The Frontiers of Freedom Institute sponsored a Capitol Hill symposium discussing global warming and the Kyoto Protocol, the United Nations treaty that would mandate that the United States dramatically cut its use of gas, oil, and coal to reduce "greenhouse" gas emissions by seven percent below 1990 levels. Vice President Al Gore is a strong supporter of the Kyoto Protocol because he subscribes to the theory that the earth's climate is warming due to manmade causes. Senate Democrats and Republicans unanimously oppose the treaty on grounds the "science" supporting the global warming theory is weak, and that the treaty would kill millions of jobs and drive prices up sharply for American families, costing them several thousand dollars each year.

Senator Malcolm Wallop (retired), Chairman of the Frontiers of Freedom Institute said, "The question of global climate changes has been overrun by shrill, emotionally-charged rhetoric, weak science, and unsupported claims of dire emergency. Our purpose in hosting this conference is to take a deep breath, step away from the politically motivated hyperbole, and honestly look at the scientific evidence and the costs and benefits of implementing the energy restricting requirements of the Kyoto Protocol."

Senator Wallop also warned of the need for sound science, rather than politically motivated "science," to drive the public policy debate. "There is a great seduction with government grants.... When scientists produce test results that do not support the theories favored by government bureaucrats, they risk losing their grant support. That is a very seductive power, in deed, to produce PC (politically correct) answers," Wallop said.

The Frontiers of Freedom symposium presented four leading scientists who discussed the current state of scientific evidence on the question of global warming. Dr. Sallies Baliunas and Dr. Willie Soon, astrophysicists at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, cited evidence that variations in the earth's temperatures are natural and that there is strong evidence that these variations are caused, in large part, by cyclical variations in the sun's intensity -- its total light, surface magnetism, and wind of fast-moving charged particles, or ions. Dr. Baliunas said that it is highly impractical, if not impossible, for current computer models to provide accurate information about future global climate conditions. She said that if all the five million parameters that impact on global climate and their interrelationships were accurately fed into a super computer in an attempt to predict 40 years of future global climate conditions, it would take our best super computers billions of years to calculate the results (10 years or 10 with 34 zeros following which is longer that the universe is believed to exist). Dr. Baliunas said, "In other words, this can't be done. So as a result, climate simulations must be scaled back, guesses have to made, and we know there are more problems with climate simulations -- we know that we do not know all the natural sources of climate change." Dr. Baliunas also pointed out that our current global climate is cooler than the most recent 3,000-year average for the world.

Dr. John R. Christy, a Professor of Atmospheric Science and the Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, said "One of the most perplexing climate observations during the past two decades has been the temperature variations of the atmosphere above the earth's surface. Both satellites and balloon measurements indicate little or no warming has occurred in the atmospheric layer from the surface to about 30,000 feet since 1979." Dr. Christy said, "Many times you hear in the press today about the twenty-five years of rapid warming we have had in the climate system, and often what is missing is a perspective on this -- the current rise in temperatures is not unprecedented -- even in this century." Dr. Christy concluded, "The climate has always changed and always will...."

Dr. David R. Legates, a professor at the Center for Climatic Research at the University of Delaware, questioned the accuracy of the computer models that global warming proponents rely upon to support their assertions that man-made CO is causing global warming. "Our examination of the claim that a human-induced warming has been found has shown that the method of analysis has substantial limitations that can bias the results of climate change detection studies. The concern I have is that if a model cannot simulate the important processes that drive the climate system, then the results of model forecasts of climate change are tenable at best." Dr. Legates said, "Computer models cannot predict precipitation accurately.... If we are inaccurate in precipitation data by even 1/10 inch, this correlates to change of temperature of almost one degree Fahrenheit."

George Landrith, the Executive Director of Frontiers of Freedom, said, "Vice President Al Gore and other disciples of global warming argue that increased CO emissions in recent decades are causing global warming. But, the facts do not support this assertion. First, the earth's temperature naturally fluctuates. Second, roughly 80% of the CO about which Mr. Gore complains was emitted after 1940. Yet, most of the 0.5¼ C "warming" Mr. Gore blames on man's CO emissions occurred between 1850 and 1940 – after several centuries of cooling known as the Little Ice Age. If most of the one-half degree warming occurred before the CO was emitted, then the CO could not have caused the warming. You don't have to be a scientist to understand that a cause-effect relationship implies a sequence – first the cause, then the effect. It simply does not work the other way around."

Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho) delivered one of two keynote addresses at the conference. Senator Craig discussed the need to integrate scientific and technical information with public policy discussions and insure the government is not involved in picking winners and losers through its regulatory schemes. He also said Senate Democrats and Republicans alike oppose the Kyoto Protocol and the Administration's attempts to implement it through regulatory expansion. However, he noted that many Democrats are hesitant to vocally oppose Vice President Al Gore's agenda because they do not want to embarrass him during his presidential bid.

Representative James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisc.), the Chairman of the House Science Committee, delivered the second keynote address and said "a healthy, safe environment is a value we all share and should not be a Republican or a Democrat issue. Our goal should be continuing the progress we have made to achieve a cleaner, safer, healthier environment for all Americans. However, the Kyoto protocol is not the way to achieve that goal. The Kyoto protocol is seriously flawed -- so flawed that it cannot be salvaged." He also criticized the Kyoto treaty as being based on "immature science" and costing too much. "It is grossly unfair because developing countries are not required to participate, and it will do nothing to solve the speculative problems that it is intended to solve," Sensenbrenner said. He said Al Gore favors dramatically higher gasoline and energy costs and reinforced his point by reading a passage from page 173 in Gore's book entitled Earth In The Balance, "Higher taxes on fossil fuels is one of the logical first steps that changes our policy in a manner consistent with a more responsible approach to the environment."

Dr. Margo Thorning, the lead economist at the American Council of Capital Formation, outlined the economic impact that massive reductions in energy would have on American families. Dr. Thorning said that the Kyoto Protocol would reduce GDP about 4 percent per year. This will materially impact federal budget surpluses. Current projections show $195 billion surplus in 2010; however, if we impose Kyoto mandates and reduce GDP by 4% per year, the surplus is essentially wiped-out, leaving only $11 billion. Additionally, reducing emission as required by Kyoto would increase the cost of food by 9% higher, medical care 11% more, and housing costs would be almost 20% higher. Oddly enough, the burden of these increases would fall disproportionately on the poorest 20% of the population. They would see an income reduction of about 10 percent. The Kyoto Protocol would reduce economic growth, investment growth, productivity growth, and projected federal budget surpluses.

Karen Kerrigan, the President of the Small Business Survival Committee, pointed out that small business would be greatly harmed by the global warming agenda. First, most small businesses operate on very tight profit margins. The higher costs imposed by the Kyoto treaty would force many out of business. that have not signed on to the Kyoto treaty as a way to escape its costly requirements. Kerrigan also pointed the hypocrisy of the Left on environmental issues. For example, she said that Earth Day celebrity host, Leonardo DeCaprio, drives a large SUV -- a Chevy Tahoe -- while he and his Earth Day fellows preach the sin of driving using gasoline. She also said that DeCaprio lists one of his favorite activities as shopping in New York and Los Angeles -- she was sure he did not take public transit while he shops on both coasts.

Frances Smith, Executive Director of Consumer Alert, pointed out that if Vice President Al Gore's global warming agenda were enacted, consumers would bear the brunt of energy restrictions. Smith said, "To meet the Kyoto targets, the U.S. would have to reduce CO emissions by almost 30% of baseline projections for 2010. This can only be implemented by massive restrictions on energy use. The price for gasoline would rise by about 66 cents per gallon and electricity costs by up to 86%, according to government projections. Higher energy costs would increase consumer costs on housing, heating and air conditioning, lighting, transportation, food, and other consumer products."

Smith also pointed out that there would also be inequitable impacts on consumers. "The poor, because they spend more of their income on necessities, would pay disproportionately. And with the U.S. economy using less energy and paying more for it, GDP would fall anywhere from 2 to 6 percent, meaning lower incomes and less money for Americans to pay spiraling new Kyoto taxes. Additionally, 2.4 million fewer Americans will have jobs due to the Kyoto GDP reduction," said Smith.

William Fay, the president of the American Highway Users Alliance, explained how the Kyoto Protocol would reduce American's freedom to choose where they live and work and travel. Fay pointed out that in the past 30 years, the number of cars on the road has increased by 90%, that the number of miles driven has increased by 130%, yet the amount of highways has increased by only 5%, hence, traffic congestion is no surprise. About 4 percent of CO in the atmosphere is made by man and that about half of that is emitted from vehicles. Fay said that CO emissions can be cut by reducing congestion on highways. A study conducted in Germany in 1990, Fay said, showed that widening a congested highway or improving exchanges at busy intersections can reduce CO emissions by up to 50%. Cars that are stopping and starting in heavy traffic use a great deal more fuel than cars that are driving at a steady 55 or 65 miles per hour. A recent study by Cambridge Systematics, called "Unclogging Americans Arteries: Prescriptions for healthy highways" identified Americans worst 168 bottlenecks and found that by improving those bottlenecks from a grade "F" to a "D" would dramatically reduce CO emissions from 284 million metric tons to only 82 metric tons -- a 71 percent reduction. This would save commuters about 40 minutes in the average commute each day. Yet, the very same people who claim to want to reduce CO2 emissions also oppose virtually all highway improvements. Namely, Al Gore opposes highway improvements, as do the Sierra Club and the EPA.

Ray Evans, an engineer from Australia, characterized Australia's signing of the Kyoto Protocol an act of "economic self-mutilation." He said that emissions trading systems will not make the Kyoto Protocol economically feasible because there will be too great a demand for too few emission credits. He concluded that Australia is now put in the position of hoping that the U.S. Senate remains resolute in its opposition to Kyoto.

Frank Gaffney, President of the Center for Security Policy, explained the impact of the Kyoto Protocol on our national defense capability. He explained that under the terms of the Kyoto treaty only UN sanctioned, multinational military operations would be free from the energy restrictions imposed by the treaty. He pointed out that training jet pilots, ship crews, tank crews, etc. requires the use of fuel. If the U.S. military is forced to reduce its energy use, like the rest of the country would be, then our forces will receive much less training and be much less prepared for combat situations, said Gaffney. He also asked what would happen if our weapons were developed based on how much CO2 they emit, rather than on how effectively they protect our national security and our armed forces from harm's way.

Jim Martin, President of the 60 Plus Association, an association representing the interests of seniors, said "senior citizens will be the ones really burnt if this foolish global warming is implemented—burnt with higher energy costs for fuel in the winter and air conditioning in the summer, both of which are essential for their health.... Remember a few years ago when a terrific heat wave hit Chicago. The ones who died or became seriously ill were seniors with little or no air-conditioning. We can only imagine how this would be multiplied in a post-Kyoto world if heating costs become too costly for seniors and they are forced to cut back on heating oil and the same holds true for air conditioning. Health will be at risk and health costs will increase. Seniors are most vulnerable to these effects. The so-called experts on global warming ignore these individual results, which can soon become human tragedies. There is a greater danger to seniors from global warming policies than global warming itself!"

Myron Ebell, from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, asserted that the "global warming agenda is not about the environment, but about political power. "While the scientific consensus has moved strongly away from global warming alarmism, the scaremongering will continue. This is because the Kyoto Protocol has nothing to do with global warming. In fact, even if fully implemented and even if the dire predictions about warming were to prove correct, the treaty will not change the temperature measurably. That's a fact and facts are stubborn things. What the Kyoto Protocol is all about is power."

Ebell went on to warn, "If the United States ratifies it, the Kyoto Protocol will be the first step in creating a global energy regime staffed by international environmental bureaucrats. Such an agency may have little power at first, but the idea is to create the institution and then slowly build up its power to control world energy consumption. A global energy regime will potentially be far more powerful than any representative global institution because it will directly control energy use, which in turn will determine which peoples can be rich and which must be poor."

Senator Wallop concluded the symposium by recounting his conversation with a former EPA official, "We were in a basin of what was obviously once a great sea millions of years ago. We could see the stains showing the water level. There were fossils all around -- turtles, fish, birds, insects, and palm trees. I told told my friend, 'Aren't you glad you weren't heading EPA when all this happened?' I said, 'If the EPA had existed 100 million years ago, someone would have demanded that you figure out who was at fault -- who pulled the plug on the sea and left all the fish and turtles to die in the mud and become fossils.'" most important consequence of the Ames case, and the most embarrassing.