Angie Craig: “he said they had not changed their course and direction and they didn't agree with the Royal Academy's statement. They…”

“he said they had not changed their course and direction and they didn't agree with the Royal Academy's statement. They thought it was misleading. That is not what they said, not what they believe. It is not what they intended. Then the head of the National Academy of Sciences wrote a letter to the Royal Academy. The Royal Academy basically said stuff it, it is our interpretation of what you said and we have a right for our own interpretation. No, the Royal Academy does not have a right to reinterpret the profound work of the National Academy of Sciences, the Hathaway study, the 1992 documentation that brought us to the scientific level we are today. The reason we are having this gamesmanship in the National Academy of Sciences is because this is ripe politics. It is not substantive science. While there are those of us who believe there are strong indicators that this world is getting warmer, we are not so sure about the science yet. But we are sure--and that is why this legislation we are adding this amendment to, or attempting to add the McCain-Lieberman amendment to, is all about ``clean'' and all about new technology that is less emitting, has less greenhouse gas in it, and recognizes the importance that our country lead in this direction. I spoke about that yesterday.…”