tell you a little bit what it shows and then start the clip the first ten seconds will show you a living swimming pteropod one of these small animals that i spoke of earlier it is a beautiful creature about the size of a lentil bean it incredibly important as a food source for juvenile salmon for mackerel for pollock for herring they are very very abundant in oceans throughout the world after that you will see what happens to a pter in seawater that is the same chemically as seawater that is projected by the end of the century so let's start the video clip if we could please and you will see first  see time lapse photos of what happens to the shell in seawater after forty five days projected for the year two thousand one hundred and finally this last clip is an animation this is under a business as usual emissions scenario and the change in color from purple to blue to yellow to red indicates increasing ocean acidity and decreasing availability of the calcium carbonate that is needed for shells and skeletons ocean acidity has increased by thirty percent since the beginning of the industrial revolution just over two hundred years ago this increase is one hundred times faster than any change in acidity experienced by marine organisms for at least twenty million years by the middle of this century it is expected that coral calcification rates will decline by a third and at that point erosion of corals will outpace new growth making be severely compromised so in conclusion our understanding of the impacts of ocean acidification is relatively new roughly two thirds of the published research has come to light since two thousand and four which is why you probably haven't heard a lot about this issue thanks to congress's action in passing the federal ocean acidification research and monitoring act more attention will be given to this subject particularly by scientists at noaa and our partners at the national science foundation and in academia nonetheless our fundamental scientific understanding of the basic chemistry of ocean acidification is sound more co emitted into the atmosphere will increasingly lead to more co being absorbed by oceans that will make oceans more acidic and we are now beginning to understand the ocean's very capacity to absorb co from the atmosphere is being degraded our planet works and i think to a very large extent you have explained to us why just about everyone under the age of twenty five wants us to do something about this problem because they have recently been in science classes in high schools grammar schools colleges all across the country so they might be a little bit more familiar with this than people who are a little bit older but i think that is why we call them the green generation because they are reflecting the science that is being taught them today across our country and across the planet so let me begin by recognizing myself for a round of questions and i will begin with you doctor holdren reconstruction of global temperatures over the last millennium show a dramatic rise over the course of this century that has produced a so called hockey stick graph which is being questioned in some circles can you c larify for us the evidence that supports the significant rise in temperatures over the past century mister holdren sure when one talks about reconstruction of past temperatures one is talking about using a variety of indicators of what the temperature of the earth was in the period before we had adequate thermometer measurements to meaningfully determine the average surface temperature of the earth those methods include the came about when an analysis of the last one thousand plus years of temperature based on a variety of reconstructions available at that time from these different proxies the ice cores the tree rings the sediments and so on came out with a temperature trace that with some bumps was relatively flat for most of the last one thousand years and then rose rather sharply in the th century indeed then extremely sharp whether the particular approaches to developing that graph used by the group of scientists who did it and published it in the journal nature in one thousand nine hundred and ninety eight were absolutely correct there was a flurry of activity at that time a flurry of controversy about whether their statistical methods were right whether they had used the right proxies whether they had interpreted them correctly it is important to understand that there were a variety of other research groups around the world doing proxy analyses and getting similar results with some variations because proxies are difficult to interpret the different proxy measures typically relate to different specific areas in the world where the proxy indicators have been preserved and you need to merge them together in a way that ultimately makes sense and is scientifically rigorous and that is very challenging but in the end as i mentioned before the effective resolution of the controversy was when the national academy of sciences conducted a major study looking at all the proxy data all the methods that had been used to interpret them their results published in two thousand and six led to the conclusion which i mentioned before in fact it was even a little stronger than the conclusion i mentioned before they said it was highly likely that the  actually not warming but cooling and that evidence over the past decade indicates that we are in a cooling period and not in a warming period historically what would your response to that b you look carefully at the climate records the warming that has occurred is not gradual it is jerky and you get periods of time where there are steep increases and other times where it relatively flat other times where there are slight dips and the key point here i think is to really understand global trends you need to look at long enough periods of time that you get a clear  signal it is quite possible to have a decade in which you see very little change but if you look at the entire century you see some remarkable changes and in fact if i could have the slide that i brought  i was hoping someone would ask this question so thank you mister chairman for doing so and what you will see on this slide are the actual temperature data from is the most recent data trend and if you take just that period of time there is no discernible no obvious trend in that if you then go and take a longer  interval of time next one please and keep going back through time you see more and more information that gives you a better sense of what the actual real overall trend is and so in that the gentleman from wisconsin mister sensenbrenner well thank you very much mister chairman i want to go back to the e mails that ended up being placed in the public record and i don't want to get to whether or not they were legally place in the public record the question is whether or not they were accurate because if they were accurate it is profoundly disturbing and it does end up putting into question all of the science of climate change now  data from the climate research unit at the uea in england is one of only three major data sets but they considerably overlap and they have been used as a basis for the ipcc report as well as the u s global change research program and that means that these two booklets that were passed out this morning you know at best need to have a thorough review in the light of this information that has been disclosed and at worst it junk science and it is a part of a massive international scientific fraud now doctor holdren you have been in the middle of a lot of this and i have a couple of questions based upon your statements before you joined the  administration you gave an interview in august of two thousand and six with bbc news in the uk and you said that a sea level rise of up to thirteen feet was in the realm of possibility however that is eleven feet higher than what the ipcc has estimated over this period of time which is somewhere between seven and twenty three inches now with respect to the hockey stick theory which the chairman has referred to that has been pretty much discredited in the scientific community and yet in your october th e mail which is now in the public record now i think it is pretty clear that in both cases you were wrong and i guess i would like to know if you are concerned now that you are in the white house and representing all of the public whether you are concerned about the misrepresentation of the state of science with respect to global warming and i would also like to know if you still support the principal critic of those who trashed the hockey stick theory  is a doctor michael mann knowing of his efforts now to hide his data and to encourage his colleagues to shut out journals like climate research to publish works contrary to his own bias holdren congressman let me try to take those in the order you asked them and the very first part of your statement with respect i would disagree with you that this current uproar calls into question all of climate science i do not believe didn't say that i said it ought to be looked at again and you know there is increasing evidence of scientific fascism that is going on and i think as policymakers who are making decisions about the state of the american economy for the next several generations that we ought to have accurate science and it appears there is enough question on whether the science we have is accurate that has to be resolved and i wish we could have done it in this hearing but the chairman wouldn't let us but go ahead mister holdren i very much agree that we need to resolve the current issue it is important to understand what has really gone on here to get to the bottom of it as i indicated before that has been one of the strengths of science over the years the capacity to get to the bottom of the controversies that emerge and i believe we get to the bottom of this one but the key point is however this particular controversy comes out the result will not call into question the bulk of our understanding of how the climate works or how humans are affecting it you mentioned  an interview of mine a few years ago in which i talked about the possibility of a sea level rise in this century as much as thirteen feet that was based upon scientific peer reviewed publications that appeared in the early  indicated that over geologic time in periods of natural climate change there had been episodes in which the rate of sea level rise increased by as much as two to five meters per century and that this could not be ruled out at the temperatures for which we were heading in the records of climate change you know you are not dealing with their issue you are calling them names and i think we ought to get to the bottom of this without having the name calling and i wish that you as the president's science advisor and a former employee of one of the most distinguished universities in the world would be able to get beyond the name calling and get to it my time is up and i yield back mister holdren i would be happy to answer all of the congressman's questions if i am allowed the chairman you will be given enough time but let me turn right now and recognize the gentleman from washington state mister inslee mister inslee it is continually stunning to me that people can sit and watch the evidence before their eyes of what the seas are going to look like in a century that might melt pteropods and somehow blow that off and be more interested in e mails from london it is interesting to me and the only way i have been able to understand is it is that some people believe there is a massive global conspiracy that intent on world domination associated with phonying up information about pteropods and the fact that the arctic is melting so i just want to ask you if you are part of that massive international conspiracy are either one of you members of the trilateral commission spectre or kaos i just need an answer mister holdren congressman inslee i am not a member of any of those organizations and i do not believe that there is a conspiracy it would be an amazing thing indeed if the academies of science of virtually every country in the world that had one and if the earth and planetary sciences departments in every major university that had one around the world were all engaged together with the united nations programme the intergovernmental panel on climate change and all the other bodies that have reviewed this matter in a conspiracy that really defies imagination that the great bulk of the scientific community all around the world looking at these matters has come to the will just tell you how i look at this the national academy of sciences has looked at this in great detail in great summary from a wide variety of data sets not just from the individuals who wrote the e mails but in fact from a wide variety of data sets including information generated by nasa and noaa and a whole host of united states agencies and they concluded that in fact both there are changes in the atmospheric climate and that there is increasing a tempest in the teapot coming out of england isn't that a right characterization of this mister holdren well i think we need to wait until all the facts are in to find out exactly what some of these e mails mean in terms of how the scientists in question behaved i mean i would point out that scientists are human and from time to time they experience frustration anger resentment and from time to time they display defensiveness and bias and even misbehavior of some kind they are like any other group of human beings they are subject to human frailties i think the facts are not entirely in on this particular case as to how much and what kinds of frailty might have been displayed here but the key point is that when we get to the bottom of it no matter how it comes out the great bulk of the data on which our understanding of the climate system rests will not have been affected and our basic understanding of where we are where we are headed and by how much we would need to change course to avoid really unfortunate consequences will not have changed mister inslee and let me ask you is there anything about these that is something that that particular research group was focused on and in my view the e mails really do nothing to undermine the very strong scientific consensus and the independent scientific analyses of thousands of scientists around the world  that tell us that the earth is warming and that the warming is largely a result of human activities mister inslee so let me if i can i have some concerns about the state of our science that are reflected in the fact that everything that i am reading suggests that the predictions were not sufficiently dire as to what we are experiencing now i am not a scientist as you are but it seems to me the evidence that i am seeing come in i am looking at this copenhagen diagnosis report i made reference to in my opening statement that the arctic ice sheets are melting much more fast in the summer than we anticipated that there has been a forty percent greater than average just my lay approaches the evidence seems to be coming in in the last twenty four months either on the direst end of the spectrum that was considered or outside of that spectrum  s because he referred to the ipcc's finding in its fourth assessment report about sea level rise in that report the ipcc made clear that they were only considering the thermal expansion of seawater and a small contribution from the melting of mountain glaciers in their sea level rise estimate for the st century leaving out deliberately the mechanism thought to have caused the more rapid rises in sea level that have occurred from time to time in the geologic past and the reason they left out those mechanisms that are capable of causing more rapid sea level rises they explained in their report was that we do not yet understand those mechanisms well enough to model them and arrive at the sort of quantitative conclusion that the ipcc was emphasizing and in addition we didn't know at that time we didn't have enough data to know whether on balance the antarctic ice sheet the larger of the two was gaining mass or losing mass since that ipcc report there has been a great deal of additional work on these questions we now know that both the antarctic and the greenland ice sheet are losing mass we know that the rate of sea level rise today is more than twice the rate of sea level rise averaged over the th century and the current best estimates of the peak sea level rise to be expected in this century are one to two meters that is not as high as my number from two thousand and six the advancing science has ruled out the high end of that range but it makes me wrong in two thousand and six by about a factor of two and it makes the ipcc wrong by a much larger factor by which their numerical estimate understated the possible rise of sea level in the century we are now are inherently conservative and scientists are by and large fairly reluctant to make statements that they can't back up without good data and i think the sea level rise example is a classic case in point scientists knew when they were projecting a twenty three inch sea rise increase by the end of the century that there were important factors that they couldn't account for but they couldn't include them because they didn't understand them well enough and so they erred on the side of caution and i think we see this over and over in many of the ipcc conclusions they are inherently conservative and so when the reality plays out it is sometimes more than what was have listened very closely i think it is all very interesting listening to you all and some of the other questions as well from members of the panel here i am not a scientist but i don't question that the earth climate is changing  you know we used to have dinosaurs and there is still a lot of debate about what happened to the dinosaurs then we had the ice age there was a lot of debate about what happened during the ice age i was noticing an article in  one of our papers just the other day they are doing some studies in lake superior along the pictured rocks and they are indicating that they think a couple of thousand years ago the water levels there could be anywhere as much as fifty or sixty feet higher than they are currently so the climate of the world is never static it is never going to be static the climate is going to change and for me the question is as you say the is the question that i am struggling with that is why i think all of these e mails coming out are very interesting i think it is unfortunate that anybody that questions the ideology the absolute whatever i do think that the question as i say for me is whether or not it is human induced particularly when this congress has been travelling down a path with cap and trade legislation that is going to in my opinion decimate the american economy and that of my state i think that we look at these e mails and you know it is an attempt in many cases just to silence any dissent which i think is very unfortunate and i will just read one i am not sure if the ranking member read this previously but here is one you know there weren't e mails during the dinosaur age by the way either or the ice age but here is an e mail saying i think we need to stop considering the climate research journal as a legitimate peer reviewed journal and perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to or cite papers in this journal how ridiculous how unfortunate that here is this climate research journal that if they question the incontrovertible science that they are you know just dismissed and made to feel as though you know they can't even question this i think it is a travesty and i do recognize that the e mails are an inconvenient truth perhaps are an embarrassment particularly on the brink of copenhagen but i think one of the most important jobs of the congress is to exercise its oversight responsibilities and because of these e mails because in my opinion there is at least a debate a debate on whether or not climate change is human induced or man produced for instance i was just reading the other day that in indonesia where the peat moss is naturally composting that that is the third largest producer of carbon dioxide in the planet more so than many other kinds of things i am not sure how our cap and trade legislation is going to address that you know as i say the climate is never going to be static so with that mister chairman i guess i would just use my time here again to ask that this committee consider a hearing into this climate gate debate that is exploding around us and i would also ask of doctor holdren who made a comment you said that you thought that the uproar should be resolved and i guess i would just ask you how do you think we could do that without completely being dismissive of anyone that would ask such a question in light of all of these e mails and how would you think it could be resolved with the best transparency and with the interests of the american people and our economy certainly at heart  holdren absolutely i think it can be resolved and i think it can be solved without name calling and without being dismissive notwithstanding occasional exceptions there is a long history of respectful and civil debate among scientists who have differing views on many of the details of virtually any issue in this particular case one already sees a very substantial amount of activity of scientists who are going to be looking at these data who are going to be looking  try to understand what the e mails are really saying who are going to reexamine the questions that were at issue then i think there is no question that this will happen whether or not this committee or any other holds a hearing on the subject that is the way the science community works when results are called into question scientists flock to the scene as it were in order to figure out what was really going on there and what the best approximation to the truth we can get at at the current state of understanding is and that is current constantly changing one needs to understand that as new information becomes available anybody who is a good scientist looks at the new information in the context of the old information and tries to develop a better picture of what  the very important question that you asked earlier and that is what is the human contribution to global climate change and how do we know if humans are having an influence you are absolutely correct that climate has changed a lot in the past we have good evidence of that we have been able to model those changes and understand more through time about what the natural changes are and what factors are influencing them this particular figure shows what the climate would be doing without the additional carbon dioxide that humans have put into the atmosphere along with other greenhouse gases happening in indonesia and do you consider what is happening in indonesia man induced ms lubchenco there are many sources of carbon dioxide some of which are natural and some of which are a result of changes in land use practices so they are affected by human activities as well as burning of fossil fuels and these kinds of analyses take into account our current understanding of the sum total emissions from multiple sources and they tease apart what is the human contribution from what would be happening naturally and there is clear evidence that what is happening now is strongly influenced first about the e mails too do you think the scandal and there seems to be a culture of corruption in the scientific community right now on these e mails and manipulation of data for a purpose to get their would add that i too do not believe that these e mails are remotely sufficient to demonstrate a culture of corruption in the scientific community they are e mails from a relatively few people involved in a particular controversy that was attended by a good deal of frustration and anger and as to exactly what went on in the way of manipulation of data i think that remains to be seen to the extent that there was manipulation of data that was not scientifically legitimate and i emphasize that scientists manipulate data all the time in order to make them comprehensible and consistent but if there was manipulation of data that was not scientifically legitimate yes i regard that as a problem and i would denounce it and i think again that the merit of the scientific system is that over time it tends successfully to unearth those kinds of an independent investigation into this mister holdren i am not sure an independent investigation if you mean by the congress of the united states is the right way to get at scientific truth i think the scientific community has well established mechanisms for doing that and i believe they have already been set in motion by these disclosures we will find out what went on there it is not clear at this point i haven't read all the e mails either it is not clear at this point what some of them mean i would point out for example that the term trick is often used in science to describe a clever way to get around a difficulty that is perfectly legitimate the use of the word trick does not in itself in science demonstrate that there was manipulation i think we need to hear all sides of the story before we decide what happened there if it turns out there was improper manipulation again i would denounce it and i would be grateful that the scientific process had run its course and disclosed it if this committee or others want to have hearings that end up calling as witnesses people scientists who are involved in trying to sort that out i think of course that and how much is natural percentage wise well first of all what you need to understand is the natural flows of carbon dioxide in and out of the atmosphere out of the atmosphere by photosynthesis and by absorption in the oceans back into the atmosphere from out gassing from the oceans and by the decomposition or combustion of organic matter have largely been in balance for a long time they are currently in the range of something like seven or eight times the human input but the problem is that the natural input and uptake has been in balance and the human input has driven the system out of balance and is leading to an accumulation of additional carbon dioxide in the atmosphere this is extremely well understood scientific ocean absorbs approximately twenty five percent of the co to the atmosphere from human activity each year so if seven or eight times more is naturally caused if you eliminate the human beings from the earth and all human activity would  acidification still occur it wouldn't would for the time required to take the excess out of the atmosphere that has accumulated there in other words the oceans are not yet in equilibrium with what we have done to the atmosphere but they will get there ms lubchenco congressman i think what you are asking  is if humans were not putting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere wouldn't the oceans already be absorbing some and the answer is yes but they would also be using some of the carbon dioxide and it would be in balance what is different now is that humans have contributed now about thirty percent of the carbon dioxide that is in the atmosphere and some of that has been taken up by oceans making them more acidic mister sullivan but isn't one of the ocean one of the biggest emitters ms lubchenco the oceans and the land both release co and take it up and that process has been in balance over millennia and that continues what is happening is that humans are adding more to the atmosphere and more to the oceans so the total amount of co it is being redistributed because of our activities mister sullivan so if ninety seven ninety six percent of the emissions are natural and four percent are manmade we have a responsibility for that four percent but even if we eliminated it isn't it a little arrogant to think that we could manipulate the entire process ms lubchenco we have manipulated the entire water in which their physiological performance is the best what we are seeing now is that because oceans are warming overall the places if you look at a place on the coastline for example in california the places that used to be a certain temperature are now warmer and so species that used to live there are moving northward to stay in the temperature i said that was a possible outcome an upper limit on the amount of sea level rise based on understanding of the processes that was available at the time it is now considered that the upper limit on sea level rise in this century is about two meters or a little over six feet and that is what i now say because that is what the current science says the chairman the gentleman's time has expired six feet does sound like a very large increase didn't give that i will just take all of my holdren i wanted to talk with you i was delighted that you were here some of the e mails that have come out recently from cru indicate some animosity  i guess would be the best way to describe it in research for the medieval warm period the research by doctor soon and i wanted to see if you would elaborate  the arguments by soon and baliunas to the contrary fared very badly in the scientific community in terms of the rigor and validity of their arguments and that is the reason that they were often disparaged in discussions of this matter in particular because they continued to espouse the view that the medieval warming period was a global phenomenon long after evidence to the contrary became persuasive to everyone else one of the characteristics one expects of scientists is to change their mind when data and analysis show that they were wrong the first time i changed my mind about the maximum sea level possible in the st century when the analysis and the data changed and that is what we expect from others when that doesn't happen a degree of frustration and anger often materializes because of a concern that people are simply muddying the water by repeating discredited hypotheses misess blackburn okay well let's apply that statement  looking at the climate change data that has been lost and do you think that the climate change data has been compromised since there was original data lost by cru mister holdren yeah i think that is unfortunate whenever any original data are lost that is a misfortune it is unfortunate that it happened i wish it had been prevented i think robustness of all of the data sets we have available to us is sufficient to survive that loss but i do regret the loss misess blackburn well if further review on all of this shows that the ipcc report in two thousand and seven used data what do you think they ought to do about it should they be willing to go back and say you know we are going to have to change our mind on this because we used corrupted data or we didn't give the whole picture or science if you every successive report that it produces which is roughly every five years revises a whole variety of conclusions it reached in the previous assessment because new information has become available it is of course unfortunate if the new information that becomes available is that data that were previously used were corrupted but in terms of the outcome the revision of the findings based on new information is the same scientists do that all the time the ipcc does it and they will do it if it is some hearings in the energy and commerce committee on the hockey stick theory and doctor mann's hockey stick theory and i know doctor wegmann and the national academy of sciences have made comments that doctor mann didn't use proper statistical methods in his research on that what is your opinion there mister holdren i think there is reason to believe that some of the statistical methods that doctor mann used were not the best for the years was nonetheless robust and again i would point out that arguments about what are the best statistical techniques to use are pervasive in the scientific community and it is no surprise that one has a difference of opinion is no surprise that a scientist may have made a mistake in the method chosen to analyze a particular data set again the key thing about science is not that scientists are always right it is that they fix their mistakes over time  ask you this i know that some of the scientists who have come before us and they advocate limiting greenhouse gas emissions also have stated they think that maybe the global temperatures have stopped rising over the past ten years even though the greenhouse gas emissions have increased so how do you go lubchenco explained a diagram that is on the board that actually addresses that question and the key point is that the climate and the surface temperature of the earth fluctuates all the time for a wide variety of reasons most of them natural  what we are seeing is superimposed on those natural fluctuations a long term trend of increasing global average surface temperature of the magnitude and of the sort expected to result according to both theory and models from the increases in carbon dioxide and other heat trapping substances that humans have imposed on the atmosphere if you look at the actual temperature data and i have in front of me the noaa data set for the global average surface temperatures through two thousand and eight what you see is that nine of the ten warmest years in the one hundred and forty year thermometer record the period of time since one thousand eight hundred and eighty when we have had enough thermometer measurements around the land and the ocean to meaning define a global average surface temperature nine of the ten warmest years in that period occurred since one thousand nine hundred and ninety eight one thousand nine hundred and ninety eight itself was the second warmest year in the record two thousand and five was the first warmest all fifteen of the warmest years in the one hundred and forty year record occurred since one thousand nine hundred and ninety you look at the numbers you do see a bump as you see up there on the screen in the far right where in the last few years there is no discernible times listening to you that given the extensive review by the national academy of science and using information based from noaa nasa and a whole host of other data sets that there is no reason to revise their fundamental conclusion that humans are contributing to changing climate and noaa not to change a fundamental conclusion that the oceans are becoming more acidic mister sensenbrenner suggested that there is some scientific fascism and that is a quote is there any evidence of fascism in the noaa organization of scientific fascism associated with this mister holdren i am not even sure exactly what that term would mean but i don't  am not aware of any cabals conspiracies misbehavior in the characterization and use of data in nasa or noaa mister inslee well i tell you it is troublesome to me the people who put the men on the moon the people who discovered water on the moon the people who are doing great research figuring out how the oceans are becoming acidic some of whom are my constituents it is disturbing to me that people would come to this chamber and call them fascists i have to tell you i ha problem with that i don't think that is right these men and women are doing the best they can to provide us data and conclusions to the best of their ability and they through their professional work have reached a very very strong consensus on these scientific issues who are working for uncle sam and i think that is wrong to say that about them and there is a little emotion in my voice because i have seen in my neighborhood what this phenomenon is doing i would like to be able to catch salmon and my grandkid celebrated his first birthday sunday to catch salmon that live on pteropods maybe fifty or sixty years from now and when people watch what i watched and say that this is just a big scientific fascist was stunning to them particularly in the shallow waters off our pacific coast they explained to me as i understand this correctly the waters are more acidic the lower in the water column they have been but now very acidic levels are becoming very close within one hundred and fifty two hundred feet of that off the west coast of the united states where winds blow along the coastline and push the surface waters away from the coast which pulls up cold nutrient rich low oxygen and lower ph water to the surface that that is where we are seeing some of the greatest increases in acidity happening around the world and it is of deep concern because those areas as you well know are historically very very rich our wonderful productive fisheries off that area are in large part a consequence of this upwelling mister inslee i appreciate that i want to ask anybody in this room including the two witnesses and my republican colleagues and my democratic colleague is there anybody in this room who has information to suggest that the oceans are not becoming more acidic has anybody got information like that anybody has anybody got an explanation why the oceans are becoming more acidic other than the fact that there is massive amounts of carbon dioxide going into the atmosphere has anybody got an explanation for that i haven't heard any and yet people are trying to gin up this controversy because you know why it is not because they are not intelligent it is because they are afraid that we can't solve this problem and i think if we had a little more confidence in ourselves and our ability to solve this problem we would open our minds to the scientific information that is becoming available to us and this idea of equilibrium i will just try one more i don't know why it is so hard for people to understand the idea of equilibrium to me it is like this is this a metaphor a guy goes to a doctor he says to the doctor i gained ten pounds well have you changed your behavior at all yes i have started eating a huge banana split at lunch and dinner every single day and he goes well it is obvious you have been eating more food and he goes no no it's not the banana split look at all the other food i have eaten it is the other stuff that is eighty five percent of my caloric intake that is eighty five percent of the co that is going into the atmosphere don't look at the banana split don't look at the coal fired goes to the very basis upon which this debate has gone on for the last several years and i see an awful lot of attempts by people in this room to shove that concern under the rug i am telling you now it will get worse rather than getting better and i will define what i mean by scientific fascism these e mails trash the scientific conclusions by those who have disputed doctor mann's hockey stick theory there are information in the e mails that the publication climate research in which they were published ought to be boycotted because they weren't doing the politically correct thing and i understand that the editor of climate research ended up getting fired as a result now there is intimidation in the scientific community by people who wish to be contrary to what the conventional wisdom is and we are being asked as a congress to make major changes in american society in energy use and on how much the out of pocket cost is to every person in this country as a result of this debate and we in congress better get it right the scientists may be able to change their story and do more research on it but once congress passes a law it will be as difficult to repeal the consequences of that law as putting milk back into the cow we know all about cows in wisconsin now the denial has not stopped because six weeks ago on october th michael mann wrote an e mail that says in part as we all know this isn't about truth at all it is about pla we need to know the truth here before we can legislate in the name of the american people now doctor holdren given the fact that you were involved in the e mail traffic that has been released from the university of brutal in criticism anybody who has ever taken a doctoral exam in natural science understands that very well so there is nothing unusual about strong language in criticizing results of others we are all when we testify doing so on the basis of the best information available to us at the time as scientists the notion that one cannot be objective because one has concluded that a particular study by particular was deeply flawed and that was my conclusion from reading the study by soon and baliunas that it was deeply flawed and that has been the conclusion of the great bulk of the rest of the community that being so i cannot be expected to be unbiased as to the merit of that particular study i am biased by study i am biased by having read it studied it and understood what is wrong with it mister sensenbrenner and i respect your opinion on that but it seems to me that other people ought to look into now i want to ask you a question that you can answer yes or no you are the science adviser to the president and i would like to ask you to guarantee congress that you will provide the public including us access to all documents prepared with government funding relating to science change and that includes studies that the ipcc has either gotten or utilized so that nobody can wiggle out of this by saying that the ipcc is exempt from this because they are an international body will you give us that information and then allow the public including other scientists to be able to see it after all the taxpayers have paid for it  not sure what all you are asking congressman but i am absolutely in support of the public and the taxpayers having access to the results of research that they paid for the only constraints on that are research classified for national security reasons or research that is incomplete it is a problem where people insist on the release of data that scientists have not yet even finished assembling because this leads to interpretations immediately on the basis of an incomplete picture but once research is complete and is published in the peer reviewed literature or is submitted as a report for use by government policymakers i do believe that all of the data behind that all of the methods all of the analysis should be made available to the congress the which is this dramatic spike which has been created in the amount of co in the atmosphere this seems to be an incontrovertible fact no one actually denies this it is measurable  and it correlates almost directly with the industrialization of not only our country but europe and increasingly in china and india as the amount of co emitted globally has increased and in fact in two thousand and nine the trend is that this will be a warmer year than last year was and so the spike is going back up again if all data up until the end of november continues on for the concluding month of th could hit more than forty home runs then all of a sudden in the s there was a huge spike in the number of people hitting more than forty home runs now major league baseball said well you know perhaps the players are getting stronger others said well perhaps the baseballs  e juiced but once a steroid testing program was put in place over the last three years an amazing thing has happened there was a precipitous drop in the number of forty homerun hitters back to normal levels an artificial substance injected into players a huge increase in the number of home runs but once it was removed we went back to normal levels again now some people of course are arguing that the new normal was people hitting more than sixty home runs and seventy home runs huh well it turns out that the testing program brought it down dramatically once we dealt with the reality of the science of what was going on in baseball well here we have the same trend but we have yet to inject the solution that is the reduction in the amount of co being emitted by the united states by europe and by other parts of the world that is our challenge it is in controvertible artificial substance put into man or nature causes big differences and so these spikes are very very coincidental huh now there were deniers in major league baseball they said oh no steroids has nothing do with it and by the way major league baseball wanted to go along with it in the same way that the coal industry the oil industry other fossil fuel industries want to go along with the myth that nothing really abnormal is happening but the consensus of the science in the world the national academy of sciences of every country in the world is that this spike in co is man villages falling into the ocean and droughts being created around the world and all of this evidence is basically so massive that there is no way to avoid it and so what the minority has decided to do what the deniers what the oil and coal industry want to do is to use the few e mails of a few people who are doubting this science which is a consensus around the country as a way of trying to cast doubt the same way major league baseball did on the undeniable correlation between the injection of these artificial sources into the atmosphere  are having on our planet and so you know we can continue this pretense and we can use a small number of e mails i suppose to have a larger debate but i think that it would be better for us to accept the science to accept this curve to basically deal with the reality that the minority has no answer for why it has spiked so dramatically why it is going back up again this year they sit over here using a couple of e mails as a reason why we should stop all efforts to deal with this catastrophic threat to our planet and so since no alternative theory has been presented at least baseball said well the players are getting stronger huh that was their answer but everyone who was looking at it was saying how can they be so much stronger than the players just five years ago well that is the same thing that is happening with this c okay there is no explanation for it other than that it is manmade and by the way you can say well it is not that big what is the difference a degree or two well a kid has a temperature of ninety eight point six normally well you add a couple of degrees temperature to that child and they are at one hundred point six the doctor says well you have been at that new normal for fourteen days now so don't worry about it ma'am your son joey he is going to be fine the new normal is one hundred point six well who would ever accept that as an answer because it was only a two degree change in the child well that is what we have got here for the planet a two degree change in the overall temperature of our planet is just as catastrophic as it would be for a small child who had received no medical attention because the doctor had concluded or a small number of doctors would say the child can live with the new normal of two degrees higher what parent would ever run that risk of not giving treatment to that child and that is what we are talking about here yes there is a normal temperature for the planet but you add on two more degrees three more degrees it is catastrophic you get the consensus as doctor hold is saying that there is a six foot rise in the sea level of our planet that is not frightening enough for the other side they want to know why it is not eleven feet anymore well six feet has such catastrophic consequences for alaska for the everglades for boston for cape cod for southern california that it is almost unimaginable what changes would have to take place in our country okay so what the answer again we keep saying what are you saying is the answer to why this is spiking so dramatically where is your evidence just by casting doubt with a few e mails on a consensus globally and a century but across the world in their construction of their analysis there is no alternative theory that the minority is proposing other than that which we know has been funded by the oil and coal and other industr continue business as usual now we have tried to construct in the waxman markey bill an alternative way in which these issues could be dealt with and they of course don't want to deal with that issue because they would prefer their denial what i am going to say to you doctor holdren if you could is i would like you to go through the other points that you would like to make in response to the questions that were raised by mister sensenbrenner in his opening question of you allow any written questions that would be posed to the witnesses to be made by members who were not here we thank our two witnesses for their testimony here today  it is extremely valuable at this time in our planet's history for the two of you to be working for our country and for the world it is an honor for us to have you here today we thank you for your distinguish water only has not changed at all the chalk that is in the half water half vinegar is dissolving and the chalk that is in the total vinegar has dissolved quite substantially and will continue to do so