Statement by S. Fred Singer, President
The Science & Environmental Policy Project
October 30, 1997
Washington, D.C.
We are here today to protest a misguided policy based upon insufficient research. The proposals to be put forth at Kyoto in December to counter a non-existent global warming catastrophe will have a profoundly negative impact on the poorest among us--those whose lives are already on the margin. The cost to American families--in job losses and higher prices for food, electricity, and transportation, and in funding a burgeoning international bureaucracy--will be enormous. But the biggest loser in all of this political maneuvering will be science. I am here to defend science.
Tim Wirth, Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs, has stated that the science on global warming is "settled." President Bill Clinton, just a few weeks ago, called the evidence "compelling." But to many scientists, particularly those of us who are climate scientists, the evidence for these claims is neither settled, nor compelling, nor even convincing.
The increase in temperature over the last 50 years has been negligible. Over the last 20 years, according to global weather satellite data--the best we have--the global temperature trend has been slightly down. We are about to embark on a policy of stringent and mandatory controls based not on observations but on flawed computer calculations. These computer models cannot simulate clouds, predict the occurrence of El Niņos, nor account for the effects of volcanic eruptions--all of which have a significant impact on climate. The government is, in effect, holding up a black box and saying to the American people, "Trust us. It's in there."
An increasing number of scientists--many among the most prominent in this country--are not so sure it is in there. Yet they are not permitted a voice. Instead, the Administration hides the serious uncertainties and lack of observed evidence behind the babble of government functionaries and professional activists. The Administration will trot out EPA Administrator Carol Browner or White House Council of Environmental Quality Chairman Katie McGinty to debate some industry "straw man." But suggest that anyone in government --or doing research paid for by the government--appear in open debate with other climate experts, and suddenly no one is available.
Today, I am issuing a challenge to the Clinton Administration to provide a panel of climate scientists to publicly debate the global warming issue with an equal number of climate scientists holding opposing views. Let them bring their data. We will bring ours. If the case for global warming is so settled, so compelling, then they should have no qualms about defending their position. I am asking members of Congress to set the date and place. It is time to debate this issue publicly, and to put the evidence before the American people.