U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

34–913 PDF 2007

ALLEGATIONS OF POLITICAL INTERFERENCE WITH

THE WORK OF GOVERNMENT CLIMATE

CHANGE SCIENTISTS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JANUARY 30, 2007

Serial No. 110–1

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html

http://www.oversight.house.gov

(II)

COMMITTEE ON OVERSISGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, Chairman

TOM LANTOS, California

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland

PETER WELCH, Vermont

TOM DAVIS, Virginia

DAN BURTON, Indiana

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

BILL SALI, Idaho

——— ———

PHIL SCHILIRO, Chief of Staff

PHIL BARNETT, Staff Director

EARLEY GREEN, Chief Clerk

DAVID MARIN, Minority Staff Director

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on January 30, 2007 ......................................................................... 1

Statement of:

Grifo, Francesca, senior scientist and director of the scientific integrity

program, Union of Concerned Scientists; Rick Piltz, former senior associate, U.S. Climate Change Science Program; Drew Shindell, Goddard

Institute for Space Studies, National Aerodynamics and Space Administration; Roger Pielke, Jr., professor, environmental studies program,

University of Colorado and fellow, Cooperative Institute for Research

in the Environmental Sciences .................................................................... 51

Grifo, Francesca ......................................................................................... 51

Pielke, Roger, Jr. ....................................................................................... 96

Piltz, Rick ................................................................................................... 71

Shindell, Drew ........................................................................................... 91

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Cannon, Hon. Chris, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Utah, prepared statement of ........................................................................ 29

Clay, Hon. Wm. Lacy, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Missouri, prepared statement of .................................................................. 26

Cummings, Hon. Elijah E., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Maryland, prepared statement of ............................................................ 20

Davis, Hon. Danny K., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Illinois, prepared statement of ................................................................ 23

Davis, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia, prepared statement of ........................................................................ 12

Grifo, Francesca, senior scientist and director of the scientific integrity

program, Union of Concerned Scientists, prepared statement of ............. 54

Pielke, Roger, Jr., professor, environmental studies program, University

of Colorado and fellow, Cooperative Institute for Research in the Environmental Sciences, prepared statement of ................................................ 99

Piltz, Rick, former senior associate, U.S. Climate Change Science Program, prepared statement of ........................................................................ 73

Sali, Hon. Bill, a Representative in Congress from the State of Idaho,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 37

Shindell, Drew, Goddard Institute for Space Studies, National Aerodynamics and Space Administration, prepared statement of ................... 93

Waxman, Hon. Henry A., a Representative in Congress from the State

of California, prepared statement of ........................................................... 4

Welch, Hon. Peter, a Representative in Congress from the State of Vermont, letter dated January 30, 2007 ........................................................... 145

Yarmuth, Hon. John A., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Kentucky, prepared statement of ............................................................ 46

(1)

ALLEGATIONS OF POLITICAL INTERFERENCE

WITH THE WORK OF GOVERNMENT CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENTISTS

TUESDAY, JANUARY 30, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 2154,

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Henry A. Waxman (chairman

of the committee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Waxman, Kucinich, Cummings, Davis

of Illinois, Tierney, Clay, Watson, Lynch, Higgins, Yarmuth,

Braley, Norton, McCollum, Cooper, Van Hollen, Hodes, Murphy,

Sarbanes, Welch, Davis of Virginia, Shays, Platts, Cannon, Duncan, Turner, Issa, Foxx, and Sali.

Also present: Representative Gilchrest.

Staff present: Phil Schiliro, chief of staff; Phil Barnett, staff director/chief counsel; Kristin Amerling, general counsel; Greg

Dotson and Jeff Baran, counsels; Earley Green, chief clerk; Teresa

Coufal, deputy clerk; David Marin, minority staff director; Larry

Halloran, minority deputy staff director; Jennifer Safavian, minority chief counsel for oversight and investigations; Keith Ausbrook,

minority general counsel; Ellen Brown, minority legislative director

and senior policy counsel; Mason Alinger, minority deputy legislative director; A. Brooke Bennett, minority counsel; Allyson

Blandford, Jay O’Callaghan, and Kristina Husar, minority professional staff members; Larry Brady, minority senior investigator

and policy advisor; Patrick Lyden, minority parliamentarian and

member services coordinator; Brian McNicoll, minority communications director; and Benjamin Chance, minority clerk.

Mr. WAXMAN. The meeting of the committee will come to order.

I want to welcome everyone to today’s meeting. It is the first

hearing we are having this year, and it focuses on one of the most

important issues facing our Nation and the world, global warming.

Most of my colleagues know that I bring some strong views to

the subject. I have been working on global warming for almost 20

years and introduced the first comprehensive global warming bill

in 1992. I believed then that the science on global warming was

compelling enough to warrant action, and in the years since 1992,

I believe the science has grown more and more compelling.

But despite my strong views, I would never want scientists to

manipulate research so that they can tell me what they think I

2

want to hear. I don’t want politically correct science. I want the

best science possible, and that is what today’s hearing is about.

For several years, there have been allegations that the research

of respected climate scientists was being distorted and suppressed

by the Bush administration. Some of these reports claim that Phil

Cooney, a former lobbyist for the American Petroleum Industry,

was put in charge of the Council on Environmental Quality and imposed his own views on the reports scientists had submitted to the

White House.

The last Congress, under the leadership of Tom Davis, this committee took the appropriate step and began investigating whether

the Bush administration was interfering with the science of global

warming for political reasons. I joined with Chairman Davis in requesting routine documents from the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality. When the White House resisted, we narrowed

our request. When the White House resisted again, we scaled back

what had already been a reasonable request, and when the White

House resisted a third time, we again tried to accommodate the

President.

In addition to repeatedly narrowing our request, we extended the

deadlines we had suggested to the White House. But even after all

those courtesies, we have received virtually nothing from this administration.

Last evening, we finally received a total of nine non-public documents. Unfortunately, they add little to our inquiry. In some cases,

they do not even appear to be records we were seeking.

It is a privilege to chair this committee. The Oversight Committee is charged with an essential responsibility, bringing accountability to our Government. We take this very seriously. As chairman, I intend to be fair to every witness and to invoke the committee’s broad powers only when absolutely necessary. But I also intend to be thorough, to insist on Congress’ right to receive relevant

information and to do everything possible to meet the important

obligations we have to the American people.

In this instance, the committee isn’t trying to obtain State secrets or documents that could affect our immediate national security. We are simply seeking answers to whether the White House’s

political staff is inappropriately censoring impartial Government

scientists.

Last fall, our staffs viewed some of the documents the committee

is seeking in camera. As a result of this review, we know that the

White House possesses documents that contain evidence of an attempt by senior administration officials to mislead the public by injecting doubt into the science of global warming and minimizing

the potential dangers. I believe Congress is entitled to this information and to these documents.

According to the documents we have reviewed, administration officials sought to edit an EPA report: First, to add ‘‘balance’’ by emphasizing the ‘‘beneficial effects’’ of climate change. Second, they

tried to delete a discussion of the human health and environmental

effects of climate change. Third, to strike any discussion of atmospheric concentrations of carbon because carbon levels are not a

‘‘good indicator of climate change,’’ and four, to remove the stateVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:13 May 09, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\34913.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
3

ment that ‘‘changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly the result of human activities.’’

Some of the most questionable edits were urged by Phillip

Cooney, the former oil industry lobbyist who was the Chief of Staff

to the White House Council on Environmental Quality.

Today, Ranking Member Davis and I are sending a letter to the

White House about these documents to urge the White House to reconsider the confrontational approach it is now taking.

I am looking forward to hearing the testimony of today’s witnesses. We are fortunate to have the Union of Concerned Scientists

here and to have the opportunity to review their new report on political interference in the scientific process.

I also want to welcome Dr. Drew Shindell to the committee. Dr.

Shindell is a top climate researcher at NASA’s Goddard Center. He

will testify about the difficulties he has faced in alerting the public

to his important climate research. Dr. Shindell is testifying on his

own behalf today, and he has earned our gratitude for having the

courage to step forward.

I would also like to note that Rick Piltz is testifying today for the

first time. Mr. Piltz is the Government employee who publicly objected when the Council on Environmental Quality started overruling the views of climate scientists.

We are pleased that Roger Pielke is able to join us.

All of us have a right to our own views about the seriousness of

global warming, but we don’t have a right to our own science. This

hearing and the committee’s ongoing investigation into political interference is aimed at ensuring the American people receive the

best possible science.

That concludes my statement.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Henry A. Waxman follows:]

4

5

6

7

8

9

Mr. WAXMAN. I want to recognize Mr. Davis.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and my

best wishes to you as you bring your first oversight hearing to

order.

I should note the irony of having a global warming hearing today

on the coldest day of the year. In fact, one of my colleagues remarked it is so cold today that Congressmen have their hands in

their own pockets just to keep warm. [Laughter.]

Seriously, though, I am pleased that in our first hearing, we are

continuing the committee’s work on climate change. Last year, we

directed the committee to address this weighty and politically

charged issues in a non-partisan way.

I am proud that we are able to strip away partisan differences

and tackle an issue which most other committees had steered well

clear of. Our approach earned accolades from groups like the Pew

Center on Global Climate Change which called our hearings, ‘‘some

of the most balanced and informative climate change hearings in

memory,’’ and newspapers like the Washington Post which described our work as ‘‘responsible.’’

The committee’s reputation is based on its commitment to fair

and responsible oversight, and I look forward to continuing that

tradition with you.

Mr. Chairman, I am no climate change denier. In fact, I believe

it is one of the most urgent matters we face. As I have said before,

there aren’t many people left these days who would argue global

warming isn’t happening per se. There is widespread agreement

that global mean temperatures increased over the past century and

that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has contributed to this

warming.

Furthermore, like you, I think it is important to determine

whether the administration or anyone else has attempted to quash

scientific findings. That is why together we have requested documents from the Council on Environmental Quality and why together we remain disappointed in the lackluster production of those

documents.

But, Mr. Chairman, I am concerned this morning that the pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction, that is, I am

concerned that we have gone from legitimate conversations about

politicizing science to a potentially dangerous dynamic that not

only condones but heralds the suppression of scientific dissent. For

some it seems freedom of speech implies only to those that agree

with you. Let me explain.

We are seeing a dangerous trend toward inflammatory and

counter-productive hyperbole. When a top climatologist at the

Weather Channel calls for stripping meteorologists who express

any skepticism about man’s contributions to climate change of their

certifications, we have probably gone too far. When so-called eco experts liken skeptics to Holocaust deniers, we have definitely gone

too far.

This committee has earned a reputation as a truth-seeking body.

We are gatherers of fact. We let the chips fall where they may.

Knowledge, Mr. Chairman, is refined through continuous inquiry

and, yes, through skepticism.

10

Second, one of our witnesses will discuss this morning the issue

of politicizing science. But has it itself become politicized? The title

of today’s hearing is telling. The mere convergence of politics and

science does not in itself denote interference. I would caution the

committee and policymakers everywhere not to contribute to the

naive notion that science and politics can somehow be kept separate.

Should it really surprise anyone that leadership at a Federal

agency manages information in pursuit of their interests or their

agenda?

Is the choice of phraseology, for example, ‘‘climate change’’ versus

‘‘global warming,’’ the province of science alone or can it be allowed

to reflect political as well as scientific considerations?

Third, science, as we all know, evolves, living and breathing

through the power of evidence. Policy needs to evolve along with

it. Some in this room appear to believe we have reached the end

of scientific continuum, but scientific consensus is not science.

Sometimes it is nothing more than the best guess of the group that

gets the microphone first.

More than once strong scientific consensus of the past now lies

in history’s mass grave of disproved crackpots. The miasma theory

of disease prevailed for a time because cholera outbreaks seemed

to be associated with bad-smelling water. Less fetid water, though

it reduced outbreaks, appeared proof of cause and effect until the

germ theory identified the real culprit.

The 19th century rain follows the plow theory attributed increased rain in arid areas to increased agricultural activities by

man. Today it is understood that increased vegetation and urbanization have only limited and local effects on overall precipitation

levels.

So in the debate about climate change attribution, determining

the role of human activity on measurable climate changes, all of

us—policymakers, scientists and those fortunate enough to be neither—should take pains to maintain the healthy skepticism that is

at the heart of good science and good policy. Without constant constructive doubt, both sides would have us take leaps of faith over

the science to politically convenient conclusions.

A wise man once wrote that science is facts. Just as houses are

made of stones, so is science made of facts. But a pile of stones is

not a house and a collection of facts is not necessarily science.

Mr. Chairman, I requested the documents from CEQ because I

wanted to learn more about the allegations that administration officials were trying to minimize the significance of climate change.

I requested them because I care about climate change and, like

you, want to do something about it.

I am no denier, but I am troubled by stories of scientists unable

to publish or even complete their research because they are perceived as having the wrong answers or being on the wrong side of

the science, or the leveling of accusations that rely on innuendo

and inference to prove scientists’ intentions is nefarious when in

fact often these scientists’ only crime is associating with ideas that

conflict with those of their accusers, or the notion that X policy action or inaction must follow from Y scientific finding without reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:13 May 09, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\34913.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
11

gard to other scientific findings or policy considerations such as

economic inhibitors or geopolitical concerns.

This committee takes very seriously its responsibility for ensuring individuals remain able to speak freely. Under my chairmanship and with your leadership, Mr. Chairman, we passed hallmark

whistleblower legislation which enhanced the rights of Federal

whistleblowers, giving them protection and confidence as they

speak up. The monumental challenge of climate change is the latest test of free speech and whistleblower protections.

Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this important hearing.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Tom Davis follows:]

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Davis.

I would like to ask, without objection, that we now call on Members in order of seniority in which they appeared at this hearing

for an opening statement, should they wish to make one, not to exceed 3 minutes. Without objection, that will be the order.

I would ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Maryland, Representative Gilchrest, be permitted to participate in this

hearing and in accordance with our committee practices, he will be

recognized for the purpose of an opening statement and questioning

after members of the committee have been recognized. Without objection, so ordered.

I want to call on Mr. Cummings. Is he here?

Mr. Cummings.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I am.

Mr. WAXMAN. OK.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I will submit a statement for the record.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Elijah E. Cummings follows:]

20

21

22

Mr. WAXMAN. Opening statements may be submitted by any

Member for the record, and we will keep the record open for that

purpose.

Mr. Davis, do you have an opening statement?

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I shall be brief.

Global warming is a serious issue and has overarching on our

Nation and our world citizenry for we have only one Mother Earth.

There is no doubt that we must take measures to look into this.

We cannot and must not let politics trump science. Too much is at

stake.

Ask those sufferers of environmental catastrophes from an extraordinarily strong hurricane season, most notably Katrina, to

families who were victims of unsound pesticide regulation, whose

children have suffered from the adverse effects on brain development in fetuses and children.

Numerous well regarded and credible scientists have issued reports with regards to climate change and its far reaching consequences. Any effort by the White House Council on Environmental Quality to alter or undermine the integrity of such factfinding is detrimental. We must take into full account the sound

scientific evidence that some of our best minds have to offer and

begin to comprehensively treat this problem immediately.

Ask the thousands of rescue workers in the World Trade Center

who were told by the EPA that the air was safe. Imagine what

would happen if political tampering of scientific data is acceptable.

This proclamation appears to be premature as our Nation’s heroes

are now plagued by chronic and crippling lung ailments. There are

grave consequences from such action.

Again, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member

Tom Davis, for holding this hearing today. It is long overdue, and

I look forward to the expert panel of witnesses who have come to

share with us.

I yield back any additional time.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Danny K. Davis follows:]

23

24

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Davis.

Mr. Shays.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Quickly, I want to say climate change and global warming are

one and the same for me. When the President submitted, President

Clinton was negotiating the Kyoto agreement, the Senate 100 to 0

said don’t exclude China and India. The treaty came back excluding China and India, and there were only about five Members of

the Senate who supported it. President Clinton never asked for a

vote in the Senate.

My big regret is that President Bush, whatever his feelings were

about the treaty, should have submitted it to the Senate for its consideration without prejudice because I believe frankly that there

would have been less than 20 Members of the Senate who would

have supported the treaty, but now it is like all of them would

have.

I just conclude by saying that anyone who alters scientific research, particularly on issues as important as this, should quit or

should be fired.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Shays.

Mr. Tierney.

OK.

Mr. Clay.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Chairman Waxman and Ranking Member

Davis for holding today’s hearing.

I welcome our witnesses and commend Mr. Piltz and Dr. Shindell

on their courage in coming before this committee to testify about

their experiences with the Bush administration’s policy of misrepresenting global warming data for political reasons. It is apparent that you are both committed to fully disclosing the facts about

global warming.

It is imperative that the integrity of scientific research on global

warming is ensured and that we do everything possible to give our

children and our grandchildren a healthy environment. Reports

that scientists working for Federal agencies have been asked to

change data to fit policy initiatives are seriously disturbing and

given the enormous health risks posed by global warming, it is unconscionable that any scientists would participate in such a dangerous plan.

Emerging threats to health from climate change include malaria,

lime disease and an alarming increase in asthma incidences in the

United States. The American Public Health Association found that

smog, increased pollen and carbon dioxide are fostering an epidemic in asthma in America’s cities. The highest incidences of asthma in the United States are among African American toddlers and

low income toddlers. Inner city children are most at risk for getting

asthma due to poor air quality, increasing temperatures and the

high concentration of carbon dioxide.

Political appointees have no business distorting the facts or denying the realities of global warming. Global warming is not a myth

or a distant threat. It is a reality that demands immediate action

from our Government.

25

We must implement policies to develop more renewable energy

resources to drastically reduce automobile emissions and to end our

dependence on oil and other fossil fuels.

Unfortunately, the Bush administration has shown a blatant disregard for the health of the American people. They have shown

they would rather safeguard the interests of big oil than preserve

the future of planet Earth. This administration has not only failed

to address the assault on climate change, they have contributed to

this crisis.

Global warming poses an overwhelming challenge to our responsibility to protect the Earth for future generations. I look forward

to today’s testimony and working with my colleagues to meet this

challenge and to put an end to this administration’s efforts to deny

or undermine scientific knowledge about the global warming crisis.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time and submit

my statement for the record.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Wm. Lacy Clay follows:]

26

27

28

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Clay.

Mr. Cannon.

Mr. CANNON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

There is some feedback happening in our mic system, I think.

Am I the only one hearing that? It would be really nice to correct

that if we have somebody available to do that.

Mr. WAXMAN. We have people working on it. Let me just ask if

all Members have their mics off in case any mic is on that might

be causing it.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, my mic, when it is off, still works,

or so the switch is. I am not sure if we have a more fundamental

problem here.

Mr. WAXMAN. You ought to be careful what you say when your

mic might be on.

Mr. CANNON. It might be me. [Laughter.]

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, we will make the best of it. We have our best

people working on trying to correct the problem.

Mr. CANNON. One would hope that those would be at least of the

equality of some of the climate change scientists we have in the

world today.

I wanted to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing

and also associate myself with the remarks of the ranking member

and Mr. Shays, in that the fact is I believe there is global warming

and therefore it is a global problem, not just an American problem.

On the other hand, I think there are some serious questions as to

whether or not global warming is actually caused by man or how

much of global warming is caused by man.

What a relief. We can now think. This is all a plot to distort the

thinking of our panel members, I am sure.

I would like to submit a statement for the record, Mr. Chairman,

and not belabor this but point out that science is by nature, especially when science needs to be funded, it is political. Suppression

happens all over the place, and unfortunately suppression is complicated by bad science done by not very smart scientists who have

an agenda that is more a matter of belief of emotion than it is clarity of thinking. In this whole process, I hope we come to be able

to distinguish between what is an agenda and what is science and

what is the data and how do we draw conclusions from that data.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Chris Cannon follows:]

29

30

31

32

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Cannon.

Now we go to Ms. Watson.

Ms. WATSON. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening

today’s hearing and your timeliness on this issue.

The United States has only 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves

but accounts for 25 percent of the world’s energy demand. Of the

global supply, we consume 43 percent of motor gasoline, 25 percent

of crude petroleum, 25 percent of natural gas and 25 percent of

electricity. Currently, American demand for all these commodities

is rising dramatically.

The administration announced in 2002 that reducing greenhouse

emissions and increasing spending on climate research to reduce

emissions 18 percent by 2012 was a top priority, but their actions

have not matched this pledge. Funds have been redirected for these

purposes to spend on nuclear power and other non-renewable programs that do not reduce emissions.

In addition, the allegation of political interference with the work

of Government scientists is an additional example of how this administration is not taking the threat of global warming seriously.

Global warming is occurring at a rapid pace today, and the consensus of the worldwide scientific community is that it will accelerate

during the 21st century.

Global warming and our related energy policies also raise national security concerns. One such concern is the prospect of international destabilization caused by the consequences of global

warming such as the loss of land area or the loss of water resources.

Mr. Chairman, as I have stated in previous hearings on this

issue, we have a chance to start again to create adequate climate

change research and development that we can help our world in

the future. Political interference on this critical issue is unacceptable. We all live under the same skies. We are here today to investigate and resolve these allegations, and politics has no place in

science.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the rest of

my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Ms. Watson.

Mr. Duncan.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Richard Lindzen, who is a professor of atmospheric science at

MIT, a few months ago wrote in the Wall Street Journal about

what he called the alarmism and feeding frenzy surrounding the

climate change/global warming debate, and he said this. He said,

‘‘But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists

who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided and themselves libeled as industry

stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate

change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science

that supposedly is their basis.’’

Professor David Deming, a geophysicist said, ‘‘The media

hysteria on global warming has been generated by journalists who

don’t understand the provisional and uncertain nature of scientific

knowledge. Science changes.’’

33

Robert Bradley, president of the Institute for Energy Research,

wrote this in the Washington Times. He said ‘‘The emotional, politicized debate over global warming has produced a fire, ready,

aim mentality despite great and still growing scientific uncertainty

about the problem.’’

He went on to say, he said, ‘‘Still, climate alarmists demand a

multitude of do-somethings to address the problem they are sure

exist and is solvable. They pronounce the debate over in their favor

and call their critics names such as deniers, as in Holocaust

deniers. This has created a bad climate for scientific research and

for policymaking. In fact, the debate is more than unsettled.’’

I appreciate your calling this hearing. This issue has become

very politicized and emotional. It appears that most of those who

support and say most of the alarmists about global warming are

people who are funded directly or indirectly by the Federal Government. So we need to look into these things and see what the real

truth is in this situation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you for your comments.

Mr. Lynch.

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the ranking

member for holding this hearing.

I am going to submit my official remarks in the interest of time

to the record, but I do want to say thank you to the panelists for

coming before this committee and helping us with our work.

With all due respect to my colleague who spoke previously, this

is not a hearing on alarmism or the quality and integrity of the information that has been delivered to the Congress and to the White

House by the scientific community. This is a hearing that will investigate allegations that attorneys, not scientists, attorneys formerly employed by the American Petroleum Institute, edited scientific documents that were meant to alert the public and alert the

Congress to the effects of global warming. This is a hearing that

will look into whether or not that data, that information, that scientific information that we would rely upon was distorted by this

White House. That is what we are investigating here.

We appreciate the courage of the panelists that have stepped forward to help Congress in making that decision. This is very troubling, not only in the sense that scientific data had been distorted

and there had been an attempt to misinform the American people

but also the concerted pattern and practice of this White House to

censor these scientists has a chilling effect not only on these individuals but on a wider scientific community.

We are here to exercise the right of the American people to get

the truth. That is what we are here for today. It is not to debate

the degree to which the atmosphere is warming or the extent to

which global warming will impact us over the coming years and

decades. This is really a question about governmental integrity and

whether we are partners with our scientific community to protect

the interests not only of the American people but our partners

around the world.

I appreciate that this chairman has had the courage to put this

issue right out in front. It is the first hearing of this committee,

and I think it sends a great message to the American people and

34

to the scientific community that the work that they do is greatly

appreciated and welcomed by this Congress.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back the balance of my

time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Lynch.

Mr. Issa.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. I think he stepped out.

Mr. WAXMAN. Oh, he stepped out. Then we will go to Ms. Foxx.

Mr. Platts.

Mr. Gilchrest, OK.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, just a very brief comment that is a little off topic but it sort of is relevant to this issue

of whether or not there is enough scientific evidence to display for

the administration or anybody else that there is human activity

causing the climate to change.

I would urge my colleagues to contact National Geographic. They

have a genographic program where they have converged anthropologists and geneticists to see where your ancestors came from,

and I participated in that, gave my DNA and the markers in my

DNA went from here to Ireland to Spain all the way to Ethiopia

about 50,000 years ago. The way they were able to do that, and by

the way they spent about 5,000 years in Iran about 35,000 years

ago before they migrated further west.

The point is that there are DNA markers in human DNA that

can actually be traced over millenniums back thousands and tens

of thousands of years if we converge those two scientists, anthropologists and geneticists.

If we do the same thing with the atmosphere, we converge meteorologists, atmospheric scientists with chemists and a variety of

other people, you can trace the markers in CO2 or methane or any

one of the other atmospheric gases back not thousands of years but

millions of years. When you look at those markers, those radioactive isotopes, 800,000 years ago to just today, you can tell where

the CO2 comes from.

Does it come from a volcano? Does it come from soybeans? Does

it come from burning forests? They all produce C02. The markers,

the distinctive markers, burning gasoline produces a marker in the

CO2 that is different from the marker in CO2 coming out of volcanos.

The point is there is an extraordinary amount of science that an

individual, a Member of Congress, for example, pursuing an objective analysis can make a fairly quick determination by talking to

a variety of interests in the scientific community to, yes, determine

that the natural range of fluctuation has been interrupted, disrupted in the last hundred years to produce a huge increase in CO2

from burning fossil fuel, and the markers are present there.

Is science 100 percent? There is a principle of uncertainty that

has been in the scientific community for quite some time, and the

principle of uncertainty is that science is always working in the

edge of the unknown. So a sense of tolerance to that result by us,

I think, is pretty vital.

I really appreciate the fact that the chairman and the ranking

member are holding this hearing today.

Thank you.

35

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Gilchrest.

Mr. Higgins.

Mr. HIGGINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have no opening statement. I thank you for calling this hearing,

and I look forward to the testimony of the expert panel that you

have assembled.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you.

Mr. Braley.

Mr. SALI. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WAXMAN. Yes.

Mr. SALI. May I be recognized for an opening statement?

Mr. WAXMAN. The gentleman is recognized.

Mr. SALI. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Davis, it is a pleasure for me

to join this distinguished committee. I look forward to serving with

you as we do what we have been charged with: to examine fairly

and honestly Government programs, contracts and expenditures.

Today we begin these activities in the new Congress by reviewing

the administration’s actions with respect to the study of global climate change, but as all of us know, the issue before us is not really

climate change itself. It is whether the Bush administration has

manipulated facts, prevented scientific investigation or otherwise

obstructed honest study of this critical issue.

Mr. Chairman, I must say that the idea the administration has

stifled inquiry and action is a bit hard for me to swallow. From

2001 through 2006, this administration devoted more than $25 billion to programs related to climate change, $25 billion, and where

I am from in Idaho, that is a pretty good chunk of change. In addition, in 2003 and 2004 alone, in part due to the administration

policies, U.S. greenhouse gas intensity dropped by about 4.5 percent. In the 2005 energy bill, the administration obtained $5 billion

in tax incentives over a 5-year period for what it calls, ‘‘go clean

energy systems and highly efficient vehicles, mandatory renewable

fuel and energy efficiency standards.’’

The Bush administration’s Advanced Energy Initiative is increasing by 22 percent Department of Energy research funding to help

refine clean energy technologies to the point that they can be used

effectively and at a modest price by ordinary Americans.

Mr. Chairman, these actions are not the hallmarks of an administration that is seeking to curtail research or force certain results.

President Bush and his team are committed to serious, effective

and practical research and action. They put a lot of Federal money

where the public commitments have been made, a lot of money.

This administration has been working to safeguard our resources,

reduce greenhouse gas emissions and at the same time help American manufacturing and mining and metal industries remain

strong and competitive in the global marketplace.

To cripple our industrial sector in the name of environmental

quality is not good public policy or good science. It is mere ideology,

zealotry in the name of environmental extremism. The Bush administration has taken a much more balanced course, and I applaud it.

Mr. Chairman, I am concerned with the tenor of this hearing,

with the general approach we will be taking in the next 2 years.

I believe in oversight, in asking hard questions and in demanding

36

appropriate accountability, but today’s hearing seems less about

finding answers than making an argument. I hope that perception

is incorrect or if it is accurate, I hope it is not a foretaste of a partisan contention that will be cloaked as oversight.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Bill Sali follows:]

37

38

39

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you.

Mr. Braley.

Mr. BRALEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ranking

Member Davis, for giving us the opportunity to discuss these important issues today.

With all respect to my distinguished colleague from Idaho, I

think that one of the biggest problems that we have right now with

the Bush administration is captured in this Congress Daily A.M.

headline, Panel Steamed Over Withheld Documents, which focuses

on respect for the rule of law, respect for the jurisdiction of this

committee and the deliberate withholding of information requested

over a 6-month period in a bipartisan spirit, not just by this committee Chair but by the former Chair and the ranking member,

and that sets a tone that I think should cause us all concern about

the impact that the administration is having on the conduct of

oversight in this Congress.

I have a portrait in my office of one of my heroes, Clarence

Darrow, someone who stood up for the integrity of the scientific inquiry and academic freedom and stood up for accountability and

the rule of fact over fiction. I had the great privilege of graduating

from the Iowa State University of Science and Technology where

the first digital computing system was invented, and one of the

things I know is that people who work in an academic environment

need to have assurances that their inquiries will be free from political influence. That is what distinguishes us from other countries

around the world and gives us the opportunity to make great advances as we have seen over the entire history of this country.

One of the things I also know is that the Federal court system

has set up a gatekeeping system to make sure that testimony presented in a court of law has the credibility of scientific inquiry behind it. Things like making sure that those scientific theories have

been tested through peer review journals is an indication of what

stands for academic freedom, stands for preservation of the integrity of the scientific process and the free marketplace of ideas. We

need to get back to that system. We need to diminish the role of

politics so that our scientists have the ability to give us the great

discoveries we have come to depend upon them in making this

country the place that it is.

I look forward to working with the committee, and I also want

to comment on how much appreciation I have for our witnesses

today. I know what it is like to represent clients who have sat in

your shoes. It doesn’t take a lot of courage to sit back here and

make comments and ask questions. It takes a tremendous amount

of courage to sit where you are, and we appreciate your willingness

to come and share your thoughts with us.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Braley.

Mr. Issa.

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I too want to echo earlier remarks that this has been a committee that on a bipartisan basis has been frustrated by an inability,

not just in this area but in a number of areas, to get the kind of

candid response and respect for the oversight responsibility of the

Congress. I certainly hope today that this hearing will deal with

40

the facts as to whether or not oversight is going to be properly done

and respected in the future, and I say so for a couple of reasons.

First of all, I think that the people out in the hinterland watching this, even the people in the gallery here today, understand that

global warming is not a secret hidden from the American people by

the Government. Certainly, Mr. Sali said it very well. There have

been huge amounts of money, huge amounts of awareness as to

global warming. There is a debate going on as to what part the

human being plays in it and how much of it is simply us coming

out of a mini ice age, and I believe good science should be used,

employed, paid for and deliver us answers so that we can make intelligent decisions.

Additionally, this committee in the last Congress spent a lot of

time through our oversight hearings, realizing that CO2 was only

going to be beat by non-CO2 products which includes nuclear, a

subject that often is by the same people who insist on ending global

warming is also rejected. I am hoping we can do that and more.

I do recognize that this is a highly charged political subject, but

it is my sincere hope that this committee will continue working on

a bipartisan basis to recognize that as Presidents come and go, as

Congresses change from one side to the other side having the chairman’s gavel, that this committee has an ongoing responsibility, we

take it seriously and we expect to get answers to our questions

from whomever occupies the Oval Office or more specifically by the

bureaucrats who stay there throughout one administration after

another and tend to resist. That is what we are here, I hope, today

to do is to recognize that it is time for us to assert our oversight

role and insist on it.

With that, I yield back and thank the chairman.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Issa.

Ms. Norton.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this hearing, but I

am sure that millions of Americans thank you for this hearing. I

appreciate that you have made this your first hearing. So far as I

know, it is the first hearing on global warming to be held in the

House this session, and I know you have not simply gone down a

list and picked this one out.

This issue, the fate of the planet itself, simply has no rival in importance. Because the issue has somehow in our country become

controversial—I am not sure that is true in most advanced countries—such a hearing might be perceived as blame-laying, but the

reason for this hearing for Congress is surely to make sure that actions are taken and that information is not ever again suppressed.

We need to be full speed ahead on this one. The elements that comprise global warming have a huge head start on this hearing.

Mr. Chairman, the independence of church and state is gospel in

our country. Well, the independence of science from politics ought

to be the same in Government. We have the best science in the

world. Its word has always been its bond. When we consider the

dangers to public health and to the planet itself, the politicization

of science is itself a catastrophe that simply must be avoided.

Apparently, there had been one peer study, over against the hundreds, that said there wasn’t global warming, but this administraVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:13 May 09, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\34913.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
41

tion chose to side with those who said no. There were no nuances

apparent in its view.

At the moment, the administration is defending in the Supreme

Court of the United States, the position that CO2 is not covered by

the Clean Air Act. Without getting into the technicalities, that

takes a huge stretch if you know anything about the act. Now the

courts have to decide the issue, and if I know the courts, they will

try to find some procedural way to avoid a scientific issue that

shouldn’t be there and shouldn’t be in politics at all.

We do not have the luxury, Mr. Chairman, of making up for lost

time on this one. We have done that historically: disregard the

losses; there will be more where that came from. Already, my great

fear is that it is too late when you see glaciers melting. I know of

no science that is likely to refreeze the glaciers or to reproduce

their majesty.

Mr. Chairman, I live and hope and only hope it is not already

too late and I thank you again for this hearing.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Ms. Norton.

Ms. McCollum.

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership

on this important issue.

I would also like to express my appreciation to the witnesses

with us here today for their efforts in calling attention to the disturbing pattern of interference and abuse of science surrounding

global climate change. I applaud each of you for having the courage

to have your voice heard.

In my home State of Minnesota, we are uniquely affected by

changing climate patterns because of our geography. We are at the

intersection of three major ecosystems. Minnesota and Minnesotans

are experiencing the effects of climate change, and my constituents

are demanding action. Global climate change is one of the greatest

challenges facing this Nation. We know that meaningful solutions

will demand unprecedented cooperation, innovation, commitment

and urgency.

Over the past 6 years, enormous scientific consensus supporting

the reality of global climate change did not fit the administration’s

agenda. As we have seen in other situations when reality doesn’t

fit the script, the White House rewrites reality to fit the script.

Tragically, the Bush administration has led an effort to suppress

and distort the science of global warming while providing protection and ensuring massive profits for the petroleum industry.

Is this why the Bush administration feels so threatened by the

issue of climate change that it engages in a calculated campaign

to manipulate scientific documents and intimidate science? What

justification does the administration give us for these actions?

Congress has the responsibility and the duty to find the answers

as to why the administration officials acted as they did, but the impacts of the administration’s interference with the science of global

climate change are already known. It is undermined the integrity

of numerous Federal agencies. It has recklessly harmed the careers

of many respected professionals. It has delayed popular consensus

on the need to take action against global warming. I fear America

will look back on the bush administration as the lost years: lost talent, lost time, lost solutions.

42

While there is a need for science in the realm of political debate,

we must fiercely guard against the intrusion of politics into scientific research and discovery, and that is why today’s hearing is

an essential first step. Through transparency, we will find accountability. Through accountability, we will create a new and higher

standard, one in which science is required and the science that is

given to the American people is correct and accurate.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Ms. McCollum.

Mr. Cooper.

Mr. COOPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, for the record, I would like to take note of a recent book

called the Republican War on Science by Chris Mooney. It is excellent reading. I can’t help but note it has a blurb on the back from

our distinguished chairman recommending that people read it.

Second, let me mention a dinner party I attended about 2

months ago here in Washington. The honoree was John Negroponte

who was then the director of National Intelligence. He was there

to receive an environmental award. It was very interesting because

in anticipation of his remarks, word slipped through the crowd that

he was not allowed to utter the words, global warming, at least not

in the same sentence. Apparently, he was allowed to say the word,

global, in a separate sentence and warming in a separate sentence,

but not together. It sort of became a little parlor game during his

remarks to see how closely he would fit the words, global and

warming and not incur the wrath of the White House.

I thought this was a sad statement of the current condition of

our scientific community when a top and very eminent statesman

like John Negroponte would be so hamstrung by the administration

that he would not be allowed to utter the two words in conjunction.

I thought that was an indignity to Mr. Negroponte and a sad comment on the level of the Bush administration to so hamstring its

talented and capable appointees. Sadly, this is an effort on the part

of the administration that has been going on for a long time.

Another must read book is by Christine Todd Whitman, the

former EPA Administrator, entitled It’s My Party Too. In this book,

she chronicles how President Bush promised in the campaign to do

something about carbon emissions, then reversed his promise at

the urging of four Republican Senators who were named in the

book: Chuck Hagel, Jesse Helms, Larry Craig and Pat Roberts.

This reversal took place while Christine Todd Whitman was negotiating on behalf of the United States in Trieste in Europe. So before she flew back, her legs were completely cut out from underneath her, embarrassing America and undercutting science in our

community.

This is not a Democratic diatribe. This is a Bush cabinet official’s

memoirs. What a sad condition our country has fallen into.

I commend the scientists who will testify today. I am sorry I will

not be able to be here for your entire testimony, but I look forward

to reading it in detail.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Cooper.

Mr. Hodes.

Mr. HODES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this hearing.

43

In New Hampshire, we talk a lot about the weather, and folks

where I come from notice that the weather is changing. We don’t

have a lot of snow this year. But we are not here to talk about the

weather, and we are not here to talk about money spent or

unspent. We are here to investigate rank political abuse.

We live in an information age. When we as a Nation and as global citizens face rapidly changing climatic conditions, the integrity

of scientific research is critical to wise policymaking.

Before coming to Congress, I read numerous articles documenting concerns about the interference by the Bush administration

with the conclusions of Government scientists. Allowing politics to

trump science is dangerous business. Disinformation was once

thought of as a fictional Orwellian construct. If it has happened

here, we need to bring it out in the open and help restore good scientific practices without fear of retaliation, reprisal and control by

political officials.

The American people need good data and good science, not

disinformation. If we are to effectively address global warming and

make the right policy decisions, we need science unimpeded by political concerns.

I thank the panelists for appearing. It takes courage to come and

tell the truth, but the American people want it, they need it and,

as Members of Congress, we expect it. So, thank you very much.

I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you for your statement.

Mr. Murphy.

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, on my walk to the Capitol this morning, I passed

a line of cherry trees that up until a few weeks ago had been

blooming. Frankly, the sight of a cherry tree in the middle of winter, blooming, concerns me and a lot of us very deeply. I know why

the tree was blooming. The high temperature on December 1st was

75 degrees. The high on January 6th was 70 degrees and 67 on the

15th. Whether this is an anomaly of the season or a sign of a trend,

I don’t know, but today it feels like winter and I am pretty relieved.

There is unequivocal scientific evidence that the Earth is warming due to human activities, specifically to the release of carbon dioxide emissions in the air. One would think that given these facts,

the President would appoint someone amongst the talented pool of

scientists in this country to look into the question. But proving

once again that this President never misses an opportunity to miss

an opportunity.

Who does he appoint? A lawyer with no scientific training, a

former oil industry lobbyist whose primary responsibility on certain

days seemed to be disproving the link between greenhouse gases

and the companies he was representing.

If you look at the EPA’s Web site on climate change, you will

read ‘‘that a causal link between the buildup of greenhouse gases

in the atmosphere and the observed climate change during the

20th Century cannot be unequivocally established.’’ Given the data

that this committee, Mr. Chairman, has uncovered into the Bush

administration’s political interference in the scientific community,

we should not be surprised.

44

I thank the panel for having the courage to be here with us

today. I look forward to your testimony, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much.

Mr. Sarbanes.

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you

for holding this hearing today on the science of global climate

change. This is the first substantive hearing I have had the opportunity to participate in as a newly elected Member of this body,

and I believe the subject matter could not be more appropriate.

In my own State of Maryland and especially within the Third

Congressional District, we have a strong tradition of environmental

advocacy rooted in a passion for the Chesapeake Bay, but the

Chesapeake Bay, which is our Nation’s largest estuary, does not escape the consequences of global warming. In fact, as a result of

global warming, sea levels in the Chesapeake Bay area have risen

at alarming levels over the last 100 years. If continued unchecked,

this phenomenon will cause entire bay islands to be submerged and

destroy diverse plant and wildlife habitat across the bay watershed. Such a calamity would have a profound environmental and

ecological impact but would also devastate Maryland’s tourism and

seafood industries.

The scope of the challenge of global warming is international, but

its impact on people in communities can be seen in how it has affected areas like the Chesapeake Bay region. Likewise, change

must begin by examining our own personal behaviors and our own

National energy policy which overwhelmingly depends on fossil

fuels. Promoting change will be difficult, however, if the administration continues its systematic effort to understate the threat of

global warming.

Mr. Chairman, effective and responsive governance at all levels

depends on receiving accurate and timely information. All too often,

this administration has disregarded or in some cases suppressed

information that does not support its particular ideological or political agenda. We have seen this pattern in the run-up to the Iraq

War, in the crafting of the Medicare prescription drug legislation

and, as is being demonstrated today, in the approach to global climate change.

Today’s hearing marks the beginning of a march back to factbased decisionmaking at the highest levels of our Government.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for your efforts to illuminate the true

science of global climate change. I look forward to working with my

colleagues to address this problem in a meaningful way. Today’s

hearing is not just about preserving our natural climate. It is about

preserving the climate for open and honest scientific research and

discussion.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Sarbanes.

Mr. Welch.

Mr. WELCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

For decades, the issues of climate change has focused on debate

about science, and today the overwhelming scientific research

shows that global warming is real, it is urgent and it requires immediate action. That consensus has not always been present with

45

only a shrinking minority remaining as skeptics, but more often

than not that skepticism has been driven by politics or economic

motivations, not the facts. We have learned that outspoken scientists dedicated to following the facts where they lead have had

their sound conclusions altered by those motivated by politics, not

the truth, and scientists at the seven agencies that study climate

change have reported such widespread abuses.

Politically motivated suppression of science is not only irresponsible but highlights a careless and reckless disregard for the public

that all of us are here to serve. We have an opportunity to investigate that because it is critically important to our future. The true

test of leadership for scientists, for people in politics is an ability

to face directly the realities that are often times difficult. To help

us do that, we need honest scientific conclusions.

I applaud the gentlemen who are here today to testify and provide us with their best scientific evidence.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield the balance of my time.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Welch.

Mr. Yarmuth.

Mr. YARMUTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am anxious to hear the witnesses, so I would like to submit my

prepared remarks for the record.

But I would just like to add that one thing I think we all can

agree on is that in the area of global climate change, the Government, the Federal Government, has a critical role to play. Therefore, when it speaks, it has to speak with complete authority and

credibility, and that can only be achieved if it is not unduly influenced by personal political agendas or by the agenda of special interests. I think these hearings can contribute to a large extent to

creating that degree of credibility when the Government does speak

on climate change, and I commend the chairman for organizing

these hearings.

I yield back.

[The prepared statement of Hon. John A. Yarmuth follows:]

46

47

48

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Yarmuth.

Mr. Kucinich.

Mr. KUCINICH. I thank the Chair for holding this hearing. One

has to ask: do you have to be a scientist to know that there is

something quite unusual going on with our global climate? Do you

have to be a Member of Congress to understand it?

All over the world, people have seen the effects of global climate

change: the intensity of storms, the frequency of droughts, the destruction of crops, rising sea levels, changes in migration patterns.

I don’t need a scientist to tell me this is happening because I see

it myself.

The problem comes when you get scientists who tell you something that is different from what you are seeing with your own

eyes. Why do we even get trapped into that type of thinking?

Remember the long parade of witnesses who used to come in

front of congressional committees, generations ago and put TV commercials on the air that would tell people smoking was good for

them. It was glamorous, sexy. That was backed by science.

Today we have a planet that is smoking, and we are told that,

don’t worry, be happy. Yet we have seen scientific evidence presented and then subverted by this administration. We paid for the

scientific studies, and then when the studies come forward, they

are dismissed. We are not even getting what we are paying for.

We are all citizens of the same planet, at least we would hope

we are. We have a common destiny. We should share common concerns about the stability of the global climate and act to protect our

planet. We need to challenge the type of thinking which separates

us from our natural environment.

Almost 30 years ago, a philosopher by the name of Morris Berman wrote a book called the Reenchantment of the World, who

talked about the fundamental problem which comes from when

human beings separate themselves from the very environment in

which they breath in, which they drink. That type of thinking, that

us versus them type of thinking, that dichotomist type thinking not

only separates us from each other, but it is a precursor of war

itself.

This hearing becomes important when we understand our common aspirations to aspire to a stable global climate, about our common concerns which should be expressed, about great fluctuations

in temperatures and the regular weather patterns. These changes

in weather patterns, the more intense storms including hurricanes,

Hurricane Katrina, ought to cause us to seek out scientists who are

free to give us their best advice.

There is substantial scientific certainty about climate change.

Scientists are confident that global warming is happening. The vast

majority of experts on the issue agree that human activities are to

blame. I mean this is a call for leadership which unites the American people in taking a new direction for not just energy conservation but the development of alternative energies, green energies.

But what happens is because scientific information is brought forward which disputes global climate change, the kind of massive

unity that we need to take a new direction is slowed.

I thank the Chair for holding this hearing and for his consistent

leadership over the years to reclaim human dignity. Thank you.

49

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much for your testimony.

Unfortunately, one of the glitches of this hearing today is that

the green light seems to be on forever even if the time is expired.

We will try to work that out, but at least we stopped the static for

everyone.

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Everywhere I go in

life, there is a green light. I appreciate that. [Laughter.]

Mr. WAXMAN. To close out the opening statements, I want to call

on the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Van Hollen.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for

your leadership in this very important issue.

I think we can all agree that everybody is entitled to their own

opinions, but not everybody is entitled to their own facts. We as a

Nation invest billions of dollars every year in scientific research,

whether it is at NIH, whether it is at EPA, whether it is at NOAA,

and that is an investment made by the taxpayers and that investment is only as good as the reliability of the science that comes

from that investment.

That is why it is essential that the science that we do as a Federal Government is done free from political interference because if

facts become twisted by the politics, then that is money wasted,

taxpayer money wasted. I am afraid that over the past many years

we have seen that kind of political interference. We all know of political science as one realm of inquiry. Under this administration,

unfortunately, much more of science has become political science,

and it is not just in the area of global climate change although that

has been exhibit A.

Here on Capitol Hill, the tone with respect to that debate was

set by people like one of our colleagues on the Senate side who

used to chair the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Inhofe, who said, ‘‘Global warming is the greatest hoax

ever perpetuated on the American people.’’

This Congress in the past and the administration helped set the

tone at the top that was placed over our scientists, our public servants who do this work day by day, trying to get at the right answers. The result has been a twisting of the science, not just in the

area of global climate change.

The Government Reform Committee looked at this question

when it came to mercury control and regulations. In fact, the Inspector General, the independent Inspector General at the EPA

found just more than a year ago that there had been interference

through the political process on the science of mercury poisoning,

the development of regulations in that area. This has been a problem endemic from the top in this administration.

I represent a lot of Federal employees. I happen to represent a

district that includes NIH, that includes NOAA, that includes the

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, many others. Those are good people who are just trying to do their work and get at the facts and

get the science for the benefit of the American people. I can tell you

when I am able to talk to them one on one, when the political

minders are not around, they tell me about the chilling effect from

the top on the work that is done and on the influence that is

brought to bear from the top on their work. I think it is high time

that we had a thaw in that chilling influence, and I think this

50

hearing and this new day on Capitol Hill is part of setting that

new tone.

Science should be fact-driven. We should not be driven by the political vagaries of any administration, whether it be Republican or

Democrat. I think that is the message that we want to send to the

good people in our Government who are working every day on behalf of the American people to get the answers.

Mr. Chairman, let me just close on this. Yesterday evening, we

had a hearing in Montgomery County, a bipartisan hearing, on legislation that has been proposed in the Congress on mental health

and insurance coverage for mental health. Congressman Patrick

Kennedy and Congressman Jim Ramstad, Democrat and Republican, had been going around the country on these issues.

We invited a member, a representative from the National Institutes of Mental Health to testify, and that individual wanted to

testify and 2 weeks ago was preparing testimony. We asked them

only for their testimony on the science, mental health issues, the

science of the brain. We weren’t asking them to take a position on

the legislation. We wanted to hear about the science. They were

prepared to come.

Yesterday just before we had the hearing, they were notified by

their political minders at NIH that they could not come to a hearing attended by Members of Congress, Republicans and Democrats

alike.

It seems to me if the people in this country are making the kind

of investment they are at NIH, that we should be able to have the

benefit of their testimony, whether that hearing is held here in the

U.S. Congress by members of the committee or in our districts, especially when the representative from NIH is an expert in the field

and leader in the field and was eager to testify. It is just another

example, it seems to me, of the politics getting in the way of allowing our public servants to inform the public about the best results

from their scientific inquiry.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. I thank the

witnesses for being here.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Van Hollen.

I thank all the Members for their opening statements.

We are now going to hear from the witnesses who have been described as courageous, but I also want to describe them as patient.

Let me introduce the witnesses.

We have Dr. Francesca Grifo, senior scientist and director of the

Union of Concerned Scientists, Scientific Integrity Program. She

has over 20 years of experience directing science-based projects and

programs. She holds a Ph.D. in botany from Cornell University.

Rick Piltz is the director of Climate Science Watch, a program

that aims to hold public officials accountable for using climate research with integrity and effectiveness in addressing the challenge

of global climate change. From April 1995 until March 2005, Mr.

Piltz worked at the U.S. Climate Change Science Program where

he coordinated scientific research on climate change.

Dr. Drew Shindell is an atmospheric physicist who studies climate change in atmospheric physics. He has worked at NASA’s

Goddard Institute for Space Studies for the last 12 years. In 2004,

51

Scientific American Magazine named Dr. Shindell one of the top 50

scientists in the country.

Dr. Roger Pielke is a political scientist who has been on the faculty of the University of Colorado since 2001. He is a professor in

the Environmental Studies Program and a fellow of the Cooperative Institute for Research in the Environmental Sciences.

It is our practice in this committee to swear in, so if you would

please rise, I would like to administer the oath.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. WAXMAN. The record will note that each witness answered

in the affirmative.

I would like to ask each of the witnesses to give a brief summary

of their testimony, to keep this summary under 5 minutes duration. Unfortunately, that light may not tell you when the 5-minutes

is up, but I will let you know when the 5-minutes is up and then

we would appreciate a concluding statement. Your written testimony that has been submitted in advance will be made part of the

record in full.

We thank you for being here.

Dr. Grifo, why don’t we start with you.

STATEMENTS OF FRANCESCA GRIFO, SENIOR SCIENTIST AND

DIRECTOR OF THE SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY PROGRAM,

UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS; RICK PILTZ, FORMER

SENIOR ASSOCIATE, U.S. CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE PROGRAM; DREW SHINDELL, GODDARD INSTITUTE FOR SPACE

STUDIES, NATIONAL AERODYNAMICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION; ROGER PIELKE, JR., PROFESSOR, ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES PROGRAM, UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO

AND FELLOW, COOPERATIVE INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH IN

THE ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES

STATEMENT OF FRANCESCA GRIFO

Ms. GRIFO. Good morning, and thank you, Mr. Chairman and

members of the committee for the opportunity to be here and address you. I come representing the Union of Concerned Scientists

and scientists across the country.

Political interference is harming Federal science and threatening

the health and safety of Americans. Over 1,800 Federal scientists

from multiple agencies have reported concerns. Six hundred and

ninety-nine scientists, that is 39 percent of our respondents across

nine agencies have reported that they fear retaliation for openly expressing their concerns about mission-driven work of their agencies.

Four hundred and thirty-two scientists from five agencies reported that they were not able to publish work in peer review journals if it did not adhere to agency policies. That was 25 percent of

our respondents.

From the report we are releasing today, 150 Federal climate scientists report personally experiencing at least one incident of political interference in the past 5 years for a total of at least 435 incidents.

All branches of Government must have access to independent scientific advice. The thousands of scientists in the employ of the FedVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:13 May 09, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\34913.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
52

eral Government represent a tremendous resource. We need strong

action to restore integrity to Federal science in order to be prepared to face the complex challenges ahead of us.

The Union of Concerned Scientists has documented scores of examples of such abuses in our online A to Z Guide to Political Interference in Science. This interference can take many forms from

censorship and suppression of Federal science to dissemination of

inaccurate scientific results and science-based information to the

manipulation of scientific advice. Over 11,000 scientists including

52 Nobel laureates and numerous other luminaries and science advisors to both Republican and Democratic Presidents dating back

to the Eisenhower administration have signed our statement calling for a restoration of scientific integrity.

Our investigations demonstrate that the problem goes deeper

than just the high profile incidents and includes new examples

from NOAA and NASA as well as the voices of hundreds of climate

scientists from seven Federal agencies. Our investigations found

high quality science struggling to get out. Nearly half of all respondents perceived or personally experienced pressure to eliminate the words, climate change, global warming or other similar

terms from a variety of communications. Forty-three percent personally experienced or perceived changes or edits during the review

of documents that changed the meaning of scientific findings.

Barriers to communication hinder our National ability to prepare

and respond to protect future generations from the consequences of

global warming. Our investigation uncovered numerous examples

of public affairs officers at Federal agencies taking an active role

in regulating communications between agency scientists and the

media, in effect, serving as gatekeepers for scientific information.

We found agency climate scientists who had their press inquiries

routed to other scientists whose views more closely matched administration policy and who routinely encountered difficulty in obtaining approval for official press releases. Two-thirds of respondents

said that today’s environment for Federal Government climate research is worse compared with 5 years ago and 10 years ago. Both

scientists and journalists report that restrictive media policies and

practices have hampered the communication between Government

scientists and the news media. This limits the extent to which new

scientific findings can enter the public and policy debate.

The report includes a model media policy which encompasses the

following: whistleblower protections, Congress must act to protect

scientists who speak out when they see interference or suppression

of science and all agency policies must affirmatively educate their

employees of their rights under these statutes.

Scientific freedoms, Federal scientists have a constitutional right

to speak about any subject, so long as the scientists make clear

that they do so in their private capacity. Scientists must also have

a right of last review on agency communications related to their research.

Scientific openness, scientists should not be subject to restrictions on media contacts beyond a policy of informing public affairs

officials in advance of an interview and summarizing the interaction for them afterwards. Federal agencies should support the

free exchange of scientific information in all venues.

53

I just want to close with a quote from a NASA scientist from our

survey. ‘‘Civil survey scientists and engineers can and should be an

unbiased reservoir of insights into different questions. If we can’t

be trusted to give insights on global change and funded to do so,

who in the world will do it?’’

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Grifo follows:]

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much for your testimony.

Before calling on Mr. Piltz, I understand that in order to get the

timer to register on the front table, there needs to be an adjustment and we are going to have one of our people make that adjustment. I understand there may be a loud pop, so please don’t get

excited.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, it took us most of those 12 years to get

that working right, so good luck.

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, we are going to do it in 1 minute, we hope.

[Laughter.]

If not, we expect to have 12 years to work on it, at least.

Mr. Piltz, we will now hear from you. We welcome you here.

Let me, just for housekeeping purposes, ask unanimous consent

that all of the statements submitted by our witnesses will be made

part of the record. Without objection, that will be the order.

Mr. Piltz.

STATEMENT OF RICK PILTZ

Mr. PILTZ. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Davis, members of

the committee, I greatly appreciate the opportunity to present testimony at this hearing, and there is considerable more detail in my

written testimony.

I endorse all of the conclusions and recommendations in the

Joint Union of Concerns Scientists Government Accountability

Project Report and to complement that, my testimony will focus on

the administration’s treatment of the National Assessment of Climate Change Impacts and the problem of the White House Council

on Environmental Quality.

From April 1995 until March 2005, I worked in the Coordination

Office of what is now called the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, the Federal multi-agency Federal program that supports the

scientific research on climate and associated global environmental

change. I had various responsibilities and worked on many projects

during those 10 years. I worked directly with the agency leadership

and with the senior professional staff in the Coordination Office.

One key ongoing project for which I was responsible involved coordinating the development of and editing nine editions of the annual report to Congress, Our Changing Planet, which represents

the governmentwide research program. In doing that, I would compile and edit into accessible language the contributions of about 90

scientists and science program managers in the Federal agencies

and labs. Those reports were carefully reviewed and vetted and

signed off on by the agency experts, and then they would go to the

Executive Office of the President for final editing and the review

and clearance before publication.

During the 2001–2005 timeframe, I came increasingly to the conclusion that the administration was acting to impede forthright

communication of the state of climate science and its implications

for society and that the politicization of climate science communication by the current administration was undermining the credibility

and integrity of the Climate Change Science Program in its relationship to the research community, to the program managers, to

policymakers and to the public. So in March 2005, I left the program office, resigning my position in protest.

72

I saw that the problem was manifested especially at the points

at which scientifically based information regarding climate change

was communicated to a wider audience, to Congress, to the public.

It wasn’t so much a matter of interfering with what scientists were

publishing in geophysical research letters or other technical journals. It was when the science would come forward to be communicated to a wider audience, that the political gatekeepers would

step in.

Now, I am not a climate scientist by academic training, and I

don’t debate technical issues. I will leave that for Dr. Shindell and

other eminent climate scientists, but I can tell you what happens

when the climate science comes forward into this arena of wider

communication and the collision between science and politics.

Really among the issues that I regard as politically significant,

particularly significant in this politicization, was the administration’s treatment of the National Assessment of Climate Change Impacts which was carried in the 1997–2000 timeframe pursuant to

the Global Change Research Act of 1990. This was a report that

was developed by a panel of climate and ecosystem scientists and

other experts that is to this day the most systematic and comprehensive effort to assess the potential implications of global

warming and climate change for the United States. The report

identified a range of likely adverse societal and environmental impacts.

This report has essentially been made to vanish by the Bush administration, all reference to it by Federal agencies has been prohibited. All use of it in reports to Congress and other climate

change communications has been suppressed. The scientist stakeholder networks that developed this report have been abandoned

and no follow-on work of a comparable sort has been undertaken.

I discuss this in considerably greater detail in my written testimony, but starting in 2002, the White House Council on Environmental Quality placed Phillip Cooney as Chief of Staff at the table

as part of the governance of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program. Now CEQ is a policy shop, not a science office. It is my understanding that Mr. Cooney was the proximate agent of the White

House’s directive to the Federal agencies to suppress the National

Climate Assessment. Of course, he was not acting independently.

He was an operative in a chain of command leading up to CEQ

chairman on to the President, but there are many aspects of the

way CEQ intervened to manipulate communication on climate

change and this was one example.

In conclusion, in addition to the UCS GAP recommendations, I

would recommend it is very important to revitalize this national

assessment process. Every member, I think, has a vital interest in

this regional level, sectoral level analysis of putting the top experts

together with direct communication with policymakers and other

stakeholders to diagnose the problems and develop solutions. What

you need, I think, is this direct unimpeded communication between

the experts and policymakers and get the gatekeepers out of the

way.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Piltz follows:]

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Piltz.

Dr. Shindell.

STATEMENT OF DREW SHINDELL

Mr. SHINDELL. Good morning, and I thank the committee.

Mr. WAXMAN. There is a button at the base of the mic. Is that

on?

Mr. SHINDELL. Thank you. Good morning. I would like to thank

the committee for the opportunity to testify this morning about climate change science and my personal experiences with communication of climate science.

As Mr. Chairman noted, I have been a researcher at NASA’s

Goddard Institute for Space Studies for some time, and I am a lecturer at Columbia University as well, but today I am speaking here

as an individual.

Scientists provide information to policymakers and the public on

issues affecting society. Climate change is clearly such an issue and

one for which it is especially critical that decisions be made using

the best available scientific information because the potential costs

to society of action or of inaction are large.

The Earth as a whole is unquestionably warming, and virtually

all climate scientists believe that the evidence regarding a human

role in this warming is clear and compelling. Multiple lines of evidence based on measurements, theory and modeling support these

conclusions. The scientific evidence indicates that the Earth is now

warmer than at any time during the last thousand years. While

continued warming is inevitable, the seriousness of the consequences of climate change will depend upon societal action to

limit the emissions of greenhouse gases and pollutants that are the

dominant cause of global warming. These consequences include

droughts and flood, increased severity of summer heat waves and

rises in sea level that could devastate low-lying coastal areas.

Although the scientific basis for the conclusion that human activities are altering Earth’s climate is extremely strong, there are

questions that are still raised over whether current scientific understanding justifies societal action. One of these arguments has

concerned Antarctic temperature trends. While most of the planet

has warmed rapidly during the past several decades, much of the

Antarctic Continent has, by contrast, cooled. Lack of an adequate

explanation for this has been cited as evidence that scientific understanding of climate change is simply too incomplete to warrant

taking action to mitigate global warming.

In the fall of 2004, a team I led at NASA published a paper providing an explanation of how ozone depletion over Antarctica and

increasing greenhouse gases could together account for this observed cooling of Antarctica. The study was the first to look at how

these two factors work together to influence Antarctic temperatures. It not only helped to explain the observed cooling but also

predicted a warmer future for Antarctica based on projections of

continued increases in greenhouse gases. This has clear implications, both for the debate on global warming and for potential sea

level rise as Antarctica contains an enormous reservoir of water in

its ice sheets.

92

The NASA press corps and I wrote a press release on these findings to convey them to the broader public. While previous to this

time, press releases had been issued rapidly and with revisions

from headquarters that basically were made to improve clarity and

style, this release was repeatedly delayed, altered and eventually

watered down. When we at GISS inquired of those higher up the

NASA chain what was going on, we were told in the fall of 2004

by the press corps that releases were being delayed because two political appointees and the White House were now reviewing all climate-related press releases.

Scientists do not simply explore what we are most curious about.

We know that our research is funded by the public, and we go to

great lengths to provide policy-relevant information to support decisionmaking. While it was frustrating for me to see my work suppressed, even more importantly, it is a disservice to the public to

distort or suppress information needed.

But that experience is only one example of a series of actions

that attempted to suppress communication of climate science to the

public. Also during the fall of 2004, NASA headquarters insisted

that a NASA press officer be present to monitor all interviews, either in person or in the phone, a measure most of us felt was

unbefitting of a Democratic society. As with the interference with

press releases, the restrictions were not imposed on other parts of

NASA such as space science or even other areas of Earth science

outside of climate research.

NASA’s new written policy of openness regarding press conferences and releases has been a welcome first step. This clearly

defined policy is rather unique among Federal scientific agencies

and should be emulated at others. As this policy seems to have

come about in large part in response to scrutiny of political interference in communication, I hope that the interest evidenced by

this morning’s hearing will lead to continued improvements in policies to protect the integrity of Government science and its communication to the public.

Even with the best possible information, policymakers must

make subjective decisions in the face of uncertainty, but these

types of decisions go on around us all the time, for example, when

a doctor decides on treatment based on the best medical evidence,

despite the fact that medical science doesn’t know everything there

is to know about human physiology. The public must trust the

evaluation of the evidence by policymakers in the same way that

patients must trust their doctors.

Suppression of scientific evidence has undermined the trust between the public and policymakers and between scientists and policymakers. Cases where scientific uncertainties were exaggerated

by political appointees have been equally troubling. Restoring the

necessary trust will require the highest standards of scientific integrity and transparency in policies regarding scientists’ interaction

with the public and in decisionmaking on the urgent issue of climate change.

I thank the committee for holding this hearing.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shindell follows:]

93

94

95

96

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Dr. Shindell.

Mr. Pielke.

STATEMENT OF ROGER PIELKE, JR.

Mr. PIELKE. I thank the chairman, the ranking member and the

committee for the opportunity to offer testimony this morning.

My main point today is that politics and science cannot, in practice, be separated. Consequently, policies for the production, promotion and use of information in decisionmaking should be based

on the realities of science and politics, not on the mistaken impression that they somehow can be kept separate. Efforts to separate

them will in most cases only contribute to the pathological

politicization of science.

Now imagine the following situation: the President has in his administration a range of scientific experts on the most important

policy issue of the day. However, the President is denied access to

that advice by the manipulative actions of one of his primary advisors who we will call the Admiral. It turns out that the Admiral

has the President’s ear on matters of science, but he himself in fact

has no formal scientific training. He justifies his actions on the belief that the United States is engaged in a fundamental religious,

political and economic conflict between good and evil.

When two leading Government scientists seek to provide advice

to the President that differs from that being offered by the Admiral, the Admiral asks the FBI to open investigations of these scientists. One of the scientists subsequently faces a hearing to consider his lack of loyalty to the United States, and he never again

works as a Government scientist.

The other scientist warns that this case indicates to scientists

that ‘‘Scientific integrity and frankness in advising Government on

policy matters of a technical nature can lead to later reprisals

against those whose earlier opinions have become unpopular.’’

One of the Nation’s leading scientists writes that the relationship

between Government and scientists has been gravely damaged because the Government has given the impression that it would ‘‘exclude anyone who does not conform to the judgment of those who

in one way or another have acquired authority.’’

The year, 1954; the President, Dwight Eisenhower; the Admiral,

Lewis Strauss; the scientists, Robert Oppenheimer, Hans Bethe

and Vannevar Bush.

This vignette drawn from Benjamin Green’s excellent new book

on Eisenhower’s science policy along with the other examples recounted in my written testimony that discuss issues of science and

politics from Richard Nixon through Bill Clinton show that science

and politics have always been of concern for policymakers, and the

subject of today’s hearing indicates that today is no different.

There are, however, reasons why today’s conflicts are receiving

more attention from scholars, political advocates and politicians. I

will just quickly go through these. There are an increasing number

of important issues that are related to science and technology. Policymakers and advocacy groups alike increasingly rely on experts

to justify their favorite course of action. Congress, at least for the

past 6 years and perhaps longer, has been derelict in its oversight

97

duties, particularly related to issues related to science and technology.

Many scientists are increasingly engaging in political advocacy.

Some issues of science have become increasingly partisan as some

politicians sense that there is political gain to be found on issues

like stem cells, teaching of evolution and climate change. Last, the

Bush administration has indeed engaged in hyper-controlling strategies for the management of information.

Now, I will just give a few very short vignettes to illustrate how

fundamentally science and politics are inter-related. The language

of science in public discussion lends itself to politicization. The New

York Times reported last year that NASA scientists at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory had complained because they had been instructed to use the phrase, climate change, rather than the phrase,

global warming. A Republican strategy memo did indeed recommend the use of the phrase, climate change, over global warming, and environmental groups have long had the opposite preference. Another Federal scientist in NOAA described how he was

instructed by superiors not to use the words Kyoto or climate

change.

To cite another example, several years ago, the Union of Concerned Scientists, as part of its advocacy campaign on reducing

greenhouse gas emissions, recommended use of the word, harbinger, to describe current climate events that may become more frequent with future global warming. Subsequently, scientists at

NOAA, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and the

Fish and Wildlife Services Polar Bear Project began to use the

phrase in public communication in concert with advocacy groups

like Greenpeace. The term has also appeared in official Government press releases.

Policymakers and their staff are, of course, intimately familiar

with these dynamics. We have just recently seen them in practice

as Republicans and Democrats have battled over framing President

Bush’s proposed troop increases as a surge or an escalation.

An example of how easy it is to misrepresent science in a political setting, consider the memorandum prepared last week by the

majority staff of this committee to provide background information

on this hearing. The memorandum states quite correctly that a

consensus has emerged on the basic science of global warming. It

then goes on to assert that ‘‘Recently published studies have suggested that the impacts of global warming include increases in the

intensity of hurricanes and tropical storms.’’

It supports this claim by citing three papers, but what the memorandum does not relate is that the authors of each of the three

cited papers recently participated with about 120 experts from

around the world to prepare a consensus statement under the auspices of the World Meteorological Organization which concluded,

‘‘No consensus has been reached on this issue.’’ The WMO statement was subsequently endorsed by the Executive Council of the

American Meteorological Society.

Thus, the science cited in the committee memo is incomplete and

misleading. Such cherrypicking and misrepresentations of science

are endemic in political discussions involving science. What has occurred in the preparation of this memorandum is in microcosm the

98

exact sort of thing we have seen with heavy-handed Bush administration information management strategies which include editing

Government reports and overbearing management of press releases

and media contacts with scientists. Inevitably, such ham-handed

information management will backfire because people will notice

and demand accountability. This oversight hearing today is good

evidence for that.

My written testimony goes into far more detail on issues of press

releases, agency media policies, empanelment of Federal advisory

committees and other subjects which I would be happy to discuss

with you further.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pielke follows:]

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you for your testimony.

This committee has been trying to get documents from the administration since last July, and we have made requests on a bipartisan basis when Mr. Davis was chairman and I was the ranking member. Now that I am chairman and he is the ranking member, we are still making those requests.

We have sent today a letter to Mr. James L. Connaughton, chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality, asking again for the

information we requested. Without objection from any member of

the committee, I would like to put the letter by Congressman Davis

and myself in the record.

Furthermore, the staffs of our committee, Democratic and Republican, were allowed to view these documents that we have requested in camera. They weren’t allowed to take them out. I have

a memorandum which provides additional information about the

documents from the White House Council on Environmental Quality being sought by this committee, and I seek to make this memorandum part of the record as well. Without objection, that will be

the order.

The Chair recognizes himself to start off the questions.

I thank all of you for your testimony.

Many experts are telling us that global warming is one of the

most severe environmental threats facing this Nation and the

world. The challenges confronting us are potentially enormous.

Therefore, I think policymakers have an obligation to understand

the science, and we need to get that scientific information without

any manipulation of the science, without any suppressing of the reports or misleading the public about the issues which seems to me

would be a breach of the public trust. So we have been asking for

this information.

Dr. Shindell, you are one of the Nation’s leading climate change

scientists, and I want to discuss some of the documents that the

committee staff reviewed and ask whether you are concerned about

the issues in these documents.

First of all, let me begin by asking you about some of the edits

urged by the White House Office of Management and Budget. OMB

asked that an EPA report be rewritten to remove the statement

that global warming may ‘‘alter regional patterns of climate’’ and

‘‘potentially affect the balance of radiation.’’ Dr. Shindell, do you

think this was an appropriate change in the document?

The statement in the EPA draft was that climate change can

alter regional climates and affect the balance of radiation. Is there

any scientific justification for removing these assertions?

Mr. SHINDELL. No. That is a very well supported statement. For

the change in the energy balance of the planet, we have satellite

data that have measured that balance directly for decades now,

and we can see it changing, and it is extremely well documented

and uncontroversial.

As far as regional patterns, I mentioned before, Antarctica has

gone the other way from the rest of the globe. Different areas have

warmed more, others less. It is quite clear that this is happening.

Mr. WAXMAN. Another edit deleted the phrase, ‘‘changes observed

the last several decades are likely mostly the result of human activities,’’ and that phrase was replaced with a phrase that said, ‘‘a

112

causal link between the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the observed climate changes during the 20th century

cannot be unequivocally established.’’ Is this an appropriate

change? Does the rephrasing accurately represent the science or

does it mislead the public?

Mr. SHINDELL. I would say that is also a misleading statement.

While technically true, the first statement that human activities

play the dominant role is a much, much more accurate picture of

the science.

Mr. WAXMAN. Some of the edits we reviewed were made by CEQ

Chief of Staff Phillip Cooney. Now Mr. Cooney is not a scientist by

training. Instead, he is a lawyer who was working as a lobbyist for

the American Petroleum Institute before he was appointed to his

position at the Council on Environmental Quality. I would like to

ask you some questions about his edits.

In one document, Mr. Cooney deleted a reference to the National

Research Council’s finding that human activities are causing temperatures to rise. Obviously, the National Research Council is this

country’s premier scientific body. Can you tell us if there is a scientific basis for deleting a reference to this finding?

Mr. SHINDELL. No. That is again a well supported statement.

Mr. WAXMAN. In the same document, Mr. Cooney deleted the

phrase ‘‘climate change has global consequences for human health

and the environment.’’ Is there anything scientifically questionable

about this phrase?

Mr. SHINDELL. Again, no.

Mr. WAXMAN. Yet another edit, Mr. Cooney wrote that satellite

data disputes global warming. Is this scientifically valid?

Mr. SHINDELL. No. There was for many years a controversy

where satellite data showed warming but to a different degree than

was seen at the surface or that was predicted by models higher up

in the atmosphere. It never disputed global warming, and that controversy has since been resolved.

Mr. WAXMAN. If climate change presents an incredibly serious

problem, then we need to get the facts and rely on Federal scientists and agencies to give Congress and the public the true facts

about this global threat. Yet the preliminary evidence we are seeing from the White House suggests that the administration may

have taken a very different approach. If the documents we have

seen so far are representative, it appears that the White House installed a former oil industry lobbyist as the Chief of Staff for the

Council on Environmental Quality and then systematically sought

to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from reporting on

dangers to health, the environment and the economy. In effect, it

appears that there may have been an orchestrated effort to mislead

the public about the threat of global climate change.

These are serious allegations, and they are ones that we will be

exploring in detail in this hearing and in our ongoing investigation.

I thank the witnesses very much for answering my questions. I

do have further questions, and we will have a second round for

Members who wish to pursue a second round.

Mr. Davis, I yield to you.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Thank you.

113

Dr. Shindell, let me just say I am not asking and you can’t

produce it today, but I would be very interested in looking at the

initial drafts that you had on the press releases and then at the

end result. It would give us, I think, a clue in terms of what the

administration did. I don’t have copies of that, but if you could

produce that, that would be helpful.

Mr. SHINDELL. Sorry, I didn’t follow.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. The initial drafts of press releases that

came out that you said were manipulated and changed over time,

I would be interested in seeing the draft that came from the scientist and the end result that came out. I think that would give

the committee a good clue in terms of what transpired in between.

Mr. SHINDELL. Yes, and there is more detail about that in my

submitted written testimony.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. I understand that, but if you could

produce the document, that would be helpful to us as we work forward.

Mr. SHINDELL. OK.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Thank you.

Dr. Pielke, let me just ask you. In your testimony, you talk about

scientists or advocacy groups or even politicians cherrypicking the

best facts and using them in a way that is most advantageous to

their argument. This is also been called fact-slinging. Why is this

approach wrong and harmful to the process?

Mr. PIELKE. Well, I think it is inevitable.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Push your button there.

Mr. PIELKE. I think it is inevitable. I think whenever people

make an argument for a particular course of action, they are going

to frame their perspective in the best light possible. When you go

out on that limb and you present information selectively or, worse,

you misrepresent it, you will get called on it. It will damage your

own credibility. So I think advocates of all stripes, it is unavoidable

to be selective in presentation of information.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. I guess we would like to navigate away

from that environment and the reason I have joined Mr. Waxman

in a request for documents from the administration, we need to get

everything laid out in fact. I think there is some cherrypicking

going on back and forth. It doesn’t help when we can’t get them

all, but it is important to get everything out there so we can get

a complete picture and then make an appropriate analysis of what

has and hasn’t happened.

I wonder if you could discuss the policy reasons for executive

agencies vetting the work of their employees before public comment

is made on behalf of the agency.

Mr. PIELKE. Well, there is a long——

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Is this a new process?

Mr. PIELKE. It is not. For example, the Office of Management

and Budget has, at least since the 1920’s, gone over witness testimony from Government employees. The reason——

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Of both parties, right?

Mr. PIELKE. Of both parties, and the reason for this is that the

governance of the United States would be impossible if every Government employee were able to go out and interpret the laws, policies in the way that they saw them. Imagine if officials at the State

114

Department below the top, every single one of them were going out

and voicing their views on Iran or the Israeli-Palestine conflict. It

would be, it would be chaos, complete chaos. So at some level from

the standpoint of policy, Government has to coordinate its actions.

This becomes difficult when science is involved because the view

is that we can somehow separate science and politics. Let scientists

only talk about science. Let the policy, political appointees only

talk about the politics. But the reality is science and politics are

intermixed. A phrase like dangerous climate change relates to the

framework convention on climate change. So if scientists in their

official remarks say that phrase, they are engaging in a political

discussion.

I should point out NOAA and NASA have——

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. They may or may not be right, but that

is their opinion and not the opinion the elected leaders.

Mr. PIELKE. I want to point out NOAA and NASA have two different approaches to how scientists communicate with the public.

NASA has said that its scientists can take off their agency hat and

speak as individuals. NOAA has said in its media policy that they

always speak for the agency. This is a perfect topic for congressional oversight. What makes the most sense? Does it makes sense

to have scientists take off their hat or not?

I don’t have an answer for that, but we do have inconsistencies

across the different agencies.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. We don’t either, and our goal here, I

think, is to just get the facts and lay them out and then the public

can judge appropriately where truth lies.

This age-old process may qualify as politicization, but it also can

reflect a rational policy by a Presidential administration in both

parties as well to carry out what they perceive as their mandate.

Mr. PIELKE. Yes. Now let me say politics is how we get done the

business of society, and in popular parlance with the public, politics

has kind of a pejorative, negative notion. But I think the Government funds about $140 billion worth of scientific research, so it will

be relevant to politics.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. In one of your writings, you stated that

well-regarded scientists who are known believers that global warming is happening also believe the debate will not be settled for more

than a decade. If that is the case, then why is it the only scholars

we hear from are the ones that believe it is so glaringly obvious

that only a fool or an idiot could question it?

Mr. PIELKE. The statement you refer to is with respect to the debate over tropical cyclones and climate change, and indeed I think

the general consensus is that it is going to take some more research on that topic.

On the issue of global warming generally and particularly global

average temperatures, I point you to the Intergovernmental Panel

on Climate Change [IPCC], and Dr. Shindell can probably represent that better than I.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Well, Mr. Connaughton was up here before us, and he admitted that there was climate change or warming

going on, that in fact it was manmade and I think we need to get

to once we establish those parameters, then we can make intelligent policies in terms of how we deal and what are the ramificaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:13 May 09, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\34913.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
115

tions with it. But there was no denial in the administration when

they were up here last year as well. I hope we will get them back

once they produce the documents, and they can more fully talk

about what their edits are and the like, and we can have a better

opportunity to address that.

It looks like my time is up.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Davis.

Mr. Davis on our side.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman,

and I want to thank all of the witnesses for appearing.

Mr. Piltz, let me ask you. You worked as a senior associate in

the Federal Climate Change Science Program. This is the office

that coordinates Government climate research. You resigned in

March 2005 after 10 years in the office. Can you basically tell us

why you resigned?

Mr. PILTZ. Yes. I had increasingly come to see that the administration was politicizing the communication of the climate research.

It is a $2 billion a year research program involving 12 agencies,

and from time to time this research gets put together and assessments reports to Congress and so forth, communicating to a wider

audience. That is the point at which administration political gatekeepers would step in to either ignore the report if they couldn’t

stop it from being published and misrepresent the intelligence in

it if they needed to or just flat out directly edit it if they could.

I was particularly concerned with this communication function.

That was what I was doing, and it became increasingly impossible

to work in that environment and to see this going on.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Now let me ask you. You were there for

10 years.

Mr. PILTZ. Yes.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Which means that you were there prior

to the current Bush administration.

Mr. PILTZ. That is right, 5 years under the previous administration and 5 years under the Bush administration.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. So how does this action or activity compare with that of the previous administration?

Mr. PILTZ. It is a good question, and let me say first of all that

no administration is above criticism, but I do think that there was

a significant difference under the previous administration. The key

liaison to the Climate Change Research Program was the White

House Science Office. Those were scientists, and they, their way of

thinking and talking and writing about climate change was well

within the mainstream of the climate science community which I

think they were trying to feed into the policy process.

This was a different situation under the current administration

where you had people who were not scientists, whose concern was

not to make the communication clearer and more accurate but to

spin it politically so that the science would not be communicated

in such ways to threaten the administration’s political position. The

administration had made a decision up front it would not support

a regulatory constraint on greenhouse gas emissions, and it seemed

to me that they were uncomfortable with any straightforward presentation of the growing body of scientific evidence about global

warming.

116

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Now let me ask you. You also discussed

editing in your testimony.

Mr. PILTZ. Yes.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Mr. Phillip Cooney was the Chief of Staff

at the White House Council on Environmental Quality. We have

established that he was a lawyer and not a scientist. Until 2001,

he worked at the American Petroleum Institute as a lobbyist and

as their climate team leader.

You testified that Mr. Cooney made handwritten edits to several

science program reports in 2002 and 2003. Is that correct?

Mr. PILTZ. Yes.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Generally, what type of edits were these?

Mr. PILTZ. It was a very large number of edits. They came at the

12th hour, the process after all of the career assignments people

had signed off and it never went back to them. They had the aggregate effect of creating an enhanced manufactured sense of fundamental scientific uncertainty about global warming, of toning

language about observed warming and impacts, of basically discarding any idea that climate models were useful and deleting language about the observed or projected impacts of climate change.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Let me just ask you.

Mr. PILTZ. Sure.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Was it part of your responsibility to help

prepare these documents or similar documents, so you are testifying on the basis of firsthand knowledge, not on the basis of something that you heard, read or were told about?

Mr. PILTZ. No. I had to deal with the edits directly, yes, sir.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, I suspect that my time is up.

Mr. WAXMAN. Yes, thank you very much.

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you.

Mr. Issa.

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I know it is anecdotal, but how many scientists can raise their

hand here on the dais? Just checking. I won’t ask how many lawyers up here. That would be telling.

Mr. Piltz, I think I will start with you. Your degrees and background are political science?

Mr. PILTZ. Yes.

Mr. ISSA. So you are not a scientist.

Mr. PILTZ. No, I am not a climate scientist.

Mr. ISSA. Would it be fair to say you are no more qualified to

evaluate these edits than the petroleum lawyer, is that right? I

mean in the greater world of scientist, non-scientist.

Mr. PILTZ. I think that climate scientists who look at the edits

would regard them as, in the aggregate, pretty egregious, but I am

not arguing particular points.

Mr. ISSA. I appreciate that. I just wanted the simple answer. We

have been trashing a lawyer I have never met, and I am happy to

trash all lawyers, but what it comes down to is he wasn’t a scientist, you are not a scientist.

My understanding is Mr. Cooney’s edits or proposed edits were

then reviewed by a scientific committee convened by the National

Research Council, and many of his edits were then disregarded.

117

Mr. PILTZ. No.

Mr. ISSA. I will be very surprised if my staff is somehow misunderstanding the fact that his edits were not the last word. In

fact, there was further scientific review that I am missing in your

testimony.

Mr. Chairman, I hope we can get to the bottom of that because

I am not sure that discrepancy can be easily worked out by witnesses.

Dr. Grifo, I know you are fairly new to UCS. You have been

there, what, about a year, something like that?

Ms. GRIFO. A little longer.

Mr. ISSA. And you come out of Columbia.

Ms. GRIFO. Yes.

Mr. ISSA. But do you know the history of the organization?

I am trying to understand a little bit more. My understanding is

UCS was formed at MIT to oppose the Vietnam War in 1968. Is

that roughly correct?

Ms. GRIFO. No, sir, that is an incorrect characterization.

Mr. ISSA. Was it formed in 1968?

Ms. GRIFO. Yes, sir.

Mr. ISSA. Was it formed at MIT?

Ms. GRIFO. Yes, sir.

Mr. ISSA. Did it oppose the Vietnam War?

Ms. GRIFO. I have no idea, but that was not its purpose in its

forming.

Mr. ISSA. Well, moving down a little bit, you would characterize

your group as a peer watchdog organization?

Ms. GRIFO. No, sir. We are a science-based non-profit.

Mr. ISSA. You do a study that sends out from a list that you generate. You send out 1,600 questionnaires by email. You get back 19

percent of them. Then you come up with a whole series of assumptions, and you bring them here and say this is what the science

community says.

I may not be a scientist. Matter of fact, I am definitely not a scientist or a lawyer, but I will tell you here today because I am very

concerned about what is being brought to us as science. If I take

all of the subjective answers to emails, press statements, etc. that

come into my office anecdotally from my constituents, I would find

100 percent chance that they want all illegals taken out of the

country and no guest worker program because there is almost 100

to 0 response. Self-selected, those are the people I hear from. The

people who think maybe a guest worker program wouldn’t be bad,

you have to really tear it out of them.

I would only say that in the future if you are going to bring us

studies that they live up to, let us say, the standards of John Zogby

and not some sort of an email self-serving response. I was very disappointed in seeing that.

Ms. GRIFO. Excuse me. May I respond?

Mr. ISSA. Of course.

Ms. GRIFO. Thank you very much for the opportunity.

Our methodology was in fact quite a bit more complex than the

way that you have characterized it. We spent an enormous amount

of time and energy looking through the climate documents of the

Climate Change Research Group, Web sites. The Government does

118

not publish in fact a directory of its Federal climate scientists. So

we did in fact have to go through and produce a list. We had very

strict criteria for which scientists we included on this list. We had

strict criteria for their backgrounds and so on.

Mr. ISSA. OK, and I appreciate that. Can you make that available to us?

Ms. GRIFO. Absolutely.

Mr. ISSA. Is there peer review scientific oversight of your selection and was there an offset to say that your selection was valid

or invalid? In other words, Dr. Pielke, would he in fact have had

a chance to say, oh, this is a bad list, you missed 300, 400? Was

there any kind of an independent review?

Ms. GRIFO. Yes, sir.

Mr. ISSA. And by whom?

Ms. GRIFO. By a number of climate scientists across the community, and in fact Mr. Piltz was one, and there were several others.

I can get you that list.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Piltz is a political scientist.

Ms. GRIFO. But he is aware of who are the Federal climate scientists doing that kind of research, and he was one of many individuals that looked at it.

Mr. ISSA. I appreciate it. I am afraid I don’t think that you have

made your case.

Ms. GRIFO. I am not quite done, sir.

Mr. ISSA. Dr. Pielke, you said in your statement, and I think it

is very notable, that there is going to be politics in all of this.

Mr. Chairman, how is my time?

Mr. WAXMAN. Go ahead and finish your question.

Mr. ISSA. Let me just ask one simple question. During the Eisenhower period you mentioned, isn’t true that while President Eisenhower was leading the war against the Soviets, he was in fact

downplaying the risk and the threat while funding the very things

that allowed us to win the cold war? Isn’t that essentially the story

of Eisenhower’s managing of things like that threat?

Mr. PIELKE. I think, essentially, in a soundbite fashion, that is

accurate, but the story of Eisenhower and particularly the nuclear

test ban efforts—this was before my time in academic literature—

is that there was tremendous conflict among competing scientists,

all very preeminent, about the politics of whether we wanted to engage in a nuclear test in the atmosphere or not illustrate how

science came to become very politicized even 50 years ago.

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Issa.

Ms. Watson.

Ms. WATSON. I want to thank all the witnesses that are here

today for being direct and answering the questions directly. There

is no attempt to intimidate. We are trying to get information. So

my questions go to Dr. Grifo.

Making available the study results lead me to raise these questions. What percentage of the scientists personally felt pressured to

eliminate the words, climate change, global warming or similar

terms from their scientific communications?

119

I have been told as a Member of Congress, do not use the word,

global warming. Well, they are telling me. They don’t know who I

am. And so, can you answer that, please?

Ms. GRIFO. Yes, thank you very much. Forty-six percent perceived or personally experienced pressure to eliminate those words,

and I would say that is a total of 147 climate scientists. So that

number should be zero.

Ms. WATSON. Those are Government scientists who felt pressured to avoid even using the words, climate change or global

warming?

Ms. GRIFO. Yes.

Ms. WATSON. That is the number?

Ms. GRIFO. Yes.

Ms. WATSON. Because I know what I was told. OK, thank you.

Did any scientists see their work or the work of others changed

or edited during reviews in ways that changed the meaning of their

scientific findings?

You might have referred to that. I happened to be in the back.

I had a conference. And so, could you respond?

Ms. GRIFO. Yes, thank you. Forty-three percent which was over

two in five of our respondents, and I would also say that is 128

Federal climate scientists who personally experienced or perceived

changes or edits during review that changed the meaning of their

findings.

Ms. WATSON. Were their scientific findings ever misrepresented

by agency officials?

Ms. GRIFO. Yes, in fact, 37 percent of our respondents which is

110 Federal climate scientists perceived or personally experienced

agency misrepresentation of their findings.

Ms. WATSON. How many total instances of political interference

did Government climate scientists report?

Ms. GRIFO. That was 400, at least 435. We had a range in each

of the questions that they could answer. So that is the smallest

number. It may indeed be much higher.

Ms. WATSON. How many Government scientists personally experienced political interference?

Ms. GRIFO. Personally experienced? I will have to get you that

number. I don’t have it in front of me, but it is a large

percentage——

Ms. WATSON. Now let me ask Mister——

Ms. GRIFO. 150, thank you.

Ms. WATSON. 150, OK, thank you.

Mr. Piltz and Dr. Shindell, do these numbers surprise you? First,

Mr. Piltz.

Mr. PILTZ. They surprise me a little bit that it is quite so high.

I was aware of particular case studies, but this shows me that this

s a much more pervasive pattern throughout the agencies than

even I was aware of before.

Ms. WATSON. Dr. Shindell.

Mr. SHINDELL. Yes, I had been aware of this mostly amongst the

most prominent, the lab directors at the various research institutes. So this indicates that it is more widespread than I expected

as well.

120

Ms. WATSON. I am wondering, Dr. Grifo, if we could actually get

some of the scientific reports that have been changed, the wording

has been changed. Can we get those? I think there was a request

from the minority ranking member, and if we could get that, it

would certainly help.

I think this kind of thing must stop. I have witnessed the administration politicizing factual information and misleading the Americans. I will not be misled, and I would like the facts in front of me.

The interpretation of the facts is what we need to hear and see because I think many of us are being misled. We cannot stand for

that.

I want to thank you very much and thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Ms. Watson.

Mr. Sali.

Mr. SALI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

For Mr. Shindell, Mr. Shindell, every office that is represented

by the membership on the dais up here has a vetting process for

every statement that goes out of our offices. Of course, everyone

would agree that tends to be political in nature, and we want to

make sure that the political discussion ends up with one voice that

represents the top of the heap, if you will. I don’t suppose that

there is anybody on this dais that would think that is problematic.

However, when we talk about this issue and the matters that go

on in this hearing, we are going to be issuing similar statements.

Do you have any guidance for this committee about how we

might make that transition from science to politics to get the truth

out to the people, recognizing that there will be dramatically different statements coming out of the various offices?

Mr. SHINDELL. Well, I think that the scientific community has

managed to convey the general viewpoint or the mainstream viewpoint quite well in numerous venues already, and that has taken

place when the President called for the National Academy to look

at climate change after the last IPCC assessment report and later

this week the next IPCC report will be issued. I think these are

really authoritative reports.

It is really, in many ways, it is a wonderful thing. If you had a

problem and you were able not just to get the advice of one or two

people but to get the best experts in that particular area from all

over the world to look at the evidence and really present what their

best evaluation is, I think you would be very pleased. I think we

as the public would be very lucky to have it.

Mr. SALI. Would it be correct to say that the opinions coming out

of the scientific community are uniform then with regard to climate

change or global warming?

Mr. SHINDELL. Pardon?

Mr. SALI. With regard to climate change or global warming or

whatever you want to call it, is it your contention then that the

opinions within the scientific community are unanimous?

Mr. SHINDELL. Well, that would certainly depend on the particular details of which issue is being discussed, but in general there

is never unanimity in science. It is a back and forth of ideas. Scientists, by nature, are skeptical, always doubting what everybody

else is saying, and a consensus emerges over time.

121

Mr. SALI. So then is it your further contention that somehow the

minority opinions aren’t worthwhile in the discussion, that we

ought to just disregard those?

Mr. SHINDELL. I don’t think that those, that anybody’s views are

disregarded as long as they go through the standard scientific process which is peer review. So papers and documentation must or

claims of scientific nature must be validated, and they must be

supported, and that support has to be evaluated by scientists.

Claims are submitted every once in a while. There are papers

that come into the same journals that mainstream climate scientists publish in, and those are evaluated by scientists. The problem is that these claims don’t pass muster. They don’t have the scientific evidence to back them up, so they are not making it into the

debate because they are not judged to be, to have adequate support. So those that do get published are included in reports like the

IPCC, the National Assessment, the Academy reports, anything

that gets through the process is completely validated.

Mr. SALI. OK, so I want to make sure I am getting this now. Are

you saying that there is no disagreement among the scientific community regarding global warming or climate change, yes or no?

Mr. SHINDELL. There is no restraint?

Mr. SALI. That there is no disagreement.

Mr. SHINDELL. No, I am not saying that there is no disagreement. I am saying that what——

Mr. SALI. Then are you saying that those in the minority view

ought to be disregarded out of hand?

Mr. SHINDELL. I do not think that anybody’s viewpoint needs to

be disregarded, but I would say that when the vast majority of the

community comes down on one side and there are remarkably few

voices on the other side that are able to adequately back up the

claims that they make, then I think the conclusion is pretty clear

of where our best judgment of what is going on lies.

Mr. SALI. Correct me if I am wrong. Then you are saying that

the real scientists all agree about global warming and climate

change.

Mr. SHINDELL. No. I wouldn’t disparage any scientists’ claims

based on their background or what they believed. Somebody mentioned Richard Lindzen from MIT earlier. He is an eminent scientist, has done great work in the past. He is free to publish anything he likes as long as it gets through the same process that everybody else uses, and that process is the best way we have had

for centuries now to really give science the rigorous evaluation it

needs to determine which theories went out and which evidence is

strong enough that we believe it is most likely to be true, and that

has come down on the side of mainstream scientists.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Sali. Your time has expired.

I want to call on Mr. Tierney.

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Shindell, I am impressed that you have taken the time personally to come here

today. You are here, I understand, on your own as a scientist, am

I correct? You have no political agenda or do you?

Mr. SHINDELL. That is correct.

Mr. TIERNEY. That you are here as a scientist?

122

Mr. SHINDELL. Yes. Yes, I am here to testify about climate

science and I can relate my personal experiences. That is all.

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you.

Mr. Piltz, when Mr. Issa was questioning, there was some inference, I thought, that Mr. Cooney made edits and I think he was

implying or at least asking whether or not there was another round

of production on that, but we have documents that indicate, one

note directly from Mr. Cooney saying that these changes must be

made.

Then we have the EPA memorandum itself where the staff gives

just three options to the administrator to choose. One is that you

accept everything CEQ and OMB submit. The second option was

you remove the climate section altogether. The third was that you

go back and forth and try to reach some compromise which they

decided would antagonize the White House and likely wouldn’t be

feasible to negotiate an agreeable text. So they opted for just taking the climate change out of the report.

Do you have a different recollection of that? Was there in fact

any additional back and forth after Mr. Cooney made his edits?

Mr. PILTZ. I wasn’t involved in that EPA report, but analogously

from my own experience with Climate Change Science Program reports, the reports would be drafted and reviewed and vetted and

approved by a large number and layers of career science people and

Federal science program managers. That is what I worked on. All

of my stuff had to be approved before it could go forward. The

White House would come in after that process and intervene, and

it would never have to go back for clearance with the scientists.

As for the Academy, the Academy of Sciences reviewed the program’s strategic plan and in general praised it but criticized it for

the vanishing of the National Assessment of Climate Change Impacts, criticized it over and over again as a conspicuous and unwarranted omission. The administration has stonewalled the Academy

of Sciences since the Academy said that and has offered no defense,

no response in its own defense.

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you.

We have obtained, the committee has obtained some documents,

surprisingly enough. We have obtained email correspondence between NOAA and White House employees, and they indicate quite

an involvement of the White House with the press contacts of

NOAA scientists. I think they show a kind of political interference

that we are talking about here today, and it is not really the results of a couple of low level or over-zealous press officials but direct involvement by the White House. I want to go through just a

couple of these emails if I could and then ask some of the panelists

about it. All of these emails are from June 2005.

The first email is from an environmental reporter. The reporter

requests an interview with a NOAA scientist about how climate

change science has become politicized.

The second email, the scientists responds that the reporter will

need to ask the NOAA press corps.

In the third email, the NOAA press officer writes to the White

House Council on Environmental Quality and says the press officer

expressed concern that the reporter may fish for the answers she

is looking for but knows that the NOAA scientist ‘‘knows his

123

boundaries.’’ Then the press officer asks for the White House instructions by the end of the day.

The next email from the NOAA press officer states, if we have

CEQ approval to go ahead, then that would be good.

In another email, the NOAA press officer reports that CEQ and

the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy have

given the green light for the interview. The press officer then

states, the CEQ officials want me to monitor the call and report

back when done.

So my question, Mr. Piltz and Mr. Shindell, are you surprised

that the NOAA press officers were reporting back to the White

House about the content of press interviews with Government climate scientists and do you think it is appropriate for the White

House to decide whether or not a Government scientist can speak

to the press?

Mr. PILTZ. I am not surprised. I do not think it is appropriate.

I don’t think that when the press makes an inquiry to the Federal

Climate Change Science Program, that everything should have to

be routed to the NOAA press office which has been politically compromised by the administration officials who are at the head of

NOAA. We need a different, more unimpeded type of communication out of the Climate Change Science Program.

Mr. TIERNEY. Dr. Shindell, your comments?

Mr. SHINDELL. Well, I am not terribly surprised either because

it sounds very similar to what we were told at NASA was happening when we were inquiring as to why we were having so much difficulty communicating, that this was coming from the White House.

So it sounds very similar, and I don’t think it is appropriate.

Mr. TIERNEY. Dr. Pielke made a comment that the Office of Management and Budget looks at witness testimony for administration

policy consistency and would seem to say that was a reason why

all of this was OK. Am I wrong to think that there has to be some

distinction between a policy and somebody’s comment on science,

their conclusions based on fact, Dr. Grifo?

Mr. PIELKE. Well, let me correct an impression, if I gave it, that

it was OK. It is not OK.

Mr. TIERNEY. Dr. Grifo is a ventriloquist. I am sorry. [Laughter.]

Go ahead, you can answer, but I had asked Dr. Grifo the question. Do you want to answer it? Do you want to go ahead?

Mr. PIELKE. I am sorry. I thought you were talking to me.

Mr. TIERNEY. No, but I will give you the chance if you want to

have something to say on that.

Mr. PIELKE. No. Go ahead. My apologies.

Mr. TIERNEY. OK, thank you. Dr. Grifo.

Ms. GRIFO. Thank you. I think that when you get that Ph.D.,

when you become a scientist, you do not give up your—I mean I

think that. I know that. You don’t give up your constitutional

rights. You maintain your right as a citizen of free speech, and I

think that is incredibly important that we remember that this is

discussions about science.

I would like to say that the results that we found, our experience

with this issue is really a small part of what Mr. Pielke is talking

about. He is talking about a very interesting topic which is the role

of science in public policy, fascinating, but that is not what our proVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:13 May 09, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00127 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\34913.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
124

gram is really focusing on. We are looking at the science that is

changed, that is manipulated, that is somehow touched in a way

that alters it before it even gets into that public policy arena. What

we are calling for is that scientists are allowed to speak about their

scientific results and get that information out to the taxpayers that

are paying for it, to the community at large, to policymakers, to everyone that needs to really understand this issue.

Mr. TIERNEY. Is it a fair statement to——

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Tierney.

Mr. TIERNEY. Sorry?

Mr. WAXMAN. Your time has expired.

Mr. TIERNEY. OK, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Lynch.

Mr. LYNCH. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Earlier in this hearing, there was the suggestion of bias on the

part of the Union of Concerned Scientists because of a position that

the organization may or may not have taken in 1968 on the Vietnam War. I hope I am not the only one in this hearing to point out

the elephant in the room.

Perhaps it is just me, but we have a situation here where the

Bush administration chose as its Chief of Staff for the White House

Council on Environmental Quality, a person who had led the oil industry’s fight against limits on emissions of greenhouse gases. This

is someone who worked for the American Petroleum Institute. So

I scratch my head to say why. Why would the administration put

someone who was so vehemently biased in an important role like

this?

Mr. Piltz, the analogy of the fox in the hen house is not appropriate, I believe in this case. Mr. Piltz, in your responsibility in

your official capacity prior to resigning in protest, you were responsible for editing a document called Our Changing Planet, is that

correct?

Mr. PILTZ. Yes, the annual report to Congress.

Mr. LYNCH. Right, and just to clear something up, your role there

was to take information from 90 scientists, the reports of those scientists, contributions made by them and put it in a forum that is

usable by Congress.

Mr. PILTZ. That is right and to then fact-check with them before

it went forward.

Mr. LYNCH. So these weren’t your own opinions.

Mr. PILTZ. No.

Mr. LYNCH. These were bonafide scientists with obviously scientific research to back up their opinions.

Mr. PILTZ. Yes.

Mr. LYNCH. Now, what I would like to do is get on the record.

You have talked generally about what was done by Mr. Cooney. It

is my understanding that after he resigned, he went back to work

for Exxon Mobile. That is the information that I have from majority staff.

But I would like to talk about some specific instances of his editing and what that might have reflected. Can you give us a few specific examples of edits by Mr. Cooney to this report to Congress?

Mr. PILTZ. Yes, I can do that and you know. If I may just preface

that for a moment by saying that I really have tried to emphasize

125

what seems to me the illegitimacy of the whole process by which

this happened rather than arguing particular edits, and in many

cases these hundreds of edits would just change a word or two, but

you know what happens when you change ‘‘shall’’ to ‘‘may.’’

Mr. LYNCH. Right.

Mr. PILTZ. But there are other places where whole chunks of text

are deleted. For example, there is one passage where it came to

him saying, ‘‘warming will also cause reductions in mountain glaciers and advance the timing of the melt of mountain snow packs

in polar regions. In turn, runoff rates will change. Flood potential

will be altered in ways that are currently well understood. There

will be significant shifts in the seasonality of runoff that will have

serious impacts on native populations that rely on fishing and

hunting for their livelihood. These changes will be further complicated by shifts in precipitation regimes and a possible intensification and increased frequency of extreme hydrological events.’’

That was deleted.

Mr. LYNCH. Now did Mr. Cooney ever give a plausible reason

why he would extract a warning of snow melt and degradation of

glaciers which we are seeing now? Did he ever give a plausible reason why he would remove that warning to Congress?

Mr. PILTZ. He called it speculative musing.

Mr. LYNCH. Speculative musings.

Mr. PILTZ. Speculative musing.

Mr. LYNCH. Are there other documents or other instances you

can point to that would help us?

Mr. PILTZ. Yes, there was in another passage, the draft said,

‘‘with continued perturbation of the Earth’s radiative balance, climate model projects based on a range of possible scenarios such as

a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide suggest that during the

21st century, climate changes due to human influences will be substantially larger than what has been identified up until now.’’

Mr. LYNCH. Again, if I could just pause there.

Mr. PILTZ. He said delete. He said delete.

Mr. LYNCH. It sounds like you are saying that the amount of carbon and that measurement is very important. What was his response to that assumption or that projection?

Mr. PILTZ. The models don’t all give the same result, so it is inappropriate to speak in summary terms about this type of outcome.

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

Mr. PILTZ. I could go on but that sort of thing.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Lynch.

Mr. Higgins.

Mr. HIGGINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Piltz, I would like to ask you about the National Assessment

on Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change.

Your office was involved in putting this document together in 2001.

You have described it ‘‘as the most comprehensive and authoritative scientifically based assessment of the potential consequences

of climate change in the United States.’’

In it, there are projections of potential temperature increases and

the consequences those increases would have on our natural environment. This is obviously an important report. Why haven’t we

heard more about it?

126

Mr. PILTZ. Well, it was distributed to every Member of Congress

around the end of 2000, 2001, but very early on in 2001, about the

same time that the administration was pulling back from the Kyoto

Protocol talks, we were directed by the White House Science Office

to start deleting all references to the National Assessment, in the

first instance to the annual report to Congress and then in the

later in the strategic plan for the Climate Change Science Program.

There were lawsuits filed, attempting to suppress the National

Assessment and even remove the links to it from a Government

Web site, although it was a taxpayer-funded study, filed by the

Competitive Enterprise Institute which is an Exxon Mobile-funded

policy group. The lawsuits were dismissed, in one case with prejudice, but the administration awarded the political victory to the

litigants by back channel without much of a paper trail, instructing

the Federal agencies just to stop using this report and going forward with any analogous activities.

I think it is because this process of putting of scientists in direct

communication with policymakers and stakeholders, region by region, sector by sector, generated a type of dialog that probably was

going to lead to greater public pressure for taking the global warming problem seriously and doing something about it, and this was

a type of discourse that the administration just did not want to see

happening, in my judgment.

Mr. HIGGINS. In this instance and others that you have referenced in your testimony, this is not isolated. This is systemic.

Mr. PILTZ. That is right. But I think that this is, I regard this

as the central climate science scandal of the Bush administration

because it so pervasively shut down a widespread process of intelligence gathering and national preparedness, and we now have 6

years without high level support for this type of process for linking

science to society, and we are losing something because of that.

Mr. HIGGINS. Do you have any evidence that policy, that attitude

has changed?

Mr. PILTZ. No.

Mr. HIGGINS. Thank you.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Higgins.

Mr. Shays.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you.

Mr. Piltz, I want to state from the start I believe there is a global

climate change. I believe I would call it global warming. I don’t get

too exercised over which term I use. I think it is manmade, and

I think it stared us in the face for years. So I disagree with the

position and policy of this administration, but I find myself being

a little defensive about whether we are talking about changes in

scientific reports or disagreements over policy. I came here thinking I would be more inclined to say change in scientific reports, and

as I listen, I find myself—I don’t know if I am feeling defensive

here for the administration or just really saying let us be fair.

The bottom line is you are not a scientist, correct?

Mr. PILTZ. That is right. I am not a climate scientist.

Mr. SHAYS. You are not a scientist.

Mr. PILTZ. Right.

Mr. SHAYS. Climate scientist or anything, you are not a scientist,

correct?

127

Mr. PILTZ. No. I try to communicate with and represent the scientists.

Mr. SHAYS. Why did you even say you are not a climate scientist?

That gives the impression that you are a scientist. He is a political

scientist.

Mr. WAXMAN. He is a political scientist.

Mr. PILTZ. A social scientist by academic training, yes.

Mr. SHAYS. I find myself being defensive because I feel like you

are trying to give an impression that is a little false to me.

There are 90 reports, 80 reports, whatever. You took these reports and you synthesize. That is your term. It is editing. You take

some of what they did and leave something out, correct?

Mr. PILTZ. Well, yes, to try to clarify the communication, yes.

Mr. SHAYS. You don’t even have to clarify it.

Mr. PILTZ. Yes.

Mr. SHAYS. Because the bottom line is you want to use the word,

synthesize because that is a more comfortable word for you to use

than edit. The bottom line is you edit it. You as a non-scientist took

scientific reports and you edited them down to a position that you

felt was respectful of what they did.

Mr. PILTZ. Yes.

Mr. SHAYS. And I understand that, but you are not a scientist

and you edited it. The bottom line is you have come to the conclusion that when another non-scientist took this, he chose to say

well, which report, which scientist you are listening to and which

you aren’t. Somebody who also wasn’t a scientist said we don’t

want you to make this comment and this description. I think they

were wrong. I think that they made a policy decision that ultimately may even be destructful. So I am not even going to argue

about that.

I just don’t like the fact that we are basically trying to give the

impression that somehow you are a scientist and you came in and

you described it all, and then this non-scientist disagreed with you.

That is the feeling that I came with before this hearing. I respect

you for your convictions. I respect you for even resigning if you

think you weren’t being treated fairly or positions were being distorted, but I still come down to the points I have just made.

Now what would you like to tell me?

Mr. PILTZ. Well, first of all, I worked with, collaborated with the

scientists and had their sign-off. I was not at war with the mainstream science community. That is one.

I did not write or edit the National Climate Assessment. If you

look at the panel of eminent people who wrote it, it is a very impressive group of people. It is not junk science. It is stuff that

should not be suppressed.

Mr. SHAYS. I understand that.

Mr. PILTZ. OK. I don’t know. Nobody was telling the scientists

what they could publish in the technical journals. This was about

communication, but it wasn’t just policy. It was spinning the scientific, the state of knowledge, statements about science for political effect.

Mr. SHAYS. Let me ask you. Were there any scientific reports

that you chose to not discuss because they were in conflict with a

majority of the position? Was there any scientific——

128

Mr. PILTZ. Normally, I worked——

Mr. SHAYS. Let me ask the question and be very clear. Was there

any scientific data that you looked at that you did not include because it wasn’t with the mainstream?

Mr. PILTZ. I don’t think so. I worked with what was passed forward to me by the career science people.

Mr. SHAYS. Well, that is important. You are saying that all the

scientific data that was provided you, you included and didn’t leave

any out.

Mr. PILTZ. Generally speaking, there was editing for length, but

if you look at the reports that I worked on, it is generally speaking,

non-controversial material. It is pretty straightforward, descriptions of research highlights and program plans and so forth.

Mr. SHAYS. My time has come to an end, but I just want to be

clear on this thing. Were you selective in the scientific comments

that you provided? Did you make any decision to include this scientific data and not this scientific data? That is really what I am

asking.

Mr. PILTZ. Yes, I engaged in some editorial selection, as I say,

but everything I did was in collaboration with the scientists, was

reviewed, revised, edited and approved by the career science people

before it could go forward.

Mr. SHAYS. OK, thank you.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Shays.

Ms. McCollum.

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I was really surprised just how widespread this problem was.

Last week, my office had an opportunity to speak with a climate

scientist who is now working in Minnesota, formerly employed by

a Federal agency and she saw the suppression of climate change

research firsthand. In her words, ‘‘We were told the answers to our

analysis before we conducted our research.’’

I remember from my science classes, going through scientific discovery, that you set up the hypothesis and then you proved it right

or wrong, not the other way.

Mr. Shindell, can I ask you for some help? The committee staff

went to some CEQ offices and they looked at some documentation.

In one of the documents, CEQ Chief of Staff Phil Cooney informs

Kevin O’Donovan who is in the Executive Office of the President

that they will start to use a recent paper by Willie Soon and Sally

Baliunas to rebut the views of the National Academy of Sciences

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Now, apparently, this

Soon-Baliunas paper asserts that the 20th century is probably not

the warmest climate period of the last millennium. Are you familiar with this paper?

I might be saying the one person’s name wrong too. You might

want to correct that for the record.

Mr. SHINDELL. Yes, I am familiar with that.

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Now I served on the Education Committee, and

one of the things that the President and the administration was

very focused on was that teachers would teach to the subject that

they were trained in. Can you tell us about this paper?

129

My understanding is that using this paper to rebut the National

Academy and the IPCC, maybe these weren’t the best scientists to

do that.

Mr. SHINDELL. This was an interesting paper, and I think it demonstrates the point that came up in one of the other Member’s

questioning about what is allowed. Really, whatever stands up to

scientific scrutiny is allowed, and it is not dependent on the views

of the scientist.

So Soon and Baliunas are both astronomers. They are not climate scientists, but that is OK, as long as their work stands up.

Basically, what that paper was, there is no original research. It is

instead a survey of other climate scientists’ work where they basically took all of the uncertainties and caveats, things that were not

included in the studies, compiled them and said that then, given

that there were so many uncertainties and things that were not

fully understood, we could not say much of anything about climate

change. However, that is in complete contrast to the views of nearly every expert in climate science.

So I think that is not at all representative, and I would not say

that one alternative paper undermines the thousands of papers

that go into a document like the IPCC report.

Ms. MCCOLLUM. They are scientists. They are entitled to their

own opinion, but this is not their field of expertise, climate change.

Mr. SHINDELL. That is correct.

Ms. MCCOLLUM. It is my understanding that the paper led to a

lot of controversy. Press reports indicated that the study was funded by the oil industry and that the editor in chief of the journal

resigned when the owners of the journal refused to allow him to

publish an editorial saying that the paper in fact was flawed. Is

that your understanding?

Mr. SHINDELL. Yes, I believe that is correct.

Ms. MCCOLLUM. One of the more troubling aspects of this document seems to be that it reflects on what amount of strategy decision that the White House had in part, in fact, that the White

House was going to use this study to rebut the prevailing scientific

reviews. Do you find this troubling to you as a scientist to have a

person who is a scientist but in a totally different field, not an expert in what you are working on, be given the same weight and

credibility in rebutting what you are saying rather than a peer in

the same field of science?

Mr. SHINDELL. I do find that quite troubling. I used the analogy

in my testimony of a patient having to trust their doctor, and this

would be tantamount to you having a heart condition and getting

repots from heart experts all over the world, giving you their best

opinion of all the medical data, and then somebody coming on and

saying, why don’t you look at what these skin doctors have to say.

They are a couple of people, you know. I think let us throw out this

assessment by all the world’s experts and let us take this one instead.

I think it would be very foolish for anybody to do such a thing.

Ms. MCCOLLUM. I thank you for that.

I am very concerned in looking on page 21 of the document,

Atmospher of Pressure, ‘‘I have perceived in others or personally

130

experienced changes and edits during the review that changed the

meaning’’—that changed the meaning—‘‘of scientific findings.’’

Further on the page, it says, ‘‘Statements by officials at my agency that misrepresented’’—misrepresented—‘‘a scientist’s finding.’’

I can look at the color of your blue tie, sir, and I can say it is

robin’s egg blue or I can say it is baby blue. But a scientist could

look at that tie and tell me exactly what color it is by science, and

that is indisputable. The other two items are my opinion, but the

other one is science.

I thank you so much, Mr. Shindell. What would you say about

the credibility?

Mr. WAXMAN. The gentlelady’s time has expired.

Mr. SHINDELL. I would just say that is an interesting counterpoint to some of the cases that were raised before where there were

synthesis documents. The cases where there was interference at

my agency were specific scientific reports. There was no policy involved. They were simply this is the result of a particular set of observations for a particular modeling study, and those were nevertheless edited when they showed the dangers of climate change.

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you.

Mr. Sarbanes.

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have just a couple of questions that are interrelated. The first

is, and this may sound a little naive but what I am trying to get

to is your understanding. Mr. Piltz, I think you are in the best position to address this, your understanding of what was motivating

inside the CEQ, inside the White House.

I guess the range of options could include that you had a small

handful of people that had sort of been given license within this office to exercise their own personal ideological political perspective

and that is what they were doing and/or they were responding, and

this would be sinister, to pressure from external influences and/or

that they were carrying out a fairly specific and focused policy

agenda coming even from higher levels. Based on your observation

of this conduct that was occurring in the CEQ, can you speak to

that at all?

Mr. PILTZ. Well, I wasn’t in the room with them while that was

being worked out, so I have to analyze it from a step back, but as

a political scientist, I would say that there are elements of all three

of those to explain this.

I think the administration came in with predetermined political

agenda on greenhouse gas emissions and the global warming problem that it was not going to support a regulatory policy. The willingness to allow political operatives to engage in misrepresenting

the intelligence on the science side, the spinning of the politics

back into the science communication is a problem. I think that they

were representing particular stakeholder interests, political, particularly in conjunction with political allies. Also, it just seemed to

me that they brought with them some kind of animus toward

proactive government problem-solving and preparedness to deal

with consequences of decisions or not making decisions and have

left us in this position.

131

So somehow this global, the way the global warming issue has

been handled is somehow indicative to me of a modus operandi

that we have seen across a range of issues, and this is the global

warming piece of it.

Mr. SARBANES. Right.

Mr. PILTZ. Did that make any sense.

Mr. SARBANES. It does. I think you are saying it is symptomatic

of an attitude that cut across other ways that the administration

has handled things.

Let me ask you this. I am trying to understand the purpose of

a retrospective like this, I think is to inform what goes forward. I

am struggling to understand for myself the point at which one can

say that the scientific inquiry for the moment is concluded. I understand this is ongoing and it changes every day but where you

feel comfortable as a scientific community coming forward and saying this is what we know and it has reached the point where the

political aspect of it ought to be kept at bay because people will

say, well, we are just trying to bring more balance, we are just trying to complete the picture.

So is it at the point where the National Academy of Sciences, for

example, says there is a strong, almost unprecedented consensus

on this issue, that one can feel comfortable that this represents

good science and we ought to accept it as such? Where is that line?

Mr. PILTZ. You can’t. You can’t try to make the science community say that they are absolutely certain about something. When

they say something is very likely, you ought to take it seriously.

The science community has a lot of integrity and owning up to

their own uncertainties and they are always asking the next question, but you always make your policy decisions in the face of some

uncertainty about the implications. What happens is people with

political agendas come in, who have a predatory relationship to

that uncertainty language and they use it for reason in a way that

is different from the way the scientific community uses it. So you

know you will not get them to say we are 100 percent certain.

I always cringe when somebody says the science is in. It is time

for action.

I mean we have a National research program that is our basic

intelligence capability for understanding what we are doing to

Planet Earth. That needs to be supported. It has always had strong

bipartisan support regardless of political debates about the policy

implications, and that scientific research needs to go on. But while

it is addressing whatever questions need to be addressed, policymaking has to proceed in tandem with that, not at the end of some

science process. The two have an ongoing interplay.

Mr. SARBANES. That is a powerful phrase, predatory relationship

to the uncertainty of the science. I will use that if you give me permission.

Thank you very much.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Sarbanes.

Mr. Welch.

Mr. WELCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. Pielke, I noticed in your written testimony, you made a claim

that the memo that was prepared by the committee staff for this

hearing is ‘‘exactly the same sort of thing that we have seen with

132

heavy-handed Bush administration information strategies,’’ and I

take the charge that you make very seriously. You are, if I understand it, essentially accusing the committee of the conduct that it

is investigating.

You took specific offense with the memo’s discussion of the state

of science regarding the connections between global warming and

hurricanes, where the memo notes, recently published studies have

suggested that the impacts of global warming include increases in

the intensity of hurricanes and tropical storms.

So, taking this seriously, we asked the committee staff to contact

these leading researchers to followup to see if there is anything we

should be concerned with in that memo. Dr. Judith Curry, as you

know, a leading researcher, told us that all the research scientists

working in the area of hurricanes agree that average hurricane intensity will increase with increasing tropical sea surface temperature. Theory, models, observations all support this increase. She

tells us that the recent research indicates an impact of global

warming is more intense hurricanes. The current debate and lack

of consensus is about the magnitude, she says, of the increased intensity, not its existence.

Dr. Michael Mann, also a prominent researcher, tells us that in

his view, you have misinterpreted the WMO report in arguing that

it somehow contradicts information provided in the scientific background of the hearing memo that you had a chance to review. He

says, the current state of play with the science on this is accurately

summarized in the hearing memo.

Now, given all the testimony that we have received today, I am

wondering whether you stand by your statement which is essentially a challenge to the memo of this committee. We have heard

evidence of hundreds of incidents of political interference. We have

heard very direct testimony from some of the people here and others that the White House did edit documents to introduce doubt

where essentially no doubt existed. We have heard scientists’ contacts with the press were in fact being monitored by the White

House.

In light of today’s testimony and the information provided to the

committee by Drs. Curry and Mann, is it still your belief that the

committee’s hearing memo is, ‘‘exactly the same sort of thing’’ the

Bush administration has done?

Mr. PIELKE. I thank you for the opportunity to clarify, and I did

say the word, in microcosm. This is, I think, and I will stand by

exactly what I said, and I am happy to talk about the science and

impacts of hurricanes as long as you would like because it is an

area I have been researching for about 15 years. The memo includes the statement, recently published studies have suggested

that the impacts of global warming include increases, and it cites

three papers that look retrospectively back in time. So it is not

talking about projections in the future. So the statement by Dr.

Judy Curry who is a great scientist, who I have a lot of respect for,

isn’t on point here.

I want to make a point that I hope everyone recognizes. The

same dynamic that we just saw, talking about the Soon-Baliunas

paper as the one outlier contradicting the consensus. We see this

on the exact other side. Now there was 120 scientists that includes

133

Kerry Emmanuel and Greg Holland who were co-authors of those

three papers cited here, came up with a consensus statement on

hurricanes and climate change. That is analogous to the IPCC.

Subsequently, the American Meteorological Society has endorsed

that statement.

Now I am not a climate scientist and just like I accept the consensus of the IPCC, I am compelled to accept the consensus of the

hurricane community. Now it is very easy to pick out a Soon and

Baliunas paper or selectively email a scientist and say, what is

your view?

I respect Dr. Mann and Dr. Curry have their views about what

the statement says, but I am absolutely 100 percent certain that

the statement that is in your background memo does not faithfully

represent the science. It selects among the science perspectives,

and that is inevitable, and we have to recognize that, and no one

is immune from it. It doesn’t excuse the Bush administration from

their actions, of course, but let us not pretend that somehow we

can separate out scientific truth from political preferences. The reality is they are always going to be intermixed.

Mr. WELCH. The memo, the committee memo, states very specifically that the evidence suggests that link.

Mr. PIELKE. That is true.

Mr. WELCH. The evidence is there.

Mr. PIELKE. Yes, it is there.

Mr. WELCH. You are now taking the leap to suggest that the

committee memo is similar to the conduct of interfering with scientific debate that we have heard testimony about from these scientists.

Mr. PIELKE. In microcosm. In microcosm, it shows how easy and

simple it is to selectively report scientific information to favor a

particular agenda, absolutely. The statement in there is accurate.

It is just like what we have heard about some of the changes. The

statement that Mr. Cooney made, some them were judged to be accurate but misleading. This is exactly the same sort of thing.

Mr. WELCH. Thank you very much.

I wonder, Dr. Grifo, if you could respond if you have any different point of view than Dr. Pielke.

Ms. GRIFO. I would just respond by saying that, you know, peer

review is the gold standard and that this is something that, you

know, science will resolve. Ultimately, you know, as the scientific

process continues to study hurricane intensity and what that

means and what it doesn’t mean, you know, we still have all these

other lines of evidence that really point us in the direction that we

have all been talking about here today which is that this is a huge

and serious problem and we need to get on it.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Welch, will you yield to me?

Mr. WELCH. I yield to the chairman, yes. Thank you.

Mr. WAXMAN. Doctor, you are a doctor, but you are not a scientist. You are a political scientist.

Mr. PIELKE. I am a political scientist. That is accurate.

Mr. WAXMAN. And you said you are absolutely certain that you

are right on this issue and that Dr. Curry and Dr. Mann are wrong

in their statement. Isn’t that quite a statement for you to make?

No scientist here has been willing to make any statement that

134

there is absolute certainty because the process of science continues

to evaluate things.

Dr. Shindell, you are familiar with Dr. Curry and Dr. Mann, is

that correct? Dr. Shindell, are you familiar with those two?

Mr. SHINDELL. Yes.

Mr. WAXMAN. Are they somewhat isolated in the field with their

own theories at odds with the majority of scientists?

Mr. SHINDELL. No. They are quite within the mainstream.

Mr. WAXMAN. In fact, isn’t Dr. Mann one of the leading scientists

in global warming issues?

Mr. SHINDELL. Yes. Yes, he is.

Mr. WAXMAN. And Dr. Curry as well?

Mr. SHINDELL. Yes.

Mr. WAXMAN. So I am just wondering whether we should believe

them or the certainty of Dr. Pielke that they are wrong.

Mr. PIELKE. May I clarify, Mr. Waxman?

Mr. WAXMAN. Yes, please.

Mr. PIELKE. My certainty is as to what the WMO hurricane consensus says. Let me say I have led two inter-disciplinary papers including climate scientists, peer-reviewed, reviewing the science of

hurricanes and climate change that were published in the Bulletin

of the American Meteorological Society in 2005 and 2006, and the

summary that is in those papers has stood up to the WMO and

AMS consensus points. So it is fair to say your background means

that you can’t speak on this topic and so on, but do recognize that

scholars today work on inter-disciplinary teams and there is literature that Dr. Shindell would accept as being in the mainstream

peer-reviewed journals.

Mr. WAXMAN. I don’t dispute your ability to study the field and

make comments on it except when we say that evidence suggests

something which seems to be backed by Dr. Mann and Dr. Curry

for you to say they are wrong. We didn’t reach the conclusion. We

said evidence suggests this.

Mr. PIELKE. Let me clarify again. I did not say that they are

wrong. I said that their views are not consistent with the mainstream consensus in the community. I am 100 percent sure of that

statement.

Mr. WAXMAN. Do you know whether that is true, Dr. Shindell?

Mr. SHINDELL. I believe that their views are consistent with the

mainstream consensus, and I think that we are having a slight semantic argument over what the mainstream consensus is. Is it that

hurricanes have increased in severity in the past? Will they increase in the future? I think it is an interesting issue, this one, because unlike some of the other aspects of global warming that are

better understood, there is some legitimate controversy, and so it

can lead to these kinds of discussions.

But one of the interesting things about uncertainty, there are

two points. One is that scientists are very open about the uncertainty and that is what leads to these kinds of statements saying

yes, we don’t know everything about it.

Another is that while we have been looking at model projections

to inform us about the kind of world we are likely to live in, when

you look at these studies of hurricanes, they are suggesting that

maybe the models are drastically under-predicting what is likely to

135

happen. These studies that are referred to in your statement from

this committee are showing much, much stronger increases than

anybody’s model guess.

So, yes, there is uncertainty, but that cuts both ways. It might

mean we don’t understand everything, and so it could be better. It

might also mean that things might end up far worse than what we

are saying they are likely to be.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you.

Mr. Welch, do you want to conclude your questioning?

Mr. WELCH. I will just finish by going back to Dr. Pielke.

What I understand is you are acknowledging that the committee

memo does cite mainstream science, correct?

Mr. PIELKE. Absolutely, it does.

Mr. WELCH. What I want to know, after we have been through

this, is this, are you standing by your position that this memo that

cites mainstream science is exactly the same kind of conduct as

what we have heard occurred in the Bush administration where

there was direct interference with independent conclusions reached

by scientists following the scientific method?

Mr. PIELKE. I will repeat exactly what I said in my written testimony. In microcosm, this shows how in political settings, which the

preparation of Government reports is, how easy, enticing it is to selectively present scientific results to buttress a political perspective.

Mr. WELCH. Would you say there is a difference between citing

mainstream science in a public memo as opposed to altering science

as presented to a PR person?

Mr. PIELKE. Not much difference, no.

Mr. WAXMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr. Yarmuth.

Mr. WELCH. Thank you.

Mr. YARMUTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would stipulate for the record that I am not a scientist either,

but I am journalist by background and an editor, so I would like

to pursue a line of questioning that Mr. Shays had with Mr. Piltz.

When I was editing stories, I basically looked for two things. One

was whether the message was communicated clearly and second

whether claims made in the article or the document were backed

up by any evidence. If I saw something that I suspected might have

been speculative musing or something of that nature, I would have

gone to the author and asked the author to show me the documentation or the supporting or the interviews or whatever sources

he or she might have had for writing that.

I am taking it from this discussion that Mr. Cooney made no particular effort to determine whether in fact there was something

substantive behind the portions of those reports that he excised.

Mr. PILTZ. That is correct.

Mr. YARMUTH. So, essentially, what he did was interpose judgment for the scientists who wrote the report.

Mr. PILTZ. For the career science people, yes.

Mr. YARMUTH. Dr. Grifo, you have a report coming out today,

and it includes some extensive interviews with about 40 Government global warming scientists. I would like to focus on one. Dr.

Pieter Tans, who was the Chief Scientist for NOAA’s Global Monitoring Division, was asked back in October 2004 to do a press conVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:13 May 09, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00139 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\34913.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
136

ference with the BBC or an interview with the BBC. That was a

month before the Presidential election. How long did it take for Dr.

Tans to receive approval to give that interview?

Ms. GRIFO. The interviews were not approved until February

2005.

Mr. YARMUTH. 2005, so it took 4 months to approve the interviews.

Ms. GRIFO. Well, that was the approval. They didn’t actually

take place until even a month after that.

Mr. YARMUTH. Is that a normal cycle for approval of an interview

from a media outlet? My experience would say that would be an

extraordinarily long period of time.

Ms. GRIFO. That would be consistent with my experience, yes.

Mr. YARMUTH. Just in terms of other interviews that scientists

might have given, and any of you can answer, would it take 4

months for even a Government agency scientist to agree to do an

interview or turn down an interview?

Ms. GRIFO. To me or to them?

Mr. YARMUTH. Whomever.

Mr. SHINDELL. We had cases at NASA where a request would

come in, say from CNN, to talk about the latest global temperature

changes. Our public affairs officer would relay that to us and by

the time we got back, they would say headquarters has already

told them that nobody is available and there will not be such an

interview. So those things did happen.

Mr. YARMUTH. Was there—oh, I am sorry.

Ms. GRIFO. I just was letting him go first. Can I just hop in, back

in?

Mr. YARMUTH. Sure.

Ms. GRIFO. I mean our report indicates a large number of those

instances happening. I mean there is a number that are described,

anonymous scientists from NOAA, Christopher Milly, Dr. Shindell’s

case, Richard Weatherall. There are many of these that have been

documented, so it is not an isolated incident.

Mr. YARMUTH. Were there conditions placed on the approval of

the interview with Dr. Tans?

Ms. GRIFO. Just there was a minder. There was a public affairs

officer, and in fact he flew across the country and even to Mauna

Loa, Hawaii in order to be there for those interviews.

Mr. YARMUTH. Did he serve any useful purpose as far as you can

tell? Is that standard operating procedure when a scientist is interviewed?

Ms. GRIFO. I think what is important here is that scientists coordinate with the agency, that they let the agency know an interview is taking place and that they report back on this interview

after the interview has taken place. That is what the critical role

and the relationship should be between a scientist and a public affairs officer.

Mr. YARMUTH. Basically, the taxpayers paid to send someone

along over the global to just watch Peter Tans give an interview.

Ms. GRIFO. Yes, sir, they did.

Mr. YARMUTH. That is all I have. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Yarmuth.

Mr. Issa.

137

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WAXMAN. You are recognized for a second round.

Mr. ISSA. Thank you and thank you so much for calling this

hearing. As I mentioned as a sidebar, this is at least two great

hearings wrapped into one, perhaps three. I will try to get through

just a couple more points.

Mr. Piltz, my understanding is that you were a strong supporter,

remain a strong supporter of the 2000 National Assessment on Climate Change.

Mr. PILTZ. Yes.

Mr. ISSA. Both you and Dr. Pielke, I am sure are familiar with

James Hansen.

Mr. PILTZ. Yes.

Mr. ISSA. Also, well-respected, and my understanding is he vehemently disagreed with the assessments, felt that the models were

flawed, leading to overly pessimistic views and said so in a number

of writings. Is that roughly correct?

Mr. PILTZ. I am not aware of Dr. Hansen’s specific comments on

the National Assessment, but I think that every scientist had an

individual opinion about how he might have done it better.

Mr. ISSA. Dr. Pielke, are you familiar with that?

Mr. PIELKE. I am not familiar with that.

Mr. ISSA. He said, ‘‘The predicted 1 percent per year or 2 to 3

full 21st century increases in CO2 assumed in the study may be

pessimistic.’’ Then he goes on and does a little more than may, but

it was interesting that he used may, something that sometimes

people object to. That study turned into a lawsuit and the Government, this Clinton administration assessment which you support,

which James Hansen had doubts about, in fact, turned out by an

admission of the administration to be flawed and is no longer in

widespread use.

In a nutshell, you end up with you can have the Government do

work. The science can have problems in the model. It can be questioned by a minority of the science community. It can go through,

in this case, a lawsuit, and an administration can recognize that

in fact some of the assumptions or models were flawed and therefore overly pessimistic. That is the assessment I find on that, but

I want to continue on to Mr. Piltz a little bit because certainly Mr.

Cooney deserves——

Mr. PILTZ. If I could respond to that, it would be——

Mr. ISSA. We will.

He deserves to be considered as to whether his edits were proper

or not. In your resignation letter from June 1, 2005, you did a fairly extensive memo, and I appreciate that, but one of the things you

said on page 11, speaking of Mr. Cooney’s edits, most of the more

problematic CEQ comments were not adopted. Some were and the

damage to the document was significantly limited.

Now earlier I asked you about whether or not there was further

review. If I read this correctly and your own statements, what we

really have is we have an editor editing your edit and then his

edits being further edited, and each of you, I am sure, like the

pride of an author, would say I didn’t like his edits.

I will mention for the record that I once had dinner with Francis

Ford Coppola, and it took the entire dinner for him to tell me how

138

rotten a job they did screwing up his great work on the Godfather

series and each of them would have been better if they had just left

it alone. You don’t even want to get into his idea of colorization of

old films.

I think the point is we are having an argument over edit, edit,

edit when in fact science is, by definition, not perfect or infallible,

and certainly the 2000 National Assessment proves that you can

have bad assumptions even in a Government document.

Back to Dr. Grifo—thank you—your study, this 19 percent response rate, doesn’t it fly in the face of OMB’s own requirement for

an 80 percent response in fact to have a study be considered to be

reasonable survey results? I will just note that a study done at the

request of the Urban Institute and the United Way in June 2003

for non-profits found in fact that low rate of return raises concerns

about potentially serious, non-responsive bias. Claims from a survey project with low return rates are frequently viewed with skepticism and even rejected by the scholarly community.

Isn’t it fair to say that your organization, notwithstanding the

question of the Vietnam War, if you will, that is a little old history,

but your organization which released a major study just today, that

had been embargoed, that reaches a strong position on global

warming is in fact an advocacy group, and moreover the Pew Charitable Trust, which I respect a great deal, gave you $1 million to

promote getting the Nation’s commitment to energy efficiency and

renewable energy as a corner store policy?

Isn’t fair to say that your organization is in fact an advocacy

group and that when we are sitting here today, what we are seeing

is several advocates of positions against a question of whether the

administration has a right to balance that advocacy?

Mr. WAXMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. I want to give

Dr. Grifo a chance to respond and Mr. Piltz a chance to respond

as well.

Ms. GRIFO. Thank you very much. Yes, sir, we are advocates for

good science. That is what we are advocates for, for getting that information out into the public realm. Furthermore, I would say that

all those other surveys that you have mentioned did not have the

primary consideration that we did which was protecting the anonymity of the scientists that we surveyed. That was paramount to

us. That was absolutely incredibly important because of the chilling

effect that we are all here to discuss.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Piltz, you seem to want to respond to Mr.

Issa’s question.

Mr. PILTZ. Well, first of all, on the National Assessment briefly,

it was not a Clinton report. It was prepared by an independent

panel of eminent scientists and handed to the Government without

any Government vetting.

The Bush administration has never said anything about to criticize the National Assessment, never given any intellectual or scientific rationale for what, if anything, is wrong with it. They just

deep-sixed it.

The National Academy of Sciences has praised it as a seminal,

important, credible, exemplary study. That is the bottom line on

that.

139

As for Mr. Cooney’s edits, in one report in the final technical review draft of the Climate Change Program’s Strategic Plan, at the

12th hour, he came in and proposed more than 400 text edits in

the document that in the aggregate would have pervasively

changed the tone of the document to manufacture an enhanced

sense of uncertainty. It caused so much consternation on the inside

that there was a pushback from the director of the Climate Change

Science Program, and a solution was negotiated at the political

level that a lot of these edits would not be taken. However, the

banishing of the National Assessment remained.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to submit for the record the proof that the Clinton administration did in

fact settle and that the 2000 assessment has been disregarded as

the result of flaws.

Mr. PILTZ. The Bush administration settled.

Mr. WAXMAN. You want to submit?

Mr. ISSA. I will submit it for the record.

Mr. WAXMAN. You will submit some documents for the record?

Mr. ISSA. I will submit the documentation. I do believe it is the

Clinton administration. I will submit it for the record.

Mr. WAXMAN. We will be pleased to receive whatever documents

you wish to submit for the record.

Mr. ISSA. Thank you.

Mr. WAXMAN. Then we will make our own judgment whether it

proves something or not. Thank you.

Mr. Lynch.

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. Shindell, I just wanted to go over another specific example

of political interference. Now you have been at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies for 12 years, is that correct?

Mr. SHINDELL. Yes.

Mr. LYNCH. You were there in the late nineties.

Mr. SHINDELL. That is correct.

Mr. LYNCH. When you completed important studies in the late

nineties, did you submit press releases for distribution?

Mr. SHINDELL. Yes, I did many times.

Mr. LYNCH. Did you have any problems such as has been described here earlier in the hearing, any problems in terms of editing of those press releases?

Mr. SHINDELL. On the contrary, I found the comments from

headquarters and the press corps to be helpful in clarifying the results.

Mr. LYNCH. In September 2004, you submitted a press release to

announce the findings of your new study on Antarctica. You suggested a title for the press release, ‘‘Cool Antarctica May Warm

Rapidly This Century, Study Finds.’’

First of all, can I ask you, was this a significant study?

Mr. SHINDELL. Well, as I mentioned in my oral testimony, I

thought it was significant, both because this was an unexplained

feature of the world’s temperature trends, why Antarctica was

going the other way from the rest of the planet, and it is an area

we worry about quite a lot for possibility of contributing to sea

level rise as the ice sheets melt. So in that yes, it was.

140

Mr. LYNCH. Now, can I ask you, was your press release accepted?

Mr. SHINDELL. No. It was delayed several times and then came

back altered, and the title that we had, as you mentioned that we

had suggested was especially objected to. So we worked for some

time on that and came up with another title which we thought

might be more palatable which was NASA Scientists Expect Temperature Flip-Flop in the Antarctic. That, too, was rejected.

After more complaints and questions as to who was editing these

things without ever getting a direct response, word came back from

above that the title should be Scientists Study Antarctic Climate

Change, with no possibility of revision. So, as you might imagine,

that doesn’t really attract the attention of most people. The public,

you as Members of Congress are not out there reading geophysical

research letters. If a study says we look at climate change in Antarctica, it drew very little media interest. It didn’t get out into the

public debate, and I think that is harmful to informing the public

debate about global warming.

Mr. LYNCH. Right, I just want to go back again. The phrase,

rapid warming, was deleted.

Mr. SHINDELL. Yes.

Mr. LYNCH. Instead, it just indicates Scientists Predict Antarctic

Climate Changes, a rather neutral, rather vague title. Were you

uncomfortable with that title?

Mr. SHINDELL. I was not comfortable with that. I thought it was

so watered down that it would be of little interest to anybody after

all the time and effort we went to, to make this release and communicate the results that would do a very poor job of doing so. But

when I objected, there was no response, and I was told that it had

to be that title. Indeed, there was little media reporting.

Mr. LYNCH. Let me ask you quickly. Press interviews, what was

the procedure under the Clinton administration in the late nineties

for press interviews?

Mr. SHINDELL. The public affairs office worked to facilitate our

contacts with the media, and when inquiries came into public affairs, they would simply relay them to us and say, do you have a

chance to talk to this person? Go ahead. Contact them.

Mr. LYNCH. What was the most recent process under the Bush

administration?

Mr. SHINDELL. In the fall of 2004, that was when there was imposed this rule that press officers or minders, if you will, had to

be present supposedly for our benefit to protect us from being misquoted, although there was no feeling within the agency that this

was actually a problem.

Mr. LYNCH. OK, I will yield back.

Mr. SHINDELL. Instead, it had a chilling effect.

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you.

Mr. WAXMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr. Murphy.

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just had a few questions for Dr. Grifo.

We have been talking today obviously about the very unique

question of global warming and the impact of political decisions

made in Washington upon scientific opinion, but I think we might

be remiss in leaving this hearing if we didn’t admit that there is

141

a creep of political influence into other areas of this administration

as well.

We certainly understand the long term ramifications of global

warming on the health of our Nation, but there are more potentially immediate consequences of the political decisions made within this administration when it comes to the Food and Drug Administration. I understand that the Union of Concerned Scientists have

done some work into surveying the opinions of those working in

and around the Food and Drug Administration, and I might just

ask you a few questions about some of your work there to maybe

educate our panel and Congress on some of the ancillary implications beyond the subject of global warming.

When you did this survey of FDA scientists, it would be interesting to know if you heard from any of those scientists whether they

were asked for non-scientific reasons to inappropriately exclude or

alter any technical information or conclusions in any of the documents that the FDA was providing to Congress or to other agencies. Did you get a sense from FDA scientists whether they were

asked, in essence, to censure the information they provided for

those documents?

Ms. GRIFO. Yes, sir, and in answer to the actual survey instrument that was mailed to them anonymously again with an anonymous return, and I would also say that the FDA scientists came

back to us with 69 pages of essays, 69 pages of their own words,

irrespective of the questions we asked. Their hearts have really

been poured out into that document, and that is on our Web site,

and we can make that available.

But I would say that, you know, 145 FDA scientists had been

asked to alter info or conclusions for non-scientific reasons, and I

think even more frightening is that 461 of them knew of cases

where commercial interests had inappropriately intruded into that

process. These are the decisions that profoundly and very directly

affect our health and the health of our children.

I would just add that I had a personal experience with Ketek, a

drug that really never should have come onto the market and because of the manipulation of the science, did. In fact, this was a

drug that caused profound liver failure and was prescribed to my

son for an infected hangnail. I mean this is the risk that we encounter with this kind of interference.

Mr. MURPHY. You gave sort of the gross numbers of those that

responded. What percentages of the respondents are you talking

about that either believed that they were forced into making decisions for commercial rather than scientific reasons or even felt

pressure?

I mean to the extent that people actually changed their input or

changed the recommendations they were making, but then there is

also simply the issue of those in the agency that felt that they were

pressured to make those different decisions. Do you have a sense

of what percentage of scientists answered in the affirmative to

those types of questions?

Ms. GRIFO. Yes, and again we went to great lengths to determine

who were the scientists and made sure that they were the respondents. We had a high level of Ph.D.s, a high level of high GS scientists responding and a very high level of 10 and 15 years at the

142

agency. So these were the cream of the crop, if you will. Sixty percent knew of cases where commercial interests inappropriately induced or attempted to induce changes to FDA decisions or actions,

and again 61 percent of all respondents knew of cases of inappropriate political interference.

Mr. MURPHY. In your experience of surveying different agencies

and departments of the administration, how does the concern of

those scientists and the pressure put upon the FDA officials and

scientists, how does that compare with some of the other issues

that we have been talking about today or other experiences that

you have heard from other departments and agencies within the

administration?

Ms. GRIFO. I think one of the most frightening ones has to do

with fear of retaliation, that we had 396 scientists at the Food and

Drug Administration who could not publicly express concerns about

public health without fear of retaliation and that 357 of them, that

would be 36 percent of our respondents, could not even express

those concerns within the agency.

As I started off in my testimony, the total number from across

the Federal Government and the number was, when we look at retaliation, 699 scientists. That is 39 percent across 9 agencies have

reported that they fear retaliation for openly expressing their concerns about the mission-driven work of their agencies.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Your time has expired.

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you very much.

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Braley.

Mr. BRALEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am very concerned that even if the White House and administration political appointees can’t edit every scientific report and

press release, they are sending a strong signal to Government scientists that the threat of global warming should be played down

and science should get as little attention as possible. Because of

that, good scientists who do important research may worry about

voicing their concerns or publicizing their findings.

Mr. Piltz, I am going to start with you. Are you personally worried about the chilling effect or self-censorship that this environment breeds and if so, can you share with us how that manifests

itself in the way you and your colleagues do your work?

Mr. PILTZ. That is an excellent question, and I think it is a key

point really and one I haven’t had a chance to emphasize. I know

I cited the marked-up documents that came fairly early on as

graphic illustrations of a pervasive pattern, but you know once this

heavy-handed censorship signal is sent, the career people in the

Federal agencies, they defer to the White House. They have their

antenna out.

What could be career limiting? Don’t rock the boat. They are

great public servants, but what sets in if you know that what you

are writing has to go through a White House clearance before it

can be published, people start writing for the clearance, toning

down, steering away from and kind of anticipatory self-censorship

sets in among the career Federal program managers.

Maybe not on—the FDA scientists and some of the other agencies, their scientific conclusions feed directly into regulatory decisionmaking. So the pressure is right on their scientific conclusions.

143

Since we don’t really have a regulatory regime on climate change,

the interference tends to be more with the communication that

might influence the way people think about the issue, but it is the

same. It is an analogous dynamic. People censor themselves, and

there is a chilling effect, certainly.

Mr. BRALEY. Thank you.

Dr. Shindell, what about you? Have you seen or heard about any

of your colleagues responding to expected political pressure by censoring themselves or just giving up on a press release or a press

contact?

Mr. SHINDELL. Yes, both of these things, I think that people are

aware that releases would be delayed so long if they tried to talk

about global warming and climate change that it was left out. I

have seen people talk much more favorably about the environment

at universities now where they encourage outreach as opposed to

what is going on in the Federal Government.

Mr. BRALEY. Thank you.

Dr. Grifo, the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Government

Accountability Project interviewed 40 Government climate scientists. Were any of these scientists worried about the administration learning of their conversations with you?

Ms. GRIFO. Yes, and in fact the number that the study began

with was much higher. It was more than 150, almost 200 scientists, and out of that large group that were contacted for the

study, we really only ended up with 5 or 6 that were willing to go

on the record, a significant drop, obviously because of their fear of

retaliation or other problems.

Mr. BRALEY. I am going to offer this question to the entire panel.

As someone who started out in a very challenging engineering curriculum and later switched to a political science degree, one of the

things I know is that the heavy emphasis on math and science

often times makes it impractical to educate scientists on some of

the constitutional protections they have in terms of freedom of

speech, freedom from interference with voicing their opinions in a

setting similar to what we are talking about.

Dr. Grifo, one of the things you had talked about was an increased need for whistleblower protections and also insuring that

scientists have a constitutionally protected right of free speech.

What, if anything, do we need to be doing to educate scientists to

make sure that they understand the constitutional basis for their

free speech protections and arm them with the knowledge so they

can be more forceful advocates to speak out and have the courage

to do what is necessary to make sure that we become aware of

these concerns?

Ms. GRIFO. I think one of the key things that we need to do is

to affirmatively educate. We cannot assume that in fact these scientists know what these things mean. In our experiences, our conversations with scientists, anecdotally as well as in the essays and

the other ways that we receive communications have told us over

and over that the line is gray to them, and so because of that grayness, they are taking giant steps backward from what they are actually able to do.

What we are asking for very simply is that these things come

out, that we have clear policies. We have a model media policy that

144

is appendixed to the report which clearly lays out yes, there are

roles for public affairs officers. Coordination is important. We are

not saying that you don’t have to play by some rules. But what we

are saying very loudly, very clearly I hope, is that you don’t give

up your constitutional rights when you become a Federal scientist,

that in fact there are protections and statutes that need to be communicated and enforced, and the scientists need to know where

that line is so that they can be at that line and not self-censoring

themselves away from it.

Mr. PILTZ. If I could add just one other quick point, the last four

pages of my written testimony has memoranda prepared by the

legal director at the Government Accountability Project on how

even the NASA media policy, which is an upgrade, falls short in

terms of the Whistleblower Protection Act protections, the Anti-Gag

Statute and things that make it clear that scientists don’t give up

their freedom of speech when they become Federal employees.

There are some specific issues and legislative points raised in that,

that I think I would commend to the committee’s attention.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Braley.

Mr. SHINDELL. I would say that I agree with the statement of the

other witnesses, and I would also like to mention that there is a

second issue here. With NASA, for example, we do have this new

openness policy which is a great first step, but what we are seeing

in the future is we may be able to communicate information but

we may not have any information because all of the budget for

Earth observations is being gradually shifted within NASA whose

budget is staying high, but it is being shifted to other areas. It is

being moved out of science and especially out of Earth science. So

we are likely 5 years to 10 years from now to have far less ability

to even observe our own planet than we do now.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you.

Mr. Welch.

Mr. WELCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In February 2006, the New York Times reported that political

appointees in the NASA press office were in fact exerting strong

pressure during the 2004 Presidential campaign to cut the flow of

news releases on climate change in the article entitled Call for

Openness at NASA Adds to Reports of Pressure. I would like to ask

that be made part of the record Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WAXMAN. Without objection, so ordered.

[The information referred to follows:]

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

Mr. WELCH. Thank you.

Dr. Shindell, listening to your testimony, I can’t help but wonder

if your personal experience is related to that broader story. What

can you tell us about your experiences with NASA in the run-up

to the 2004 election and does the Times article appear consistent

with your own experience?

Mr. SHINDELL. Well, obviously, it is difficult to know what intentions were behind policies that you didn’t see formulated, but I

would certainly agree that it is consistent. All of these new restrictions that I was talking about on press releases and the imposition

of minders to be present at interviews, all of that took place in the

fall of 2004 just before the election.

Mr. WELCH. Dr. Grifo, do you have anything to add on this point?

Ms. GRIFO. Not to comment on the timing, but just simply to say

that there are six categories of things that we saw and that we documented in the GAP portion of the report, press release delays, the

presence of minders, preapproval for interviews and rerouting of

interviews, overall decreased media contact, altering of documents.

Perhaps also intimidating really had to do with the requirement

that scientists prepare Q and As. They had to anticipate what

questions were going to come up in these interviews and in fact you

might think so what is so bad about that. Well, in fact, what was

happening was that the information in those Q and As was used

to actually determine whether or not the interviews were granted

or to feed into that process of decisionmaking.

Mr. WELCH. Were there any resources that reported what you

just described?

Ms. GRIFO. All of these, yes. I mean, they are. I can give you,

you know, pages of documentation that we have. I mean we have

the interviews. But I think also very interestingly a lot of this work

was based on documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, and I think really interestingly is that in response to very

broad queries about climate and climate change and very, very

broad questions, we received 2,000 pages of documents. The Government Accountability Project, I should say, received 2,000 pages

of documents from NOAA, 9 pages from NASA and no pages from

the EPA.

Mr. WELCH. One other question, later this week, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] is going to release its latest scientific assessment about our understanding of climate

change science. The IPCC, as you know, it includes hundreds of the

world’s finest scientists.

In light of that, I notice that the IPCC is mentioned in the CEQ

documents reviewed by the committee staff. In one document, the

CEQ Chief of Staff, Mr. Cooney, informs another White House

staffer that they will use a controversial paper to rebut the IPCC,

and in the EPA memo, an EPA staffer notices this might be a problem and saying that the EPA will take responsibility and severe

criticism from the science and environmental community for poorly

representing the science.

I want to ask the panelists, is the credibility of the IPCC in

doubt? Does it make any sense for our Government to seek to actively undercut this body of scientists?

Dr. Grifo, perhaps you could start.

157

Ms. GRIFO. Yes, I think what I would like to say about the IPCC

is that, you know, it is one of the most extensive transparent, you

know, examples of iterate peer review. I mean I think it is a document that has reviewers and review editors and many processes of

meetings and conversations in order to have this process move forward. I think that what is really extraordinary about it is that all

of the authors of each chapter must agree that all sides of the

science have been fairly represented, and I think that really gets

to the heart of the openness of the scientific exchange that it represents.

But I think furthermore 2,500 scientific expert reviewers, 800

contributing authors, 450 lead authors from 130 countries, 6 years

of work. I think it is an amazing piece of work and will be received

in that way.

Just if I might add one other note. I want to say that there is

more information. I mean there, we are continuing and the Government Accountability Project is continuing to work on this and on

the documentation, and there is to be another report in about a

month’s time.

Mr. WELCH. Thank you.

Briefly, yes.

Mr. PILTZ. Yes, I would say that when the science community

comes together and produces these comprehensive assessments and

they do have synthesis and policymaker summaries that are readily understandable, that this is what those of us who are not technical experts should use, basically. This is the well vetted assessment. Even after we have lifted the heavy hand of censorship,

there is still the matter of taking these findings, learning them,

adopting them, using them, embracing them and translating them

into the appropriate policy responses.

Mr. WELCH. Thank you.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Welch.

Dr. Shindell, did you want to add anything to the question on the

IPCC?

Mr. SHINDELL. I would agree that this is the most authoritative

document we have, and I would say that it does not exclude anybody that wants to participate. The paper that you referred to that

supposedly would undermine it, those authors are free to join in

the process as well to offer their comments and criticism, and their

documents were taken into account with everybody else. All of the

available research is evaluated, and so this is really a wonderful

thing for policymakers to have everybody sit together and look and

get the best evidence.

The only drawback that I can see with this process is that it

takes so long that by the time it comes out, some things can be out

of date. What we have seen, for example, is that the melting of

Greenland has been accelerating so incredibly rapidly, that the

IPCC report that will come out next week will already be out of

date in predicting likely sea level rise which will probably be much

worse than is projected in the IPCC report.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Welch.

Mr. Yarmuth, do you wish a second round?

Mr. YARMUTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

158

We have heard some very disturbing testimony today about political interference in the area of climate science, but the

politicization of science isn’t limited under the Bush administration

to climate change. We have heard all sorts of evidence regarding

endangered species and food and drug safety as well.

Dr. Grifo, the Union of Concerned Scientists has surveyed other

scientists in the past. You have a February 2005 survey of fish and

wildlife scientists that included hundreds of biologists, ecologists

and botanists. When you asked those scientists, was there evidence

that they felt that had been directed for non-scientific reasons to

refrain from making scientific findings that would protect endangered species?

Ms. GRIFO. Yes, sir, and I would say in that survey, actually the

return rate was almost 30 percent, so it was a higher rate if that

matters, but 44 percent of the endangered species scientists reported being directed for non-scientific reasons to refrain from findings protective of species.

Mr. YARMUTH. Were scientific conclusions reversed or withdrawn

because of the business interests in any instances?

Ms. GRIFO. Well, what we saw was that 70 percent of the scientists reported or knew of cases where political appointees had injected themselves into those ecological services determinations.

Mr. YARMUTH. Based on your survey, it is clear that there was

political interference and that it was widespread when it comes to

science surrounding endangered species. How did this affect the

outcome of policymakers and decisionmakers? Was there any evidence based on your survey that decisionmakers made decisions

differently based on this suppressed science, if you will?

Ms. GRIFO. I think there are a couple of aspects to that question.

I mean one is that self-censorship that we keep returning to. I

mean I think when I go to scientific meetings such as my discipline, and fish and wildlife scientists come up to me, then express

very clearly their experiences and their hesitation to bring forward

this kind of information.

I think in addition to that, I mean obviously there are things in

the survey, but overall I mean what we have seen is a very large

drop in the number of species that end up being listed. Whether

or not you agree or disagree with that, the fact is that the science

is not coming out. Again, there are problems with being able to

publish results in peer review literature. There are problems with

these basic scientific freedoms amongst the scientists in fish and

wildlife. Again, these species are important for various reasons,

and they have consequences for the American people.

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Chairman, this hearing is appropriately focused on how the Bush administration officials have repeatedly

tried to muzzle Government climate scientists and distort their

findings. We need to remember that this is part of a larger pattern

of politics trumping science throughout the Bush administration. I

commend you once again for holding these hearings.

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Yarmuth.

I want to thank each of the witnesses for your presentation

today. You are very distinguished scientists with a great deal of integrity.

159

Policymakers must have good science, unfiltered, unaltered scientific information especially when taxpayers’ dollars are being

used to pursue that information. Even, of course, if it is coming

from the private sector, if information is being sent to us, it ought

to be the information that the scientists have agreed upon.

I think this hearing today will further our ability to deal with

the issue of climate change, and of course the big issue before us

is to get the administration to move from a confrontation to cooperation. We have been trying on a bipartisan basis for 6 months

to get the information from the Council on Environmental Quality.

I expect to get that information and any other information that is

pertinent to the representatives of the American people.

That concludes our hearing, and we stand adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 1:47 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

Æ