Thank you, Mr. Barton. I think what is important, Mr. Barton, was your focus on science and your focus on data points and what we should be able to do in the Chamber in a bipartisan manner is to agree on the data points. We should be able…
Thank you, Mr. Barton.
I think what is important, Mr. Barton, was your focus on science and your focus on data points and what we should be able to do in the Chamber in a bipartisan manner is to agree on the data points. We should be able to agree on what the science is, and that's in question. And for many of us it has been in question for a long time.
We're joined by John Linder who's been following this as long as anyone else has, and part of his search has been because the scientists would not give the data. They would never tell us what's the base by which they're making this extrapolation. And so I'm glad that you highlighted the scientific method that I didn't get on the chart but I brought down here.
It's very simple. I taught high school. You're an engineer. I went to an engineering school. This is irrefutable. This is how science is done. You ask questions. You do background research. Background research in this debate would be to get the temperatures.
We're already questioning the background research, one, based upon the request from the Freedom of Information Act, and of course now our friends at the IPCC are saying, We don't have them. The dog ate the homework. It is amazing. Scientists are really some of the most respected professionals. But they're respected because of this, this process, which should be objective. You should be able to follow it. You should be able to construct a hypothesis. The hypothesis is an educated guess. That is all it is. It's not truth. It's a guess based upon the data points. And then you are--then you're to test it. And then you analyze the result and then draw your conclusions.
Based upon the scientific method, you can categorically say right now that those who say the science that solves are in error. The science does not solve. That is why all of this political activity is going on right now. That is why now the EPA administrator is saying, We're going to do endangerment findings. They want to do it before we are able to educate the public that the science is not solid. And they are not providing us with the data points, they're not complying with Freedom of Information Act requests. And so this process is skewed.
So when they tested it, they found out that the results didn't match their educated guess. And what did they do? These scientists are politicians. They went into--we call it in the military they went and holed up. They lowered the turrets; they got under ground. Don't ask questions. And here are some of the emails, in essence, to prove that.
Here's the first one.
``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.''
12 October, 2009, at 8:57.
As of 2 months ago, we can't account for the lack of warming.
There's two things here. First of all, they say we can't account for the lack of warming. So their background research, he is already trying to skew the research. And he has an emotional response: ``It's a shame. I'm saddened.'' Scientists shouldn't be emotionally attached to the data. This is the data. Let's test it.
What we would encourage our friends on the other side to say is, in a bipartisan manner, let's get the facts on the table, and let's get the scientists to look at the facts. The facts are being hidden. That is sad.
One is they don't have the facts; two is he's emotionally distraught because his hypotheses cannot be proven.
Here's another one to the ranking member. ``I can't see either of these papers being in the next International Panel on Climate Change report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow--even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is.''
Here's another process on the scientific message. Analyze the results. Draw conclusions. They have got some--they've done some analysis that doesn't support it. So are they going to add that in a scientific objective fashion, say, This is what we believe, but there are some who disagree--they say that the facts don't speak for the hypotheses? No. These scientists say, We're going to bury it. We're going to hide it. We don't want the public to know.
Can you imagine scientists doing that?
Again, the scientific community is one of the most respected communities because they go by the scientific method.
Here they admit that they're going to keep the analyses out of the report--two analyses that contradict what they want their hypothesis to be.
He is the person who just resigned.
That is correct.
They are the foremost promoters of the theory.
And there's the followup. Are they receiving taxpayer dollars to promote this theory through the IPCC, which is the U.N. International Panel on Climate Change, or Virginia.edu, and you could speculate that there are DOE grants, EPA money, going. And another thing, these scientists are for hire. They're for hire.
I will yield.
I believe that those who seek taxpayer dollars--we know here that agencies and programs never go away. If that's why they're not providing the data, that's why they're hiding the fact of the last decade--can you imagine us in this environment of trying to get control of the deficit and the debt, and we're spending billions of dollars to scientists who are not using the scientific method?
So, yes, they're on the dole. They want to keep their jobs so they're continuing to promote and deceive the public. I don't know. I would say it's pretty damaging to their name, to the community, and also to the taxpayers.
Now, if I may, I have one more that I'd like to share. And there are tons. I mean, these are just a small sampling. The ones I picked out I kind of wanted to address the scientific method.
Again, as an engineer, give us the facts, give us the data, test the data, prove if it's right or wrong. If it's wrong, get an analysis, and then maybe try again. Retest it. Let's retest the data point.
Here is another one: I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years, i.e. from 1981 onwards, 20 years, for Keith to hide the decline.
So now, not only are they not providing the data, they are keeping the analysis from being reported in the IPCC report, and they are jimmying the numbers. They are actually using tricks.
These are scientists. Now, we are politicians. I think people would have some skepticism. We don't claim to be--you claim to be an engineer; I went to engineering school. I understand it, but if you were building a bridge, or if you were designing a building, and you jimmied the numbers on the tensile strength of the steel, you would be in real trouble because the design would be faulty, and the building would collapse.
Their design, Administrator Jackson's design to remake the United States is on faulty data. It is on data that has been jimmied. And this house of cards will collapse, and it will be jobs in the wake on faulty data.
Now, bring us real data. Go through the scientific method. Test it, but don't hide it. Don't trick us. Don't deceive us. Don't discourage your profession of scientists by staying on the public dole to receive taxpayer money to continue to promote a fraud, a fraud on the American public. So that's why I real appreciate, Congressman Barton, that you've taken this time to help address this. There's a lot of education. And this education has to go on now because they are going to be making decisions in Copenhagen. They are going to try to bind us to stuff on faulty data.
You bet they are. The International Panel on Climate Change, they are the U.N. designees to continue to provide the information to the folks who attend the conference upon which they make the decisions.
Our lifestyle would be dramatically different.
We rely on jobs and our environment on cheap energy. And as you know I'm from the coalfields of southern Illinois, and I spent this whole year and last year fighting for our coal reserves and the importance of that. And I usually bring another poster of miners who lost their jobs during the last cycle, 1,200 miners in one mine. The State of Ohio lost 35,000 coal miner jobs. That is just a fraction of what we will see in this country if we roll back the carbon emissions, and if they could prove it, but they can't.
Carbon dioxide is not a toxic emission. And that is what Administrator Jackson just said.
I would encourage you to keep up the great work. Thank you for letting me join you.