Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, this House passed what is known as cap-and-trade legislation which would place limits on the amount of CO2 that could be emitted into the atmosphere. And the reason given for the need for this legislation is…
Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, this House passed what is known as cap-and-trade legislation which would place limits on the amount of CO2 that could be emitted into the atmosphere. And the reason given for the need for this legislation is that man-caused global warming poses a very grave threat to the future of our planet.
We have been told that the debate is over, that the science is incontrovertible. We've been told that this action must be taken to save our world, even though it would threaten our economy and cause redistribution of wealth from our Nation to others and would lead to massive job losses and outsourcing from the United States to other nations. Particularly hard hit would be industry, agriculture, and States that rely upon coal for electricity production.
Mr. Speaker, I voted against cap-and-trade because I wasn't convinced of the problem and because the solution to the perceived problem would cause further economic devastation to my constituents. I am from Michigan, where we currently have the highest unemployment in the United States. We also derive two-thirds of our electricity from coal, and our number one industry is industrial manufacturing, and our number two industry is agriculture.
If cap-and-trade were to pass, Michigan's economy would be devastated, but we were told that it had to happen because the alternative is worse.
Well, Mr. Speaker, a few weeks back, a series of emails from within the world's foremost climate change research facility, the Hadley Climate Research Unit at Britain's University of East Anglia, were either hacked or they were leaked by a disillusioned insider, which has blown away the scientific foundation for the manmade global warming theory. It's being called Climategate.
Mr. Speaker, these troubling emails show that some of the most respected and quoted and public scientists used tricks to manipulate data, refused to release the data that is the foundation for their research, and they've attempted to silence any critics of their hypothesis and even expressed dismay that they could not explain recent cooling taking place across the globe. And these scientists seemed to have allies cooperating with them, including some here in the United States.
It has become very clear that the science is, in fact, not settled, that the debate is very much alive, and that the tactics and methods used by the most trusted scientists have, in fact, very serious problems.
One email said this, which suggests a manipulation of data: ``I've just completed Mike's trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years and for 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline.'' Hide the decline? An inconvenient truth that temperatures were declining required a trick to hide it.
And then another email expresses frustration that temperatures are actually going down: ``The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can't.''
Mr. Speaker, another email exposes the attempts to silence dissent: ``I think we need to stop considering `Climate Research' as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to or cite papers in this journal.''
Well, that is absolutely wonderful. Call those who disagree with their hypotheses cranks because they have not been published in peer- reviewed journals, and then when they were, to discredit the journal.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, the fix is in. And most troubling of all is the destruction of raw source data that could be used to verify their work. The leader of the CRU for years refused to release source data, and now they claim the data was ``lost.'' It sounds to me like the old elementary school excuse, ``The dog ate my homework.'' That excuse didn't work for third graders and it certainly is unacceptable from scientists who are asking us to upend our economy.
And even worse, emails exist that suggest that the data wasn't lost but instructs scientists to destroy data which was subject to Britain's freedom of information laws. And that is not just bad science; that is a criminal act.
And now we're being asked to radically restructure our economy based largely on the research of these scientists.
Mr. Speaker, Congress needs to hold hearings into this matter. We need to investigate these very troubling revelations. If we are to make policy that will so profoundly impact our Nation, that policy must be made on facts, not on articles of faith or manipulated data.