tv Public Affairs Events CSPAN December 23, 2016 7:08pm-8:01pm EST
>> tonight on american history tv, american artifacts. tonight's lineup includes pearl harbor memorials, aircraft from world war i and the second world war, feature on wood row wilson, ellis island museum. american history tv starts today at 8:00 on c span 3. more now from this energy policy conference with senator james inhofe, chair of the senate environment committee on environment and energy development policy under the trump administration. corbin robinson, chair and ceo of an oil and gas firm on the negative impacts of federal regulation on his industry.
>> ladies and gentlemen, how is the day going so far? pretty cool, huh? cool, that's a great word. okay. well, it is my distinct honor to introduce your next speaker. you know, my notes here say that our next speaker is the most accomplished pilot in the senate and has flown all over the world. >> all around the world. >> all around the world and over it, too. he is chairman. epw committee, 12 years total, as ranking member chairman, married for 57 years with 21 kids and grandkids.
and that's all really great and important stuff. but let me tell you when you are a political leader in the united states of america, seeking truth, standing for truth, speaking out for truth, writing about truth, is a wonderful a tributte. so i would like to bring to the podium one of the great champions for truth in our country today, senator jim inhofe. [ applause ] >> did they mention this thing about the drawing? >> no. >> just for a second here. we're going -- there will be a drawing later on and olympia, you have a bunch of my books, if you want one, put your card in someplace, i don't know where. but anyway, i can't tell you how excited this is. you know, i just found out today when i looked at it, all my
heros are on the program. i'm going to come back at 3:30, i wouldn't miss that panel, my gosh. people i haven't seen for a long time. first of all, let me just tell you. when i see a group like this, there is a book you ought to check out "american political patterns," in this book you will be convinced that the decisions in this country are made by one half of 1% of the people. and those are the people he identifies as activists, he defines that as someone who will come in and listen to a bunch of politics on a whole day on a subject important to america. that is what you guys are. i look at each one of you as being an army of 200 and you are voices out there in the wilderness with me and i love all of you for it. now, on this thing that we're going to be talking about, there is just one thing i would like to put across. you guys in your capacity of
being each one an army of 200 people, are going to be talking about these controversial things, you know one of the smartest things the other side did is they quit talking about global warming and started talking about climate change. don't get caught in that trap. climate has changed. you look at archaeologically, spiritually, scientifically. i will quickly run through this thing, and -- where you are? there you are. this right here, it's kind of interesting, it tells a story, you can't read it from there. but over here, that is 12:30 a.m., right after midnight, eastern time on election night. all right. that is the new york times, then at 2:30, reluctantly those lines cross. they actually crossed way back here and then of course, you know the outcome. it kind of gives you an
indication of what happened and the significance of that. you stop and think about it. just what is happening, the things that are going to change in this country. the repeal and replacement of obamacare, the balancing of our budget. a lot of you folks may have forgotten because with all the things that have happened recently, you may have forgotten about the fact that when this administration took office our debt was $10.6 trillion, today it's $20 trillion. it's doubled in the last eight years. i mean, that's extremely significant thing. but with all of the things that have happened, people have kind of forgotten about that. don't forget also about the fact we're going to rebuild the military. i got a phone call on october 7th, i see my friend richard down here and i was so excited because it was from trump inviting me up there to talk to him, so i've been kind of advising him, gary, on the things that are of the military
nature. we've got to do it. why should defending america be a partisan issue, it shouldn't, but it is, because the administration has a policy. with what has happened to military, the distriarming of t military, you can't put any more money, this is obama talki unles you put an equal amount -- democrats are smarter than we are in some ways, they're disciplined. there is not one democrat will who back down from that. you can't do anything to the military unless you do it to all this you are social programs, that is not what the constitution says where our priority is. they all go along it. that is going to change. by the way, to put it in a longer perspective, up until about 19 -- the middle '60s and 1970 we were spending 52% of our total revenues on defending
america. now it's 15%, keep that in mind when you are talking to some of these people. and then the fourth thing, the killing of the overregulation that we're going to have. all right. had an experience yesterday some of you may have seen on television and you may be still a little upset with me because i actually like barbara boxer, she and i have traded back and forth every time we're a majority i'm the chairman of the environmental public works committee, and so i always remember that if you will recall up until 2006 republicans were a majority in the senate. that was kind of neat. and then she -- and when that changed, she had this thing, elections have consequences, she said you are not making the rules, you used to when you were a majority. elections have consequences. let me tell you, this is very consequential what is happening in america now. when we had our first meeting after the election, i presented
her with a t-shirt that yes, elections have consequences, so -- anyway, the things that are happening are just very, very exciting. the first person i saw when i came in was richard down here, he's been my hero for a long time. in fact, i didn't know until this morning, until right before i came down here, you guys don't worry about staying here for my thing, come back at 3:30 and you've got all my heros from the old days back there, the spencer, david la gate, all but one have been a witness in the committee i chair. you have them all in one room. you guys are all here and i'm excited about it and i will come back and be with you. so anyway, just -- remember some of the things happen in the very beginning, i think it's important for us to get that perspective. and that is that i was a bad guy
back in the turn of the century. i mean, i was, because after we studied this thing, i assumed, like everybody else, way back when everyone was talking about global warming and all that i assumed it was probably right until i found out what it was going to cost. this is interesting, whether it's through regulation or through legislation, the cost remain the same, the cost range is between 300 and $400 billion a year. that would be the largest tax increase in the history of america. so i started looking at it at that time and i started talking to some of the scientists you are going to be seeing tonight and i realized, that's when i used the nasty word hoax. so anyway, the first thing that came up was the mccain lieberman bill, that was 2003, then again in 2005 and each time it has come for a vote in the united states senate they have lost. so our trend lines are good. we're winning this thing, very
clearly. so that is what is happening. and i always use my favorite quote of richard lynn sen which is controlling carbon is a bureaucrats dream, if you control carbon, you control life. control. that is what they want. and so we have gone through this thing and we -- you might keep in mind that we have rejected it, legislatively and you might be reminded also of what happened in 1997, we had the bird hayigel rule. these treaties have to be ratified. if you come back with any treaty that either is a financial hardship on america or treats developing countries differently than developed countries we are not going to ratify. that passed 95 to nothing. so here came clinton and gore and all that and they never even submitted it because they knew
that it wasn't going to happen. but the -- i thought, it was kind of interesting, because in a minute i'm going to talk about these big parties that the united nations have every december, one of them right before that took place, i was head of a hearing we had the administrator of the epa and i said you know, i know that you guys, once leave town will have an endangerment hearing, if you do that, then you are going to go and start passing regulations. now, when you do that, that has to be paid -- it has be based on science, what science are you going to use. they said well, the ipcc. keep in mind, that is the united nations power plan. and it's one that is -- that is where it all started and it's very important that people understand that. and so they all of a sudden, right after she made the
declaration this, was kind of poetic justice, yes, it's all based on the ipcc and it was right after that, matter of hours after that, that climate gate came in. now, climate gate didn't get the -- financial times said the stake of corruption is overwhelming. the uk telegraph, they said it's the worse -- talking about ipcc, the worse scientific scandal of our generation. all of that was people realized so i thought that should make -- but the media -- and yet, the -- things came out like the 97% n consensus which is a joke and has been pretty much disprove even. now, along comes the united nations. i want to say something about
that before we get to -- they have been behind the global warming movement since the 1970s. stop and think about that. then things really got started off with the earth summit. when al gore came dancing in said we're going to be doing all this stuff. and you have to keep in mind the reason for it. now, this is the short version, if you end up taking my book or just forgetting about the rest of it and read the last chapter it talks about the real history, how this thing started it was the united nations. now i lead a little group in the united states senate, this goes back to the time that john bolton was the ambassador to the united nations from the united states. and every time, which is most of the time, that the u.n. comes out with something that is not in the best interest of the united states, we would send a communication and john bolton would take it to them saying that we in the united states are going to withhold our funding of
the united nations. this in fur rates them. so the united nations don't like to be accountable to anyone. what was their plan, so they wouldn't have to be accountable. this is all in detail in the last chapter in my book. you really need to look at that. that is the thing that people don't really understand. this is -- so they came up with this thing. if they're able to come up with a co 2 tax or something like that, they don't have to then be accountable to anyone. that is really what it was all about. some of the early statements, even people who were not our friends were honest about the valuation of the whole global warming thing. international global warming regulations represent the first component of on authentic global governance. the prime minister of canada called it a socialist scheme. here is a good one, the eu
minister, she is the eu minister of environment, she came out and she said that quote kyoto is about the economy and leveling the playing field. so they're pretty honest about it back during that time. then of course we had the u.n. came along and with the strategy, this is 21 years ago, it was a strategy. let's have a big party, a party to end all parties, every december and we will bring in 192 nations all they have to do is say yes we're going to put some kind of policy in place to reduce co 2 emissions. so they came in and they started having these parties. the first one i went to was in italy. i remember that, there are three people in this room that were there with me at the time. we went to italy. when i arrived, i saw they had on every telephone pole in italy a poster, it was my picture. and they said dangerous man on the planet. that's what it was.
and by the way, when that thing was over, i went back to where they were distributing these and i got all the left over ones, and used them for fundraisers back here. it was very effective. the next one i went to was in copenhagen in 2009. this was a good one because if you remember, the ones who went over on the same boat were obama, hillary, pelosi, john kerry, they went and told the 192 nations we were going to pass a cap and trade to simulate them to do the same thing, of course we weren't going to do that. i went over after they left and the same 192 nations, just like you guys, they're all in the same room so i had them all to myself and they had one thing in common, they hated me, they thought i was going to louse up their one big party of the year. i saw a guy that was there, from west africa, i had kind of a
gee, jesus thing in west africa, he was a minister or something, i said luke what are you doing here, you don't believe all this garbage, he said of course not, but this is the biggest party of the year. it really is. anyway, that is what has been going on there for a long period of time. then of course, we have on the same -- had michael -- i always liked him. but it's been -- 2004 that he wrote his book "state of fear" if you want to get a perspective. i talk about how he describes how they manipulated the press to get on their side. i had him as a witness, also, those are the fun days, we had our own witnesses, all of your panel, all but one, but he came in. he was not just an author he was a medical doctor and a scientist
and he came and said, not many of us, including myself are intellectual enough to understand exactly what he said, but when adhered to the scientific method can transsend politics, unfortunately the converse may be true. when politics takes precedent over content it is often because the primary -- of independent verification has been abandoned. the short version, it's phoney, it's a hoax. so anyway, that is what we did and he has had some book that i strongly recommend -- fast forward to current because i'm running out of time here. the next -- yeah. when the president came back and he said the clean power plan is going to be, all of you in this room remember, you were involved, he said we're going to reduce the co 2 emissions somewhere between 26 and 28% by 2025. we knew it couldn't be done. in fact we even tried to get -- we in that committee have
jurisdiction over the epa. this is the first time in my memory that the -- that the party, the committee that oversees has the jurisdiction, where they have refused to come and testify, they did. they wouldn't come in, they knew there is no way you can have that kind of reduction. everybody else knew it. during that time we had ten hearings, three over sights and they -- the regulation is kind of funny. liberals love regulations. now, what they don't want you to do is have people at home know and they love regulations because they can be as liberal as they want and nobody knows it back home. so what they don't like, what they like about regulations is they don't have to cast a vote so they can go back to wherever they come in and the people are bleeding saying we're going to have to do something about the over regulation we're having from the epa and they're response is don't tell us. you know, don't blame me.
because this is the bur rack doing this, this is the elected bureaucrats, what the cras do, you guys, most of, you know this, you have to use it, you will see this coming up in the first part of january, and it's going to be a real winner. a cra is the vehicle that can be used that if you -- if you have a regulation and you want to do away with the legislatively, it's congressional review act, all it takes is 51 in the senate to do this. so we pass cras on the overregulations, the problem is the president vetoed it and we didn't have the vetoes to over ride it. but it did a wonderful thing anyway. it forced them to get on record, stop and think about it. they have never been on record before in these regulations, now they have to cast a vote. that was the good thing. we passed by two cras, they
passed by a good margin. we did it on several of the issues, there one was the clean power plan. is everyone aware that scott pruitt is going to be the epa director, huh? [ applause ] >> she mentioned it in the introduction, i've been playing an airplane for a long time. i flew him all over oak ha month when he ran for office to get him in there, never dreaming he would be the director of the epa. you will love this guy. so anyway, the demise was already setting in at that time as far as the clean power plan, we knew it wasn't going to work because we had so many people. we actually had 29 states filing lawsuits, including scott p pruitt, i might add. the supreme court put in a stay. they have been our friends and they had a stay on the bill. that is part of the joy that
we're bain right now. i want to say this about the paris agreement. john kerry is still looking for something that he can do that is right. and by the way, during his confirmation there are only two of us that voted against his confirmation, i was one of the two, the other 98, not all of them, some said what did you know that we didn't know. you have seen john kerry talking about how great things are, the disaster in iran, something we can talk about for a long period of time. he came back from paris saying we've never been successful, let's come back and paint this with the help of the media they did this as something important happened in paris. well, it happened, first of all, the president came out with this thing saying we're going to have the reduction in co 2, which we know we can't do. look at some of the others. china, china the big victory
that john kerry had with china was china agreed they would continue to increase their co 2 emissions to 2025 and they are now, today, building every ten days a new cool fired power plant. that is a success? nonetheless, that is the thing that is happening right now and you need to be aware of it, which i'm pretty sure you already are. anyway, that was another one of the failures and another thing that is working in our favor. and next the -- to demonstrate we're actually winning this. be real careful because i don't want -- i don't want people to think it's over, it's never over. you stop and think about things, the american people know better. i can remember in 2002, the polls showed the number one concern in america was global warming and that is why when i took on the mccain lieberman bill in 2003, the only two
senators, who had spent a lot of time on the floor with me, and we defeated that, we defeated that in 2003, and mccain lieberman came back in -- no, that was -- the polls at that time. the poll in march of 2015, they -- the climate change came in dead last for a national problem, the same thing happened two weeks later, gallup poll, it was dead last, even the environmental issues, the fox news poll earlier said 97% of americans don't care about global warming when they put it up against terrorism and the real issues. and the cbs times poll it was in last place again. i guess what i'm saying is we really won this thing in terms of the people. the american people are smarter than those people on the floor trying to keep this issue going. so we have one of the things
that really concern me and on the morning of election day, on november 8th, i was really concerned. just thinking about it and so i looked it up and i built a speech around all of the -- in the last four years, the five-four decisions of the united states supreme court and everything that we hold dear was in that five-four thing. so we know if hillary had won, everything, i don't care if it's abortion or if it's second amendment rights or anything else, america would have changed just from that in a way we wouldn't even recognize it. that's why i said in the morning, it's kind of funny, richard, you scientists like to base things on science, this was not on science this is something, i thought is god really going to let america change that much. and i thought no. that is not going to happen. so i came up with this thing in an interview and said, yeah, he is going to win. not based on anything scientific vgs but i thought, god is not going to let that happen to
america. that night the results came in, i was the great progress no, --. if you look at the decisions, i mean, again, i won't go over them, but i have the list of them here that i think is very significant. then the next one, i all like, this was my favorite weekly standard cover. and by the way, don't think that al gore is resurrected, he is not just because he shows up, it shows we have a guy coming in as president who will talk to anybody. "the new york times" and the first of the -- identifying him as the first environmental billionaire in america and so there he is. for commencement speeches if any of you have to have commencement speeches talk about the fact there is a direct relationship of the amount of wealth they have in some of the per versions in this country, he is a good
example. so anyway, the things, the gore effect, we had fun with that, back when gore was doing all these things, every one of his events ended up being snowed out, there were global warming crews across the northwest passage that talk about global warming, but it was frozen they had to cancel it. in february '07 he was at a house hearing on global warming that was canceled after an ice storm. march of 2009 pelosi and gore had to cancel their thing. anyway, this has been going on for a long time. it shows that you know, mother nature does have a accepts sens humor. i have a life-size poster of tom steyer i use on floor of the senate. he said trying to res rect the failed global warming. he said he will put money there the campaigns of 2014.
one of the things they had to do in order to be -- do justice to him. she is telling me two minutes this is going to be difficult. well, anyway. let me just finish this thought. all he had to do is go down to the senate floor for an all night thing and so they're down there. i was the only republican on the senate floor and i had this big poster of tom steyer and i said tom steyer is you know, he is, i showed his picture, he put up $100 million, that's why you are here. if anybody out there in america watching this now has in so many mia, you came to the right place. someone said are you saying that we're here because we're getting to be getting paid to. i said i'm not saying that at all, that is what tom steyer is saying. i am sorry i am going a little over my time. let me just say this to wind up.
this is great. i mean, the fact that you are all here, and your panel is going to be so great this afternoon. and i can tell you, i never want to say and be quoted that this is over and we've won. let me tell you, the american people have pulled this thing out. and there is damage still lingering out there, i have my 21 kids and grandkids, maggie inhofe who graduated from college, when she was in 6th grade or 7th grade she came home and said, i is for inhofe, she said why is it you don't understand global warming. so i said why do you understand that and she showed me this stuff that emanates from the epa and comes down through our system. i can assure you one hand in hand we'll try to do something. you are doing the lord's work, we bless you for it.
thank you very much. [ applause ] >> what a gift to have senator inhofe with us. senator did becky say you have been married 57 years, did you get married when you you were 5. it is oklahoma, right, so you never know. but i don't know. i am just saying. thank you, senator. and one other important point, he mentioned today, how many of you were in austin with us last year at this event? okay. quite a few. what he said about our panel at 3:30 and most of them are sitting here in the front row was what was said last year, that never before, or at least that any of us in the normal world knew of had this collection of intellect and firepower been gathered on this issue and we were so proud and honored to have that last year
in austin and again, i'm glad he pointed that out to have it again today in d.c. thank you all for being here. it really is an honor. i think what he said, too, is so important that we are winning, and certainly a couple of years ago it didn't seem possible, but today it does. and the hope is extraordinary. one -- two quick things before i introduce the next speaker who i am so proud is here. many of you have probably seen the book by kathleen white and stove moore, the texas "fueling freedom" we're all so excited about our incoming epa administrator, scott pruitt. the other finallist for that job was kathleen hartnett white who 'spent time in new york, while the job will not be going to her. it's been an honor and privilege
to work with you all these years, buy a book. you will hear more from her this evening and she will also be doing an informal book signing there and steve will be there as well. we've got the book on sale outside. a great plug for our friend kathleen. very quickly, i wanted to also note that you will hear and hopefully we'll begin to hear more and more, as this new administration and this new day in washington begins, that the power that will evolve out of washington, whether in this arena or health care or education or whatever it may be, moves back to the states. and certainly representing the largest conservative state and the state that provided frankly the job growth for the entire country over the last decade, it is really exciting time to be in the states and on that note, i want to quickly note that we have representatives here from michigan, utah, colorado, washington, ohio, delaware and west virginia, to again work
with all of you in washington to really move our country back where it needs to be. can i ask my friends from around the country to stand up, we're so glad that you are here. thank you. jennifer bu jennifer butler. the texas public policy foundation we of course really enjoy and it is so important to hear from our elected officials, they are the ones who are making the decisions for our country and making sure they're educated and have the opportunity to give their ideas like senator inhofe and the elected officials we heard from earlier, that is wonderful and a big part of what we do. at the texas public policy foundation we think it's extraordinarily important to hear from those in the field creating the jobs and building the businesses that create prosperity and lift people from poverty to a better life. we have one of the great entrepreneurs of our generation with us. corbin robertson.
let me note that he was one of the largest coal owners in the united states. he is a third generation oil, gas and coleman. although i think corbin, you started the coal in your business, your grandfather was one of the great texas oil men. he has been and his family has been in this business and have been directly impacted, especially over the last eight years and it's a real honor to hear from someone like him. again, i think it's easy to forget all of us in the policy world, although we try not to every minute of every day that what we're working on has real impact and real effect and absolutely changes for better or worse real people's lives so please help me welcome the great texas ent preneur, corbin robertson. he was an all american linebacker are to the university of texas in 1968. thank you for being with us. >> thank you for that wonderful
introduction, brook, and i'm sure honored and delighted to be here with you and i'm going to start out with a confession. i'm guilty. i'm guilty of providing goods, services and clean affordable energy to the world's growing population. now, the environmentlist and media would convict me for my services to humanity, because fossil fuel adds co 2 to the atmosphere. so what is my defense and what is my story? i grew up in a family business. we did energy. so we formed partnerships that invested in the oil and gas exportation and production, midstream, downstream, we run an oil fuel service company, coal preparation plant, power plants, gas to liquids conversion, we've done all kinds of other things.
real estate, banking, financial services, timber, furniture store, mortgage companies, title companies. even built the number one golf club in texas. so we've done business in 30 states and in about 18 foreign countries. in 1968, my college roommate and i started camp olympia. in 1978 camp olympia founded the outdoor education program for 50 years we've been taking kids to camp and for 40 years we've been teaching them outdoor education. there have been 350,000 kids that have gone through camp olympia's programs and we've helped them grow in body, mind and spirit. so we think or i think to myself as an environmental educator. we enable the kids to understand
the outdoors where things are real. so that is my history and background. since the 1990s, when the ipcc started with its climate change propaganda, i took it upon myself to study their findings, read their proposals, read everything i could, read the massachusetts versus epa supreme court ruling, the big thick book to see what they did in -- i mean, in 2007. the bush epa didn't provide any scientific evidence on the other side. they basically said that the reason we think we should not regulate co 2 is because we said so. that is not a very good argument and it didn't stand up in court unfortunately. and i think that is why they're saying that the science is
settled. one of the major mistakes. i have read many books by the great authors and people that you have for your speakers here today and they have been my guiding light in terms of trying to understand the science. these scientists have stood up to incredible government, academic, media pressure to -- and presented the earth's empirical data. i'm not running for office, i'm a business guy trying to do my thing. but before we examine the international movement to eliminate fossil fuels, let's review u.s. energy policy. i understand energy policy going forward, it helps to consider what we've experienced going backwards. my observation from being looing
-- after the 1973 -- energy allocation act to control energy production. it was written by owens who played football for the university of texas a couple years ahead of me. got a law degree and went to washington to write the law, soon as he wrote the law he quit so be a consultant to interpret a goofy set of laws. in addition to that they wrote the entitlement program that would help send money from refiners who had domestic sources accrued to refiners who had foreign sources accrued. so every quarter, the refinery sent $60 million to am ra ta hess. the fuel use act they passed during that period stopped the use of nal natural gas to generate electricity.
what is important about creating electricity these days. in the 1970s we weren't supposed to use gas for that it was too valuable. all these activities was sustain u.s. industries production. when the nations demonstrated their hostility, which they have done again, it increases our balanced steps and you know, basically restrained maybe more import dependent and restrained the u.s. production. when oil hit 19 -- in 1981, oil had hit its peak. ronald reagan -- in 1986 we had deep recession and oil glide so the free market works. during the 1990s, the ipcc got busy making predictions about climate. news bulletin. the world is warming.
of course it's been warming since 1750. when the little ice age end the. sea levels have been rising. of course they've been rising at the same rate for the last 100 years, but the government and media latched on to the cause. the ipcc claimed the fossil fuel is responsible for climate change and the computer models, where they make the assumptions, shows that we'll have catastrophic effect on mother earth and its people. the media loves to sell bad news and jumped on the bandwagon. it is a battle cry for the environmentist, the greens who got $170 billion in federal subsy dees in the last decade. the power hungry bureaucrats, save the world citizens and chicken little reporters. after eight years of being shouted down by the obama administration and his political base. you have the opportunity to
present your case for co 2 and fossil fuels to the public. i must say the media has done a marvelous job of not presenting the facts. i just can't think of any more i just can't think of any more biased presentation. the educational community has not presented the facts. so it is now time, this next four years, if we don't present the facts, when are we ever going to get a chance to? we need understandable bullet points. the science is hard to convince in the ten-second sound bites but the truth can be summarized. so i got a call to action. i'm here on a call to action to you guys. it's time to go on offense. develop a series of newspaper fold-outs with clear, concise bullet points that explain co2's role in life on earth and its beneficial effect on plant
growth. co2 always was and always will be. manic sales co2, somebody tell me how many parts per million you exhale. gentlemen? 5,000? so you take in 390 parts per million and excel 5,000. what does that tell you about the carbon cycle? >> 14,000? >> 4-0. 40,000. >> i've heard 40,000. is that all verifiable? >> yeah. >> okay. >> now wait a minute, time-out. we have to back up our facts with peer-reviewed science. they don't but i do. i want to be accountable. i don't want to put out a bunch of bs. whether it was 5,000 or 40,000, we're part of the carbon cycle,
guys. you know, this is all part of living on life on earth, as richard has said. at any case, we need to explain the ipc's false premises. you know them. there are plenty of them. the sun provides 99.9% of the world's warmth. you know, it's not constant co2 is 4% of greenhouse gas. why don't we talk about 95% of greenhouse gas, water vapor. we don't know beans about the effects of all the things going on with water vapor and clouds and wins and water. there's a thousand things we need to know. it's important and probably much more complicated. there are 22 climate drivers. only one is singled out as a cause for climate change, and that's the one they are going for is fossil fuels which is 6%
of how much co2 is being emitted. so they're not deal with the % 94%. in any case, it's a preposterous lie. we need to compare their computer models going back and ford. computer data doesn't support their conclusions. challenge the environmentalists and all the ub substantiated claims of the bad things that happen, the storms and droughts and fires. the national defense. it's going to hurt national defense. it's going to cause malaria. it's just incredible all the stuff they dream up. peer reviewed empirical evidence support the position that co2 trace element in the atmosphere is not responsible for weather. add out raising energy prices hurts the poor wherever they are, whether here or abroad. there is a moral case for fossil
fuel. epstein articulated rather well. so publish these fold dlouts for the university. set up the scientists. you guys go to these campuses. set up open forums and said please come debate us and bring your facts. i've been to at least three of these things at the university of houston and there's not enough of you guys around. the other side is there. i went and the guy that represents england to the ipcc, their main scientist, came to u of h and i asked him, what is your scientific justification for storms and droughts and fires and all the horrible things. of course, he rattled it off in a speech. i said give me your scientific justificati justification. he said because i said so. that didn't really resonate with me to be honest. tape the broadcast. learn from donald and figure out
how to get into social media so you get truth instead of bullshit. my old football coach said the only time he was worried about it was when he stepped in it. you all got a got more reason to worry than that. the u.s. and world are bloesed with abundant fossil fuels. this has been set up here. 100-year supply of oil and gas and the technologies have unleashed tremendous resources. i personally have got 20 billion tons of coal. 180 feet of the earth's surface that could be mined and used for power at a dollar per million btu. could be turned into 60 million barrels of oil. it's a stranded asset, okay? but america has got huge resources. if you unleash those powers, it's going to be fantastic. so what should the government be
doing? they should be driving technology to lead a better life for all of us. the d.o.e. found a catalyst that turns co2 emissions into ethanol or 62% or 63% of drive the commercialized half. that's the kind of thing the government needs to be funding. we've cleaned up our air and our water and we should demand clean energy from the government. and the states, i think, are perfectly adequate to go take care of local problems. every one of these sales is different and every solution in terms of where can you dispose water, don't put in the utokah in some ridge in oklahoma. you'll have to find some other solution. industry will mitigate those kinds of problems. we are good citizens. so what is the market's role in this? the market's role is to compete. it's been articulated rather
well up here. but i've got to say, i -- coal and gas and wind, solar and nukes all have a nice, you know, playing field and compete. i am on the api board. i personally discussed with the major oil companies that support a carbon tax. and there's a bunch of them. one oil executive in houston, texas, at one of these climate conferences that admitted the carbon tax creates an economic advantage for natural gas over coal. and should consumers pay an extra to give natural gas producers a competitive advantage. you look at aubrey mcclendon and what the gas lobby has done to both the state regs and to give money to sierra club for the beyond coal campaign. i guess they didn't notice there's going to be a beyond gas campaign after beyond coal.
but they've tried to stop all things coal and the obama epa set the rules to shutter all these plants. they don't give permits to the stream laws, to the air and for the law that just got knocked down by a court. they are trying to stop all things coal. so they've done a marvelous job of bankrupting the coal industry. the truth is competition from natural gas, abundant natural gas has made a huge difference. so i guess the message i've got to the majors is that a carbon tax will hurt all consumes are and is a retrofit tax on the poor. it's really bad policy, and you guys are policy wonks. do something about it. it doesn't make any sense. okay, i get total and i get these europeans and, you know, they got to acquiesce their governments, but it's a problem. so the historic elections we've
had can change the plight of the american worker. we came to the crossroads in this last election, and we took a right. praise the lord. trump versus clinton was freedom versus bur okacy, go versus no. america needs to unleash the go. my grandchildren have a chance. i've got nine of them. to have a better life than their parents but not in a world of constraints. reverse prosperity that needs to be shared with all. the fossil fuels can enrich us. americans have not become prosperous because we're entitled. we've become enriched through hard work, abundant resources and applied technology. our entrepreneurial society can reinvent itself. don't let the bureaucrats stop
it. the election chose the energy to go versus the constraints and unleashed the power of the free market and free speech and expressed the truth. the truth will prevail but you've get to enormous earned media and international political combines against you. you've got four years to present the facts. don't waste this golden opportunity when the going gets tough, the tough get going. thanks. [ applause ] yesterday, december 7th, 1941, a date which will live in infamy. the united states of america was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air