earth and the birds will die and we will have a silent spring. when spring comes, the birds won't be singing, the crickets won't be cricketting, and they'll go away. and being loyal progressive believers we launched a campaign to get rid of d.d.t. we got rid of it. it's been gone.

but we now have one of the -- we actually give millions, maybe even billions now of dollars from this congress to fight malaria. something that was almost eradicated when i was a kid is now a major worldwide problem because we did away with d.d.t. and guess what? now the research, the real present-day research, 21st century research says everything they said about d.d.t. is not true. it was made up. and now we're even finding out the lady knew she made it up. but she didn't like d.d.t. now you talked about global cooling. i remember global cooling. i remember people talking about why it was going to cool down. we were going to be in the ice age, we were going to blame the russians. it was going to be the russians' fault. all this stuff. we had to build big industries around global cooling.

you know, we told our people, you better quit propagating, because you're going to run out of space on this earth by the 21st century, it'll be standing room only on the earth unless you limit the number of children you have and being good college-educated progressives, we launched out to reduce the amount of children we had. and we did it with birth control, and later we did it with that horrid invention abortion. but we limited our birth control and our western european friends limited their birth control. we still replace ourselves. i think 2.1 children to the family. but i believe the europeans now, some of the cubtries over there are like 1.2 and i think some of the best countries over there, 1.8. they're not even replacing their families with the number

of children they're having. then we wonder why 12 million people cross the texas and canadian boarder to come into the united states to fill jobs because we don't have enough people to fill the jobs. and we wonder why that is. europeans got the same probable. they've had that problem, i can recall they had the problem in 1956. they were -- the german were importing turks into germany because they didn't have enough population. now when you buy into a program as you point out, down the road if they're not telling you the truth, it has major consequences. when you made that 10-year comment, at the present rate this congress is going, 10 years from now we may find ourselves sitting around trying to watch television by candlelight. because we're using batteries for our television sets.

because frankly, we are in the process of trying to tax our energy industry out of business. every form or fashion that has any kind of carbon connection. 10 years from now, we could be a third world country. and wonder why. that's why this science is so very important. that's why knee jerk reaction, overreacting to things, which the government is famous for, and i don't care if it's knee jerk conservatives or knee jerk liberals, any time you get in a hurry, bad things happen. and if you study the history of legislation in this country, it is absolutely true and nobody will dispute it. you can look at slavery, look at the labor laws, the environmental laws, you can look at anything and see where knee jerk reaction -- that's why we have a senate to slow things down, because our founding fathers knew the knee jerk reaction created bad

legislation. we're about to knee jerk ourselves into the poor house if we're not careful. i yield back. mr. king: reclaiming, and i thank the gentleman from texas. watching this climate change argument unfold, and i think about this country that we are, the most successful nation in the history of the world, strongest economy in the world by far, strongest militarily, our culture penetrates the rest of the world. we're kind of american-cent rick because we're self--- american-sentric, because we're self-sustaining. we don't as often look at the united states from outside. but i wonder what it must look like for, let's just say, socrates, looking out across this country today, 3,000 years ago, they sat around and in places like athens, socrates, play tow, aristotle, carried --

plato, aristotle, they carried on conversations and shaped the age of reason. it was the foundation of science and technology. they built it into their culture to be proud of being able to rationalize both deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning, and that rationale, and even though they didn't get their elements right, what did they have earth, wind, fire, maybe some other elements like that that they used to argue with, they didn't have the tables to be able to put the atoms together and figure out the molecule, but they had a good rationale. the age of reason in greece is the foundation of western civilization. they took great pride in being able to think rationally. if they would transpose themselves, fast forward through history 3,000 years, race through the age of enlightenment in western europe and primarily in france and the dawn of the industrial

revolution here and how technology has flourished and we've gone from an industrial economy to an information economy, and see all the things we've developed from a technological standpoint, but yet if they could look in this -- inside this chamber and see where decisions are made in a civilized country today and see how they're made, i think they'd be astonished that we have suspended the reason that they so carefully developed 3,000 years ago and now we legislate by anecdote. we legislate by somebody's emotions rather than legislate by empirical data. . judge carter mentioned a few of those. pull d.d.t. off the marketplace. my mother -- my lawn had not much blue grass.

we couldn't spray that anymore. mom knew and we had a lot of birds around. we had them anyway without the weeds. and the scare comes to mind, the apple issue that took apple businesses away because the allege that the spray they used on them was somehow dangerous. these are scientific calamenty. they threaten people. they tell us that the planet can only sustain so many people. and these are the people that have determined that they're going to shut down, as judge carter said, our energy production in this country. and we spent last august pounding away every day calling for an energy plan that opened up all of the above, all of the

energy that we have. we are an energy-rich nation, not an energy-poor nation. and to give an example of how easy it should be to take this nation to the next level of our economic determinism, if we just look over to countries like japan and korea. both of those nations, major cities were destroyed in war. they rebuilt their cities, infrastructure that's there. they function. and yet in that 60 or so years, each of those countries have imported almost 100% of their energy and 60% of their food and they still build modern technological societies. and we are here in the united states of america with a surplus of food and the energy that we need if we just manage it and we can't discipline ourselves to utilize our own resources. and we have a speaker of the house to is trying to save the

planet, please put that in quotes, trying to shut down energy in america. one is wind. the other is solar and the next one may be geothermal if you didn't have to use a drill rig to get it. wind is ok as long as you don't have to get it off of nantucket. teddy kennedy is offended at looking at windmills. i could see 39 of them from my yard. but that's all right. we need all of the above and there is no way to meet that model under a waxman-markey bill. this is already the intimidation effect and the existing regulations have shut down any new coal-fired generation plants in america. we do have a nuclear jon rating plant that's under construction in north carolina and scheduled to come on-line in the year 2017.

they have been working on it two or more years by now. and 2017, it will come on-line. and this is the beta model, a model of nuclear generating plants. it's how do you jump through the regulatory hoops to get there. if they can get that done, it will be the cookie cutter so we can build more. but not under the obama administration. he says to ahmadinejad, i haven't heard him say congratulations on his victory. but he says, we can't tell a sovereign nation they can't develop nuclear power. he said to the iranians, you have the right to develop nuclear capability even though you want to get rid of israel. so, according to president obama, iran has the right to nuclear, but americans don't. we can't build a nuclear power plant here to make up the gap

that is recrated by the nuclear restrictions that are coming. those of us who produce energy from coal, will punish states, those states that do not, those that are recipients, if they put this on cap and tax, you will see a massive corruption bill within the united states as they trade the carbon credits. and to give an example of what goes on as speaker pelosi received the gavel here in 2007, she decided that the capitol complex which we stand in the middle of right now, should be a carbon neutral, greenhouse gas emitting, neutral facility. so she ordered that the power plant that feeds this capitol complex, fired by coal and natural gas and oil be converted from coal to natural gas. doubled the cost of our power to

come into this capitol, but found out that her carbon footprint -- i say hers -- her carbon footprint was still too gait. so speaker pelosi went on the board in chicago and bought some carbon credits. $89,000 of our taxpayer dollars paid by carbon credits that were going to offset the carbon emissions here at this capitol complex. and that's designed to do something more to sequester this carbon that's going into the atmosphere that's feeding the capitol. $89,000, figure out where it went. it went to some farmers in north dakota. people that had been known to farmers. people whose behavior didn't change. i don't think they see questionsered any more carbon. they got a reward from the speaker's checkbook, our checkbook, for what they were doing.

you can't sequester carbon, but if you turn around and till, that is released in the atmosphere and the net gain is zero. if you practice no-till, that's your measure for good atmosphere. and some of it went to the coal-fired generating plant in iowa. so i went there and took a look at this coal-fired generating plant. and what i saw was a good, well run plant. the emissions were i think pretty good and fairly modern, but they had received a government grant to set up an separation to be able to burn switch grass and blend the switch grass in with the coal, i think it was a 10% rate, to supplement the coal they were burning, because switch grass is carbon-neutral. and of course, coal is not. well, i went in there and they had two big sheds and had a lot of big round bales of switch

grass and they were stacked and a conveyor and blower system to inject that all in with the coal and the place wasn't running and hadn't run in a while. and i could tell by looking at the hay, it was old. i said how long has it been? about two years. we ran our experiment and shut the experiment down. and so, first is, they don't have data from what they might have learned, so the experiment didn't yield a result, unless maybe they know and didn't tell us. and the second thing is this money that went to them foresee questionsering the carbon to give incentive to burn switch grass didn't switch anybody's behavior. they shut down the switch grass burning two downs earlier and this is a check. we didn't learn anything from it yet.

if that's the thing that's going to go on, that cap and tax, cap and trade, waxman-markey, if the speaker of the house can't get the transaction to work when you go out and buy carbon credits, how in the world are we going to do hundreds of billions of dollars in carbon credits and have any accountability to see whether it brings about anything that might see questionser and cause someone to act in a different way. it is a bureaucratic impossible built. the span yards did this experiment. the mafia were the best. and they were brokering the permits and they were deciding who were going to be the contractors and deciding who would be the suppliers of the materials that went into the wind chargers. they got wrapped up in the cyst

sillian mafia. permits will be controlled by politicians. politicians were influenced by political contributions that came from the profits that were being extracted out of the construction and operations of these wind charges by the mafia. and it made a huge mess out of it all. and i mentioned in the previous hour, for every green job they created, it cost 2.2 private jobs because it sucked that much out of the private sector economy. the cost per gene job is $770,000. the unemployment rate in spain is 17.5% unemployed. the largest industries in spain have left. the ones that are left are looking at leaving. the electrical bills for the residents have gone up 20%. and the electrical bills for industry has gone up 100% in three years and hit the

threshold where they couldn't demand any more and raised the cost of the electricity that much. and so they went out on the market to bond that and pledged the full faith and credit of their grandchildren, the spanish government, we'll pay the bills later, but we can't pay the electric bills today because this is too high high. and president obama has said, we should learn from the spanish. i agree, we should learn from the spanish that the lesson i get from them is that it's a huge boondoggle that is full of corruption and i ask them why don't you repeal it, they say, we can't. because so many people who are powerful are making profit from it and tied up in it. and we would have to demand that our politicians would confess that they made a huge mistake eight or nine or 10 years ago. a lot of them are still there and they can't make that confession because they'll lose their jobs. and so once you get started into this, if we pass cap and tax,

waxman-markey, i believe that decisions made by this administration in this term, i believe are reverse i believe and revokeable by a congress and a president that have cooler heads. but if we pass waxman-markey cap and tax, that becomes an irreversible policy, because then you have so many people benefiting from the trading of these things that don't have any value in a real economy and so many political dollars get infused in this process that you simply can't repeal it. that's my concern. that's my fear. i believe that waxman-markey is irreversible policy. and so i'm here speaking against it for two big reasons. one is, they're wrong on the

science. and i'm happy to debate them. and the other reason is they're really, really wrong on the economics. when you have secretary of agriculture that testifies before the ag committee that somehow he believes that increasing the cost to agriculture will result in more profits for agriculture because the innovative nature of american agriculture will overcome the handicaps that government is putting on them, that is an irrational degree of optimism to be stated by a secretary of agriculture, who finds himself at odds with democrats and republicans on the ag committee. there is no economic model that i know of throughout the history of the free market system that would dictate that would ensure a result that if you increase the cost to any business or a sector of the business world, that you're going to see profits go up. they will go down. and this