U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

21–644 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 114–373 

DATA OR DOGMA? PROMOTING OPEN INQUIRY 

IN THE DEBATE OVER THE MAGNITUDE OF 

HUMAN IMPACT ON EARTH’S CLIMATE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE, SCIENCE, 

AND COMPETITIVENESS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

DECEMBER 8, 2015 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

( 

(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Chairman 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

MARCO RUBIO, Florida 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

TED CRUZ, Texas 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

BILL NELSON, Florida, Ranking 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts 

CORY BOOKER, New Jersey 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia 

GARY PETERS, Michigan 

DAVID SCHWIETERT, Staff Director 

NICK ROSSI, Deputy Staff Director 

REBECCA SEIDEL, General Counsel 

JASON VAN BEEK, Deputy General Counsel 

KIM LIPSKY, Democratic Staff Director 

CHRIS DAY, Democratic Deputy Staff Director 

CLINT ODOM, Democratic General Counsel and Policy Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE, SCIENCE, AND COMPETITIVENESS 

TED CRUZ, Texas, Chairman 

MARCO RUBIO, Florida 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

GARY PETERS, Michigan, Ranking 

EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts 

CORY BOOKER, New Jersey 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on December 8, 2015 ........................................................................ 1 

Statement of Senator Cruz ..................................................................................... 1 

E-mail dated November 23, 2015 between Hon. Ted Cruz and John 

Coequyt .......................................................................................................... 15 

Statement of Senator Peters ................................................................................... 2 

Letter dated December 7, 2015 to Hon. Ted Cruz and Hon. Gary Peters 

from Gerald R. Fink, Chair, AAAS Board of Directors, Herman and 

Margaret Sokol Professor, Whitehead Institute/Massachusetts Institute 

of Technology ................................................................................................. 4 

Article dated December 9, 2006 from the AAAS Board ................................ 5 

Letter dated December 7, 2015 to Hon. Ted Cruz from Dr. Keith L. 

Seitter, Executive Director, American Meteoreological Society ................ 7 

Letter dated December 7, 2015 to Hon. Ted Cruz and Hon. Gary Peters 

from Robert Gropp, Ph.D., Interim Co-Executive Director, American 

Institute of Biological Sciences .................................................................... 9 

Statement of Senator Nelson .................................................................................. 10 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 12 

Letter dated December 2, 2015 from Hon. John Thune to Dr. John R. 

Christy, Professor and Director, Earth System Science Center, NSSTC, 

University of Alabama in Huntsville .......................................................... 17 

Letter dated December 2, 2015 from Hon. John Thune to Dr. Judith 

Curry, School of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of 

Technology ..................................................................................................... 18 

Letter dated December 2, 2015 from Hon. John Thune to Dr. William 

Happer, Department of Physics, Princeton University .............................. 19 

Letter dated December 2, 2015 from Hon. John Thune to Mr. Mark 

Steyn .............................................................................................................. 20 

Letter dated December 2, 2015 from Hon. John Thune to Dr. David 

W. Titley, RADM (ret.), Professor of Practice in Meteorology, Penn 

State Department of Meteorology ................................................................ 21 

Statement of Senator Daines .................................................................................. 94 

Statement of Senator Schatz .................................................................................. 96 

Statement of Senator Udall .................................................................................... 99 

Statement of Senator Markey ................................................................................. 101 

WITNESSES

John R. Christy, Ph.D., Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and 

Director of the Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama ............ 22 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 23 

Judith A. Curry, Ph.D., Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric 

Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology .......................................................... 38 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 40 

William Happer, Ph.D., Cyrus Fogg Bracket Professor of Physics, Princeton 

University ............................................................................................................. 55 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 57 

Mark Steyn, International Bestselling Author ..................................................... 70 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 71 

David W Titley, Rear Admiral USN (Ret.), Ph.D., Professor of Practice and 

Director, Center for Solutions to Weather and Climate Risk, Pennsylvania 

State University ................................................................................................... 78 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 80 

Page

IV 

APPENDIX

Response to written questions submitted to Admiral David Titley by: 

Hon. Richard Blumenthal ................................................................................ 181 

Hon. Edward Markey ....................................................................................... 185 

Hon. Gary Peters .............................................................................................. 188 

(1) 

DATA OR DOGMA? PROMOTING OPEN 

INQUIRY IN THE DEBATE OVER THE 

MAGNITUDE OF HUMAN IMPACT 

ON EARTH’S CLIMATE 

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2015 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE, SCIENCE, AND COMPETITIVENESS, 

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:10 p.m., in room 

SR–253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Cruz, Chairman 

of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Cruz [presiding], Gardner, Daines, Nelson, 

Schatz, Markey, Booker, Udall, and Peters. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TED CRUZ, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS 

Senator CRUZ. This hearing will come to order. 

Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to what I hope will be an important and informative hearing. 

This is a hearing on the science behind claims of global warming. 

Now this is the Science Subcommittee of the Senate Commerce 

Committee, and we are hearing from distinguished scientists, sharing their views, their interpretation, their analysis of the data and 

the evidence. 

Now I am the son of two mathematicians, two computer programmers and scientists. And I believe that public policy should 

follow the actual science and the actual data and evidence and not 

political and partisan claims that run contrary to the science and 

data and evidence. 

On November 28, 2013, an intrepid band of explorers set off from 

New Zealand on a research expedition to the Antarctic. Among 

their goals was investigating the impact of global warming on the 

Antarctic continent and islands. 

On Christmas Eve, they became stuck in ice, ice that the climate 

industrial complex had assured us were vanishing. This expedition 

was there to document how the ice was vanishing in the Antarctic, 

but the ship became stuck. It had run into an inconvenient truth, 

as Al Gore might put it. 

Three icebreakers tried and failed to reach the trapped ship because the ice was too thick. After a week of rescue attempts, the 

passengers were airlifted from the vessel. 

2 

Here are the inconvenient facts about the polar ice caps. The 

Arctic is not ice-free. This year’s minimum sea ice extent was well 

above the record low observed in 2011. In the Antarctic, a recent 

study from the Journal of Glaciology indicates that the ice is not 

only not decreasing but is, in fact, increasing in mass, directly contrary to what the global warming alarmists had told us would be 

happening. This is not what their climate models projected. 

Yet these inconvenient facts never seem to get the attention of 

people like John Kerry. And indeed, I would note behind me, on 

August 31, 2009, then-Senator John Kerry said, ‘‘Scientists project 

that the Arctic will be ice free in the summer of 2013. Not in 2050, 

but 4 years from now.’’ 

Well, the summer of 2013 has come and gone, and John Kerry 

was not just a little bit, he was wildly, extraordinarily, entirely 

wrong. Had the Antarctic expedition in the picture next to it not 

believed the global warming alarmists, had they actually looked to 

the science and the evidence, they wouldn’t have gone down and 

been surprised when they got stuck in ice. 

Facts matter. Science matters. Data matters. That is what this 

hearing is about—data. 

According to the satellite data, there has been no significant 

global warming for the past 18 years. Those are the data. The global warming alarmists don’t like these data. They are inconvenient 

to their narrative. But facts and evidence matters. 

And I would note that many in the media reflexively take the 

side of the global warming alarmists. Reflexively oppose anyone 

who actually points out, well, was John Kerry’s prediction accurate? No, it was stunningly and entirely false. 

Was the prediction of computer model after computer model that 

showed dramatic warming, were those predictions correct? No. The 

satellite data demonstrate no significant warming over 18 years. 

Public policy should follow science and evidence and data, and I 

would note that I found it amusing that our friends on the Democratic side of the aisle, I have discovered, held a press conference 

today as a ‘‘prebuttal’’ to this hearing. I suppose I should view that, 

in a sense, as a back-handed compliment. I am reminded of the 

Bard, ‘‘Methinks she doth protest too much.’’ 

What does it say when members of the United States Senate are 

protesting how dare the Science Subcommittee in the U.S. Senate 

hear testimony from scientists about actual science? How dare we 

focus on such topics? I think that is, indeed, exactly what we were 

elected to do. 

Senator Peters? 

STATEMENT OF HON. GARY PETERS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN 

Senator PETERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I would first like to thank the witnesses for being here today 

and for your testimony on what is surely a very important topic. 

When we think about global warming, there are risks and there 

are certainties. Let us talk first about the certainties. By burning 

fossil fuels, humans are releasing carbon into the atmosphere that 

would have otherwise remained locked away. This process creates 

3 

carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that traps heat that otherwise 

would have been radiated off into space. 

We know that by the law of conservation of energy that additional heat can’t just magically disappear. Instead, it causes our 

planet to get warmer. 

What else is certain? We are already seeing the symptoms of a 

warming planet not just in the temperature records, but in the rising sea and shrinking ice levels, in toxic algae blooms that are 

flourishing in the Great Lakes that were made worse by increased 

precipitation, runoff, and warmer water temperatures, tainting 

drinking water for 2.8 million people in recent years. All of that is 

certain. 

Now let us talk about the risk. Managing risk is all about looking at a range of possible outcomes and consequences, looking at 

the likelihood of each of those consequences, and then looking to 

see if there is anything you can do to reduce the likelihood of those 

consequences or both. 

From our models and from our understanding of the science, we 

see a range of potential outcomes, a range of possible warming 

trends, a range of consequences based on those trends. There are 

implications for our national security, for the economic health of 

our country, for our food supply and agriculture, and for the health 

and safety of Michiganders, Americans, as well as people all 

around the planet. 

The possible consequences of all these areas range from the bad 

to the catastrophic. Given our best scientific judgment of our risk 

posture of the consequences we face as a civilization and the likelihood of those consequences occurring, we must do what we can to 

mitigate these risks. 

We are going to hear today that there is some disagreement, 

some disagreement in the scientific community over the magnitude 

of that risk. As a matter of fact, I know we are going to hear from 

three scientists and a political commentator and blogger who disagree with varying aspects of the scientific consensus, as well as 

to argue that the science is not settled. 

We will hear we need to support our scientific community so that 

they can continue to answer the open questions and help policymakers make better—or better understand the risks that we face. 

And we will hear that scientists need to be protected from political 

interference from either side of the aisle. And I certainly agree that 

we need to support our scientific community and protect them from 

political influence, but I also know that while we continue to refine 

the science, we have to act on the risks and findings that our scientists have discovered. 

I would like to introduce into the record statements and letters 

from various science professional organizations representing tens of 

thousands, tens of thousands of scientists, including the American 

Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Society, the American Society for Agronomy, Crop 

Science Society of America, Soil Science Society of America, the 

American Statistical Association, the Ecological Society of America, 

the American Institute of Biological Sciences, and the Geological 

Society of America. 

4 

It is the position of these organizations that the evidence is overwhelming that the Earth is warming, global warming is real, and 

that human activity is the primary contributor. 

I would like unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, to enter these 

statements into the record. 

Senator CRUZ. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:] 


1208AAAS1.eps
5 


1208BOARD1.eps
6 


1208BOARD2.eps
7 


1208AMS1.eps
8 


1208AMS2.eps
9 


1208AIBS.eps
10 

Senator PETERS. Thank you. 

We know that there will always be more to learn. We will undoubtedly find more down the road that there is more to discover 

about what we don’t know. And that is really the beautiful thing 

about science, we always have more to learn. 

But knowing that there is more to learn should not, it should not 

stop us from acting on what we know now. We must discuss and 

determine what actions we need to take to limit the serious risks 

that we face, and there are many things that we can do that are 

not just good for the environment, but are good for the economy. 

Investments in clean energy create good-paying jobs and help us 

produce the energy we need right here in the United States. 

For example, Michigan is home to more than 220 wind and solar 

companies, representing tens of thousands of jobs. The growth in 

Michigan’s clean energy sector can be attributed in part to the 

state’s renewable electricity standard, which requires 10 percent of 

the state’s energy to come from renewables. 

But there is a lot of room to grow. If industry sourced its parts 

from local manufacturers, renewable energy could support over 

20,000 Michigan jobs in manufacturing alone by 2020. What is 

more, expanding Michigan’s renewable electricity standard from 10 

percent to over 30 percent by 2030 would generate more than $9 

million—$9 billion, $9 billion in new capital investments, investments in research and science, including the understanding of our 

Sun-Earth system, pay dividends for our country’s future economic 

growth, our economic competitiveness, and our very way of life. 

China certainly understands that. So if we miss this opportunity 

to make these investments now, we may soon find ourselves falling 

behind in the global economy. So let us focus on innovating our 

way out of this problem, and let us take a big step forward as a 

country. 

Senator CRUZ. Thank you, Senator Peters. 

Senator Nelson, the Ranking Member on the Full Committee, 

has requested to give an opening statement as well. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA 

Senator NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Before I make a couple of comments, I want to address a parliamentary inquiry. There is a sign out there on the witness table— 

Mr. Mair, Aaron Mair, president of the Sierra Club. Did—was Mr. 

Mair extended a formal invitation by the Chairman of this committee, Senator Thune? 

Senator CRUZ. He was invited by me, the Chairman of this subcommittee, and he declined. And momentarily, I am going to describe the circumstances behind that invitation and his decision not 

to attend. 

Senator NELSON. OK. I would just note that the protocol and the 

rules of the Committee are such that invitations for all witnesses 

are extended by the Chairman of the Committee, and I would like 

the record to reflect that such an invitation by Senator Thune, our 

Chairman, was not extended. And therefore, there should be no 

place up there at the witness table, but that should be noted for 

the record. 

11 

Now, Mr. Chairman, rather than get this started off in an adversarial way, you and I have had a very good relationship. We have 

worked together on the space program, and you and I have some 

significant differences about this issue. And so, rather than it be 

contentious, I want it to be factual. 

First of all, I would like to show a couple of pictures of what is 

happening in Miami Beach right now. Now I had the privilege a 

couple of years ago, when I was Chairman of the Science and Space 

Subcommittee, of taking our Commerce Committee to Miami 

Beach. And Miami Beach is basically ground zero in the United 

States for what we are seeing as a consequence of global warming, 

and that is sea level rise. 

We had a NASA scientist that testified at the hearing that over 

the last 40 years, measurements—these are measurements, not 

forecasts, not projections, they are measurements—that the seas 

have risen in south Florida from 5 to 8 inches. This photograph is 

a consequence at seasonal high tide of what is happening on the 

streets of Miami Beach. 

Now, interestingly, a couple of years earlier, the present Mayor 

of Miami Beach, in running for Mayor, did an actual campaign 

commercial in a kayak on Alton Road, which is on the opposite side 

of the barrier island, the west side of the barrier island from this. 

This is not far from the actual ocean. 

This one as well, you can look down the street there and see the 

sky in the background. That is about a couple of blocks down toward the beach. 

The campaign commercial in a kayak was at the October seasonal high tide on Alton Road, which is on the opposite side of the 

barrier island. And the fact is that we are having to deal with this. 

Now there is another consequence of this, and that is what you 

heard of saltwater intrusion. Saltwater is heavier than freshwater. 

Florida sits on a honeycomb of limestone that is filled with freshwater. That is where we get our freshwater, from the aquifer underneath. 

As the saltwater rises and sea level rise, the greater pressure because of the heavier water is intruding into the interior, and we 

have had a number of municipal wells that are now too salty. And 

it is another consequence. 

So some of us, representing our constituents, have to deal with 

the realities of what we see. I might point out that when you talk 

about measurements, 1992 we launched a satellite called Topex. It 

had an altimeter. It takes precise measurements of the surface of 

the ocean, and its successor satellites, Jason–1 and Jason–2, have 

been collecting that data. And observation, not projections, the data 

tells us that the average global sea level is rising at about 3.2 millimeters a year since 1993. That is about a tenth of an inch, or over 

a decade an inch. 

So I am glad that you were kind enough to let Senator Peters 

invite a minority witness, and we brought in Admiral David Titley, 

a lifelong public servant, a scientist, a decorated military officer 

from his naval career. And he is going to discuss this much more 

in detail. In addition to climate science, the admiral is an expert 

in oceanography, tropical meteorology, weather risk, and how all of 

this will impact our national security. 

12 

We need to understand how climate change is affecting all of the 

calculations that go into our national security by our national security teams. And after 32 years in the U.S. Navy, he now works at 

Pennsylvania State University. 

So I will conclude my remarks and insert the rest of them in the 

record, with the Chairman’s permission. 

Senator CRUZ. Without objection. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Nelson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON, U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA

Mr. Chairman, I welcome today’s debate about science surrounding the impact of 

climate change. 

In my state of Florida, we have over 1,260 miles of coastline—more than any 

other state in the continental U.S. 

Over three quarters of the state’s residents live in coastal counties. And Florida 

is quite flat. Britton Hill is the highest point at 345 feet above sea level. 

In Florida, you can see and touch sea level rise. I’m going to show you some photographs taken on Miami Beach in September. 

The first was taken along Indian Creek Road, and you can see the water flooding 

higher than the curb as this gentleman attempts to cross the street. 

In the second, you can see leaves and debris floating down a city sidewalk. 

So as you can see, Floridians do care a great deal about what the sea level is 

doing on any given day. 

In 1992, NASA launched a satellite called TOPEX/Poseidon with an instrument 

called an altimeter, which takes precise measurements of the surface of the ocean. 

Since then, its successor satellites, JASON–1 and JASON–2, have been collecting 

that data. 

Observation—not models, not projections, not dogma, but the data—tells us that 

the average global sea level is rising at about the rate of 3.2 millimeters a year 

since 1993. 

Today it is my distinct pleasure to welcome one of our panelists, Admiral David 

Titley—a lifelong public servant, a scientist, and a decorated military officer, who 

will discuss this data in more detail. 

In addition to climate science, Admiral Titley is an expert in oceanography, tropical meteorology, weather risk, and how those phenomena impact our national security. After 32 years in service to the U.S. Navy, Admiral Titley now works at Pennsylvania State University. 

I look forward to hearing from him and the other members of our panel. 

Mr. Chairman, while I welcome today’s debate, I’m sorry to say that it won’t represent the kind of objective and representative dialogue that’s needed. 

It’s ironic that we’ve got three scientists giving one side of the story, and only one 

opportunity to present a different perspective. 

As one who fiercely opposes any attempts to intimidate, censor or muzzle scientists, for this panel to hold a hearing without having a broad cross-section of experts only invites questions about the true openness of the hearing and the motives 

behind it. 

Whatever that motive is, I think it’s worth mentioning that when the Senate 

voted in March on my amendment to prohibit the use of tax dollars to censor publically-funded climate-related science a majority of Senators—51 to be exact—agreed 

with me. 

In fact, some of my Republican colleagues on this committee voted for my amendment—so I thank Senator Ayotte and Senator Rubio for their support. 

But even with a majority of the Senate’s support, the amendment failed because 

of politics. 

To most people, a vote against scientific censorship is common sense. But in the 

Senate, that was actually a courageous vote. 

In the future, I hope more members of this committee will join my fight for open 

inquiry. 

Senator CRUZ. Thank you, Senator Nelson. 

I would now like to welcome each of our expert witnesses. Thank 

you for coming to testify to this panel. 

13 

The first witness is Dr. John Christy. Dr. John Christy is the 

Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of 

Alabama in Huntsville and is Alabama’s State climatologist. 

He has been awarded NASA’s Medal for Exceptional Scientific 

Achievement, was elected a fellow of the American Meteorological 

Society, which also selected him for the special award for building 

climate datasets from satellites, and served as lead author of the 

U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Beginning as 

a teenager, Dr. Christy has studied climate for the past 50 years. 

Dr. Judith Curry currently serves as a professor and is former 

Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, in addition to serving as President of 

Climate Forecast Applications Network. Dr. Curry received a Ph.D. 

in atmospheric science from the University of Chicago. 

Dr. Curry has recently served on the NASA Advisory Council 

Earth Science Subcommittee, the DOE Biological and Environmental Research Advisory Committee, the National Academy’s Climate Research Committee and the Space Studies Board, and the 

NOAA Climate Working Group. Dr. Curry is a fellow of the American Meteorological Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the American Geophysical Union. 

Dr. William Happer currently serves as a Cyrus Fogg Bracket 

Professor of Physics at my alma mater, Princeton University, and 

has spent most of his professional life studying the interactions of 

visible and infrared radiation with gases, one of the main physical 

phenomena behind the greenhouse effect. 

Throughout his career, he has published over 200 papers in peerreviewed scientific journals and is a member of a number of professional organizations, including the American Physical Society, and 

the National Academy of Sciences. Dr. Happer also served as the 

Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy from 

1990 to 1993, where he supervised all of DOE’s work on climate 

change. 

Mr. Mark Steyn is an international bestselling author, a top five 

jazz recording artist, and a leading Canadian human rights activist. Mr. Steyn recently contributed to the number one climatology 

bestseller, Climate Change: The Facts, and edited another number 

one climatology bestseller, A Disgrace to the Profession: The World’s 

Scientists in Their Own Words on Michael Mann, His Hockey Stick, 

and Their Damage to Science, Volume 1. 

In his capacity as a human rights activist, Mr. Steyn’s human 

rights campaign to restore free speech to Canada led to the repeal 

by parliament of the notorious Section 12 hate speech law, a battle 

he recounts in his book, Lights Out: Islam, Free Speech, and the 

Twilight of the West. 

And then Dr. David Titley, who Senator Nelson mentioned already. Dr. Titley currently serves as Professor of Practice in the 

Department of Meteorology at the Pennsylvania State University 

and is the Founding Director of Penn State’s Center for Solutions 

to Weather and Climate Risk. 

Dr. Titley holds a Bachelor of Science in meteorology from the 

Pennsylvania State University. From the Naval Postgraduate 

School, he earned a Master’s of Science in meteorology and physical 

oceanography and a Ph.D. in meteorology. Prior to joining Penn 

14 

State, Dr. Titley served as a naval officer for 32 years and rose to 

the rank of Rear Admiral. 

His career included duties as Commander, Naval Meteorology 

and Oceanography Command; oceanographer and navigator of the 

Navy; and Deputy Assistant Chief of Naval Operations for Information Dominance. He has also served as Senior Military Assistant 

for the Director, Net Assessment in the Office of the Secretary of 

Defense. While serving in the Pentagon, Dr. Titley initiated and led 

the U.S. Navy’s task force on climate change. 

After retiring from the Navy, Dr. Titley served as the Deputy 

Under Secretary of Commerce for Operations, the Chief Operating 

position at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

NOAA. 

The final witness that we had hoped to have today is Mr. Aaron 

Mair, the President of the Sierra Club. I would note a number of 

weeks ago, Mr. Mair was witness at another hearing that I chaired 

in the Oversight Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee. This 

was a hearing concerning the effect of overregulation on minority 

communities and, in particular, the devastating impacts of overregulation in the Obama administration on the Hispanic community and the African-American community. 

There were a host of witnesses that testified to the job losses, to 

the stagnating wages as a consequence of overregulation from the 

Federal Government. Mr. Mair was one of the witnesses, a minority witness invited by the Democrats. Mr. Mair’s testimony concerned global warming. 

In the course of that hearing, I asked Mr. Mair about the scientific basis for his testimony. In particular, I asked him how he 

responded to the fact that the satellite data demonstrate no significant warming whatsoever for the past 18 years. 

Mr. Mair, by all appearances, did not have the foggiest idea what 

the satellite data demonstrated. Indeed, he repeatedly turned to his 

staff members behind him and was unable to answer even basic 

questions. 

At the conclusion of the questioning, my friend, the Ranking 

Democrat on the Committee, Senator Chris Coons, stepped to Mr. 

Mair’s defense, and he said—in fact, I will read his quote directly. 

Senator Coons said, ‘‘Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just simply 

wanted to observe that we have a broadly representative and qualified group of folks who were brought here to talk about overregulation and its impact on minority communities. And I do not speak 

for the Sierra Club, obviously, but it is my hope and expectation 

that if you want to pursue that line of inquiry with them further, 

they would be happy to.’’ 

At that suggestion from Democratic Senator Coons that we hold 

a subsequent hearing on global warming, we have announced this 

hearing. Now I did note at the time that the entire substance of 

Mr. Mair’s both written and oral testimony to the Subcommittee 

concerned global warming, and yet he was unprepared to discuss 

even the basic science behind what he was testifying to. 

My office reached out to Mr. Mair and invited him to come testify 

on this panel, and we did so in consultation with the Chairman of 

the full Committee, Senator Thune. Mr. Mair turned down that invitation. And so, without objection, I would like to enter into the 

15 

record the written correspondence, the e-mail between my office 

and Mr. Mair extending the invitation and the Sierra Club’s response to that, declining to attend. 

[The information referred to follows:] 


1208SIER1.eps
16 

Senator CRUZ. In Mr. Mair’s honor, we have a spot at the table 

for him. 

I would note that it is striking the Sierra Club, a national advocacy organization that devotes the lion’s share of its energy to advocating for global warming, was unwilling to come and defend the 

merits of its position based on the science or the data. To any fair 

or impartial observer, the Sierra Club’s refusal even to engage in 

a discussion of the science should speak volumes. 

And with that, Dr. Christy, we are ready to receive your testimony. 

Senator NELSON. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would like to likewise 

enter into the record all the letters of invitation extended to the 

witnesses, and the record will note that there is no such letter of 

invitation to the gentleman that you are speaking about. 

Senator CRUZ. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

17 


1208NVTD.eps
18 


1208NVTB.eps
19 


1208NVTE.eps
20 


1208NVTC.eps
21 


1208NVTA.eps
22 

Senator CRUZ. And there was no formal letter issued because he 

had preemptively turned down the invitation on the front end. 

And with that, Dr. Christy? 

STATEMENT OF JOHN R. CHRISTY, PH.D., DISTINGUISHED 

PROFESSOR OF ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE AND DIRECTOR OF 

EARTH SYSTEM SCIENCE CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF 

ALABAMA IN HUNTSVILLE 

Dr. CHRISTY. Thank you, Chairman Cruz and Ranking Member 

Peters and Ranking Member Nelson, for this opportunity to speak 

about climate change. 

I am John Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and Alabama State climatologist. 

I have served in many climate science capacities, including lead authorship of the United Nations IPCC. 

I, along with Dr. Curry, have the distinction of being two of the 

seven scientists targeted by Representative Grijalva for investigation because our views about climate change differ from those of 

the administration. 

My research might best be described as building datasets from 

scratch for 50 years to help us understand what the climate is 

doing and what it might do and why it does what it does. The two 

main points of my verbal testimony are simple. 

First, the basis on which the popular view that human-caused 

climate change is dangerous does not pass simple validation tests. 

Second, the attempt to study climate change with an objective eye 

is thwarted by the Federal funding process. 

Now we at UAH monitor climate change for such variables as 

temperature. However, no one has a direct means to tell us why 

the temperature changes. Our thermometers only tell us what has 

happened. They do not tell us why it happened. There is really no 

way to prove why climate does what it does. 

Now so to try to understand why the changes occur, we make 

claims or hypotheses using climate models whose equations attempt to approximate all of the important factors that affect the 

climate. If these equations are accurate, we can then see how each 

factor, such as greenhouse gases or volcanoes, might affect the climate, and therefore, we could learn what the cause of these 

changes might be. 

Now one variable, according to climate models, that has the largest response to extra greenhouse gases is the temperature of the 

bulk atmosphere, and this is the layer from the surface to about 

50,000 feet in altitude. As shown in my written testimony and as 

you can see on the chart to my left, the models fail this very simplest of validation tests. They can’t even reproduce what has already happened in the past 37 years. 

One hundred and two climate model runs warm up the bulk 

layer of the atmosphere by an average factor of 3 more than what 

has actually occurred. Now being off by a factor of 3 does not qualify as settled science in my view. 

Now why are studies like this so hard to find? It goes back to 

the way Federal funding occurs. Today, contrarian proposals, such 

as one I might write, that want to, say, look rigorously and test cliVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:09 Oct 04, 2016 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\21644.TXT JACKIE
23 

mate models against reality or to test various ideas about how natural variability causes these changes are rarely, if ever, funded. 

This is due to the fact the panels which decide this type of funding are dominated by those with the establishment point of view 

about dangerous climate change. Since there are many more proposals than funding allows, a contrarian proposal has essentially 

no chance of receiving funding because the panel decides these 

things by votes. 

Now in my view, Congress needs to fix this problem by directly 

funding red teams which are not part of the climate modeling industry to test the basis for the claims that human-induced climate 

change is dangerous. The Congress needs objective eyes on this 

issue because it is such a big-ticket item for everyone involved. 

Now it is no secret that the State of Alabama is in a desperate 

fight with the Federal EPA. Our elected officials understand, as do 

I, their state climatologist, that the regulations being established 

will do nothing to alter whatever the climate is going to do. In fact, 

even if the United States of America disappeared today—no people, 

no cars, no factories—the impact would be negligible on whatever 

the climate does. 

Alabama is fighting for our industries, which are being tempted 

by lower costs in Mexico and China, where their emissions would 

actually rise if they move there. We are fighting for our utilities, 

which sell over 30 percent of their electricity production to nearby 

states who need it. And we are fighting for the many poor people 

in our state who do not need another hike in their utility rates to 

satisfy a regulation whose only impact will be to further drain their 

meager resources. 

This is a time when even so-called green countries like Germany 

and Japan—that is Germany and Japan—are adding to their carbon emissions by building more coal-fired power plants while the 

rest of the world moves toward more carbon-based energy. 

To me, it is not scientifically justifiable or economically rational, 

that this Nation should establish regulations whose only discernible consequence is an increase in economic pain visited most directly and harshly on the poorest among us. This happens when 

the scientific process that allegedly underpins regulations lacks objectivity and transparency. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Christy follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN R. CHRISTY, DISTINGUISHED PROFESSOR OF

ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE AND DIRECTOR OF THE EARTH SYSTEM SCIENCE CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA, HUNTSVILLE; ALABAMA STATE CLIMATOLOGIST

I am John R. Christy, Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science, Alabama’s 

State Climatologist and Director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. I have served as a Lead Author, Contributing Author 

and Reviewer of United Nations IPCC assessments, have been awarded NASA’s 

Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement, and in 2002 was elected a Fellow of 

the American Meteorological Society. 

It is a privilege for me to offer my analysis of the current situation regarding our 

understanding of climate change, the effect of regulations on climate, the popular 

notion of extreme climate events, and the unfortunate direction research in this 

area has taken. My research area might be best described as building datasets from 

scratch to advance our understanding of what the climate is doing and why—an activity I began as a teenager over 50 years ago. I have used traditional surface observations as well as measurements from balloons and satellites to document the cliVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:09 Oct 04, 2016 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\21644.TXT JACKIE
24 

mate story. Many of our UAH datasets are used to test hypotheses of climate variability and change. 

How well do we understand climate change? 

A critical issue in our era is to determine whether emissions from human activities impact the climate and by how much. This is made especially difficult because 

we know the climate system already is subject to changes without the influence of 

humans. Because there is no measuring device that explicitly determines the cause 

of the climate changes we can measure, such as temperature, our science must take 

a different approach to seek understanding as to what causes the changes, i.e., how 

much is natural and how much is human induced. The basic approach today utilizes 

climate models. (The projections of these models are being utilized for carbon policies as well.) 

It is important to understand that output from these models, (i.e., projections of 

the future climate and the specific link that increasing CO2 might have on the climate) are properly defined as scientific hypotheses or claims—model output cannot 

be considered as providing proof of the links between climate variations and greenhouse gases. These models are complex computer programs which attempt to describe through mathematical equations as many factors that affect the climate as 

is possible and thus estimate how the climate might change in the future. The 

model, it is hoped, will provide accurate responses of the climate variables, like temperature, when extra greenhouse gases are included in the model. However, the 

equations for nearly all of the important climate processes are not exact, representing the best approximations modelers can devise and that computers can handle at this point. 

A fundamental aspect of the scientific method is that if we say we understand 

a system (such as the climate system) then we should be able to predict its behavior. 

If we are unable to make accurate predictions, then at least some of the factors in 

the system are not well defined or perhaps even missing. [Note, however, that merely replicating the behavior of the system (i.e., reproducing ‘‘what’’ the climate does) 

does not guarantee that the fundamental physics are well-known. In other words, 

it is possible to obtain the right answer for the wrong reasons, i.e., getting the 

‘‘what’’ of climate right but missing the ‘‘why’’.] 

Do we understand how greenhouse gases affect the climate, i.e., the link between 

emissions and climate effects? A very basic metric for climate studies is the temperature of the bulk atmospheric layer known as the troposphere, roughly from the 

surface to 50,000 ft altitude. This is the layer that, according to models, should 

warm significantly as CO2 increases—even faster than the surface. Unlike the surface temperature, this bulk temperature informs us regarding the crux of the global 

warming question—how much heat is accumulating in the global atmosphere? And, 

this CO2-caused warming should be easily detectible by now, according to models. 

This provides a good test of how well we understand the climate system because 

since 1979 we have had two independent means of monitoring this layer—satellites 

from above and balloons with thermometers released from the surface. 

I was able to access 102 CMIP–5 rcp4.5 (representative concentration pathways) 

climate model simulations of the atmospheric temperatures for the tropospheric 

layer and generate bulk temperatures from the models for an apples-to-apples comparison with the observations from satellites and balloons. These models were developed in institutions throughout the world and used in the IPCC AR5 Scientific Assessment (2013). 

25 

Above: Global average mid-tropospheric temperature variations (5-year averages) for 32 models (lines) representing 102 individual simulations. Circles (balloons) and squares (satellites) depict the observations. 

The information in this figure provides clear evidence that the models have a 

strong tendency to over-warm the atmosphere relative to actual observations. On 

average the models warm the global atmosphere at a rate three times that of the 

real world. This is not a short-term, specially-selected episode, but represents the 

past 37 years, over a third of a century. This is also the period with the highest 

concentration of greenhouse gases and thus the period in which the response should 

be of largest magnitude. 

Using the scientific method we would conclude that the models do not accurately 

represent at least some of the important processes that impact the climate because 

they were unable to ‘‘predict’’ what has already occurred. In other words, these models failed at the simple test of telling us ‘‘what’’ has already happened, and thus 

would not be in a position to give us a confident answer to ‘‘what’’ may happen in 

the future and ‘‘why.’’ As such, they would be of highly questionable value in determining policy that should depend on a very confident understanding of how the climate system works. 

There is a related climate metric that also utilizes atmospheric temperature which 

in models has an even larger response than that of the global average shown above. 

This metric, then, provides a stronger test for understanding how well models perform regarding greenhouse gases specifically. In the models, the tropical atmosphere 

warms significantly in response to the added greenhouse gases—more so than that 

of the global average atmospheric temperature. 


1208CHR1.eps
26 

Above: Tropical average mid-tropospheric temperature variations (5-year averages) for 32 

models (lines) representing 102 individual simulations. Circles (balloons) and squares (satellites) 

depict the observations. 

In the tropical comparison here, the disparity between models and observations 

is even greater, with models on average warming this atmospheric region by a factor 

of four times greater than in reality. Such a result re-enforces the implication above 

that the models have much improvement to undergo before we may have confidence 

they will provide information about what the climate may do in the future or even 

why the climate varies as it does. For the issue at hand, estimates of how the global 

temperature might be affected by emission reductions from regulations would be exaggerated and not reliable. 

Impact of Regulations Will Not Be Attributable or Detectable 

The impact on global temperature for current and proposed reductions in greenhouse gases will be tiny. To demonstrate this, let us assume, for example, that the 

total emissions from the United States were reduced to zero, as of last May 13th, 

2015 (the date of the last congressional hearing on which I testified). In other words 

as of that day and going forward, there would be no industry, no cars, no utilities, 

no people—i.e., the United States would cease to exist as of that day. Regulations, 

of course will only hope to reduce emissions a small amount, but to make the point 

of how minuscule the regulatory impact will be, we shall simply go way beyond reality and cause the United States to vanish. With this we shall attempt to answer 

the question of climate change impact due to emissions reductions. 

Using the U.N. IPCC impact tool known as Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse-gas Induced Climate Change or MAGICC, graduate student Rob Junod and 

I reduced the projected growth in total global emissions by U.S. emission contribution starting on this date and continuing on. We also used the value of the equilibrium climate sensitivity as determined from empirical techniques of 1.8 °C. After 

50 years, the impact as determined by these model calculations would be only 0.05 

to 0.08 °C—an amount less than that which the global temperature fluctuates from 

month to month. [These calculations used emission scenarios A1B–AIM and AIF– 

MI with U.S. emissions comprising 14 percent to 17 percent of the 2015 global emissions. There is evidence that the climate sensitivity is less than 1.8 °C, which would 

further lower these projections.] 

Because changes in the emissions of our entire country would have such a tiny 

calculated impact on global climate, it is obvious that fractional reductions in emissions through regulation would produce imperceptible results. In other words, there 

would be no evidence in the future to demonstrate that a particular climate impact 

was induced by the proposed and enacted regulations. Thus, the regulations will 


1208CHR2.eps
27 

have no meaningful or useful consequence on the physical climate system—even if 

one believes climate models are useful tools for prediction. 

Alleged impacts of human-induced climate changes regarding extreme 

events 

Much of the alarm related to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations shifted in 

the past decade from global temperature changes to changes in extreme events, i.e., 

those events which typically have a negative impact on the economy. These events 

may be heat waves, floods, hurricanes, etc. 

In terms of heat waves, below is the number of 100 °F days observed in the U.S. 

from a controlled set of weather stations. It is not only clear that hot days have not 

increased, but it is interesting that in the most recent years there has been a relative dearth of them. 

Above: Average number of days per-station in each year reaching or exceeding 100°F in 982 

stations of the USHCN database (NOAA/NCEI, prepared by JRChristy). 

Forest and wild fires are documented for the US. The evidence below indicates 

there has not been any change in frequency of wildfires. Acreage (not shown) shows 

little change as well. 


1208CHR3.eps
28 

Above: Number of U.S. wildfires. As the management of these events changes, and thus the 

number also changes, but the number of events since 1985 has remained constant. (National 

Interagency Fire Center https://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/nfn.htm) 

Above: Number of U.S. forest fires per year since 1965. 

The two figures above demonstrate that fire events have not increased in frequency in the United States during the past several decades. 

The claims that droughts and floods are increasing may be examined by the observational record as well. 


1208CHR4.eps 1208CHR5.eps
29 

Above: Global areal extent of five levels of drought for 1982–2012 where dryness is indicated 

in percentile rankings with D0 < 30, D1 < 20, D2 < 10, D3 < 5 and D4 < 2 percentile of average 

moisture availability. (Hao et al., 2014) 

Above: Areal fraction of conterminous U.S. under very wet (blue) or very dry (red) conditions. 

NOAA/NCEI. 

The two figures above demonstrate that moisture conditions have not shown a 

tendency to have decreased (more drought) or increased (more large-scale wetness). 

Such information is rarely consulted when it is more convenient simply to make unsubstantiated claims that moisture extremes, i.e., droughts and floods (which have 

always occurred), are somehow becoming even more extreme. Over shorter periods 

and in certain locations, there is evidence that the heaviest precipitation events are 

tending to be greater. This is not a universal phenomenon and it has not been established that such changes may be due to changes in greenhouse gas concentrations 

as demonstrated earlier because the model projections are unable to reproduce the 

simplest of metrics. 


1208CHR6.eps 1208CHR7.eps
30 

Above: World grain production 1961–2012. U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization. 

It is a simple matter to find documentation of the ever-rising production of grains. 

One wonders about the Federal Council on Environmental Quality’s allegation that 

there has been ‘‘harm to agriculture’’ from human-induced climate change because 

when viewing the total growth in production, which appears to be accelerating, one 

would assume no ‘‘harm’’ has been done during a period of rising greenhouse gases. 

With the evidence in these examples above, it is obviously difficult to establish 

the claims about worsening conditions due to human-caused climate change, or more 

generally that any change could be directly linked to increasing CO2. This point also 

relates to the issue of climate model capability noted earlier. It is clear that climate 

models fall short on some very basic issues of climate variability, being unable to 

reproduce ‘‘what’’ has happened regarding global temperature, and therefore not 

knowing ‘‘why’’ any of it happened. It is therefore premature to claim that one 

knows the causes for changes in various exotic measures of weather, such as rainfall 

intensity over short periods, which are not even explicitly generated in climate 

model output. 

The Disappointing Scientific Process 

I have written much for previous congressional hearings and other venues about 

the failure of the scientific community to objectively approach the study of climate 

and climate change. (See Appendix) Climate science is a murky science with large 

uncertainties on many critical components such as cloud distributions and surface 

heat exchanges. As mentioned above, there is no objective instrumentation that can 

tell us ‘‘why’’ changes occur. That being the case, we are left with hypotheses 

(claims) to put forward and then to test. The information given above, in my view, 

is clear evidence that the current theoretical understanding of ‘‘why’’ the climate 

changes, as embodied in models (and on which current policy is based), fails such 

tests. Indeed, the theoretical (model) view as expressed in the IPCC AR5 in every 

case overestimated the bulk tropical atmospheric temperature response of extra 

greenhouse gases (see above and IPCC Supplementary Material Figure 10.SM.1) indicating the theoretical understanding of the climate response is too sensitive to 

greenhouse gases. 

One problem with our science relates to the funding process for climate studies, 

the vast majority of which is provided through Federal agencies. Funding decisions 

are decided by people, and people have biases. Our science has also seen the move 

toward ‘‘consensus’’ science where ‘‘agreement’’ between people and groups is elevated above determined, objective investigation. The sad progression of events here 

has even led to congressional investigations designed to silence (with some success) 

those whose voices, including my own, have challenged the politically-correct views 


1208CHR8.eps
31 

on climate (i.e., congressional investigation by Rep. Grijalva, 22 Feb 2015, http:// 

www.scribd.com/doc/256811029/Letter-to-UAH-re-John-Christy.) 

Today, funding decisions are made by review panels. In this process, many proposals for funding are submitted to the agencies, but the agencies only have a fraction of the funds available to support the proposals, so only a few proposals can be 

funded and these are selected by panels. In the area of climate, it is clear the agencies are convinced of the consensus view of dangerous climate change as indicated 

by their various statements and press releases on the issue. Therefore, when a 

contrarian proposal is submitted that seeks to discover other possible explanations 

besides greenhouse gases for the small changes we now see, or one that seeks to 

rigorously and objectively investigate climate model output, there is virtually no 

chance for funding. This occurs because the panel determines by majority vote 

whom to fund, and with tight competition, any bias by just a couple of panel members against a contrarian proposal is sufficient for rejection. Of course, the agencies 

will claim all is done in complete objectivity, but that would be precisely the expected response of someone already within the ‘‘consensus’’ and whose agency has 

stated its position on climate change. This brings me to ‘‘consensus science.’’ 

The term ‘‘consensus science’’ will often be appealed to regarding arguments about 

climate change to bolster an assertion. This is a form of ‘‘argument from authority.’’ 

Consensus, however, is a political notion, not a scientific notion. As I testified to the 

Inter-Academy Council in June 2010, wrote in Nature that same year (Christy 

2010), and documented in my written testimony for several congressional hearings 

(e.g., House Space, Science and Technology, 31 Mar 2011) the IPCC and other similar Assessments do not represent for me a consensus of much more than the consensus of those selected to agree with a particular consensus. 

The content of these climate reports is actually under the control of a relatively 

small number of individuals—I often refer to them as the ‘‘climate establishment’’— 

who through the years, in my opinion, came to act as gatekeepers of scientific opinion and information, rather than brokers. The voices of those of us who object to 

various statements and emphases in these assessments are by-in-large dismissed 

rather than accommodated. This establishment includes the same individuals who 

become the ‘‘experts’’ called on to promote IPCC claims in government reports such 

as the endangerment finding by the Environmental Protection Agency. 

As outlined in my previous testimonies, these ‘‘experts’’ become the authors and 

evaluators of their own research relative to research which challenges their work. 

This becomes an obvious conflict of interest. But with the luxury of having the ‘‘last 

word’’ as ‘‘expert’’ authors of the reports, alternative views vanish. This is not a 

process that provides the best information to the peoples’ representatives. The U.S. 

Congress must have the full range of views on issues such as climate change which 

are (a) characterized by considerable ambiguity (see model results) (b) used to promote regulatory actions which will be economically detrimental to the American people and, most ironically, (c) will have no impact on whatever the climate will do. 

I’ve often stated that climate science is a ‘‘murky’’ science. We do not have laboratory methods of testing our hypotheses as many other sciences do. As a result what 

passes for science includes, opinion, arguments-from-authority, dramatic press releases, and fuzzy notions of consensus generated by preselected groups. This is not 

science. 

We know from Climategate e-mails and many other sources that the IPCC has 

had problems with those who take different positions on climate change than what 

the IPCC promotes. There is another way to deal with this however. Since the IPCC 

activity and climate research in general is funded by U.S. taxpayers, then I propose 

that five to ten percent of the funds be allocated to a group of well-credentialed scientists to produce an assessment that expresses legitimate, alternative hypotheses 

that have been (in their view) marginalized, misrepresented or ignored in previous 

IPCC reports (and thus the EPA Endangerment Finding and National Climate Assessments). 

Such activities are often called ‘‘Red Team’’ reports and are widely used in government and industry. Decisions regarding funding for ‘‘Red Teams’’ should not be 

placed in the hands of the current ‘‘establishment’’ but in panels populated by 

credentialed scientists who have experience in examining these issues. Some efforts 

along this line have arisen from the private sector (i.e., The Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change at http://nipccreport.org/ and Michaels (2012) 

ADDENDUM:Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States). I believe policymakers, with the public’s purse, should actively support the assembling all of the 

information that is vital to addressing this murky and wicked science, since the 

public will ultimately pay the cost of any legislation alleged to deal with climate. 

Topics to be addressed in this ‘‘Red Team’’ assessment, for example, would include 

(a) evidence for a low climate sensitivity to increasing greenhouse gases, (b) the role 

32 

and importance of natural, unforced variability, (c) a rigorous and independent evaluation of climate model output, (d) a thorough discussion of uncertainty, (e) a focus 

on metrics that most directly relate to the rate of accumulation of heat in the climate system, (f) analysis of the many consequences, including benefits, that result 

from CO2 increases, and (g) the importance that affordable and accessible energy 

has to human health and welfare. 

What this proposal seeks is to provide to the Congress and other policymakers a 

parallel, scientifically-based assessment regarding the state of climate science which 

addresses issues which here-to-for have been un-or under-represented by previous 

tax-payer funded, government-directed climate reports. In other words, our policymakers need to see the entire range of findings regarding climate change. 

Summary 

The messages of the four points outlined above are: (1) the theoretical understanding of the way greenhouse gases affect climate, as embodied on climate models, 

fails simple evaluation tests, (2) even if one accepts climate model output, the impact of reducing emissions by any of the regulations now enforce or proposed will 

be negligible, (3) the claims about increases in frequency and intensity of extreme 

events are generally not supported by actual observations and, (4) official information about climate science is largely controlled by agencies through (a) funding 

choices for research and (b) by the carefully-selected (i.e., biased) authorship of reports such as the EPA Endangerment Finding and the National Climate Assessment. 

IAC 15 June 2010 Montreal 

JOHN R. CHRISTY, DISTINGUISHED PROFESSOR OF ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE DIRECTOR, 

EARTH SYSTEM SCIENCE CENTER, ALABAMA STATE CLIMATOLOGIST, UNIVERSITY OF

ALABAMA IN HUNTSVILLE

IPCC LEAD AUTHOR: 2001 TAR, CONTRIBUTOR: 1992 SUPPLEMENT

CONTRIBUTOR: 1994 RADIATIVE FORCING OF CLIMATE CHANGE

KEY CONTRIBUTOR: 1995 SAR 

CONTRIBUTING AUTHOR: 2007 AR4, WG I AND II 

NASA MEDAL FOR EXCEPTIONAL SCIENTIFIC ACHIEVEMENT, AMERICAN

METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY SPECIAL AWARD FOR SATELLITE OBSERVATIONS

FELLOW, AMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY

Mr. Chairman and members of the IAC panel, thank you for inviting me to offer 

my views on the IPCC process. Five years ago the New York Times quoted me saying that an IPCC-like process, ‘‘. . . is the worst way to generate scientific information, except for all the others.’’ (23 Aug 2005) I now think I was a bit too generous. 

A fundamental problem with the entire issue here is that climate science is not 

a classic, experimental science. As an emerging science of a complex, chaotic climate 

system, it is plagued by uncertainty and ambiguity in both observations and theory. 

Lacking classic, laboratory results, it easily becomes hostage to opinion, groupthink, 

arguments-from-authority, overstatement of confidence, and even Hollywood movies. 

When climate scientists are placed in the limelight because this issue can generate 

compelling disaster scenarios, we simply don’t want to say, ‘‘We just don’t know.’’ 

I have been a contributor to the IPCC Assessments since 1992 and a Lead Author 

in the Third Assessment of 2001. Though I had some good things to say about the 

IPCC, I did respond in 2001 to the U.S. National Academy of Sciences when they 

solicited information about certain problems (see Appendix A). 

At the time, I was more concerned about the product rather than the process. The 

first objection I raised regarding the Third Assessment was that the fabled Hockey 

Stick was oversold as an indicator of past climate change. This was well before the 

critical work of the Wegman Report, National Academy of Sciences, McIntyre’s papers and the East Anglia e-mails. Indeed, I urge you in the strongest terms to engage 

Stephen McIntyre in your deliberations at a high level as he has accurately documented specific failures in the IPCC process, some of which I can attest to, as I was 

there. 

33 

My second objection to the TAR was its overstatement of confidence in model projections. 

My role in the Fourth Assessment of 2007 was limited to that of a Contributing 

Author. This means I submitted recommendations that were dealt with by the Lead 

Authors who tended to disagree with my published findings. Thus, their views carried the day in the report. In this process, the final result really boils down the opinions of those selected as Lead Authors, a point I will address below. 

In March of last year, 8 months before the e-mail fiasco, about 140 former IPCC 

Lead Authors gathered in Hawaii for a preview of what the Fifth Assessment might 

tackle. I was the only one there well-known to be essentially outside the IPCC ‘‘consensus.’’ I had come to the conclusion that the IPCC establishment demonstrated 

a disturbing homogeneity-of-thought regarding the hypothesized but unproven role 

that greenhouse gases might impose on the climate system. My short talk (Appendix 

B) and poster (Appendix C) at that meeting last year dealt with three science issues 

and offered a recommendation. The three issues were (1) the surface temperature 

record is flawed in many ways, but is flawed in particular as a metric to detect 

greenhouse-imposed warming, (2) direct tests of the so-called fingerprint of climate 

model temperature changes versus observations indicated significant differences, 

failing simple hypothesis tests, and (3) the critical value of climate sensitivity to 

greenhouse gases was overstated because it had not been properly calculated. All 

of these were supported by peer-reviewed publications which even now continue to 

appear. 

In my view, the IPCC process had drifted away from allowing authors to serve 

as Brokers of climate science, in which various views are given attention, to becoming Gatekeepers of climate science in which one view is elevated and promoted. The 

IPCC Assessment had become a ‘‘consensus of those who agreed with the consensus.’’ Since ‘‘consensus’’ is a political notion, not a scientific notion, a goal of ‘‘consensus’’ in any forum is at its heart a political goal. 

My recommendation last year was to include a chapter written by credentialed 

climate scientists who would provide evidence concerning these heretofore minimized issues, in particular the low sensitivity of the climate system. My assumption 

at that time was that the IPCC writing process would be the same, i.e., that the 

Lead Authors of this chapter, as the others, would be given the sacred right of being 

their own final reviewers to let a new voice be heard. No one at the meeting thought 

this was a useful suggestion, I believe, because it would allow the expression of reasonable alternatives to claims too entrenched in the message of looming climate disasters promoted with IPCC indulgence. 

Since last March, much has happened to expose some of the scientists who dominated the IPCC, whom I call the establishment, as less than transparent, subject 

to bias, and who suppress alternative views while using the IPCC’s perception as 

a near-sacred document to promote their own opinions. This establishment dominates not only the IPCC but also the review process of the peer-reviewed literature, 

making it extremely difficult for alternative evidence to even be published now. This 

happens when your type of science is rather murky to begin with. 

In my view, the three fundamental flaws in the current IPCC process are (1) the 

two-step political filter by which Lead Authors are selected, (2) the review-authority 

granted the Lead Authors who write the chapters and synthesis reports, and, (3) 

the very limited word-count available for each topic, which encourages short and 

overconfident statements about questions that in truth are plainly nasty to deal 

with. 

In February of this year, Nature magazine asked me for a brief discussion about 

the IPCC and a way forward (Appendix D, last page). My main concern there was 

to define a process that would let the world know that our ignorance of much of 

the climate system is simply enormous and we have much to do. Mother Nature has 

a tremendous number of degrees of freedom up her sleeves, many of which we don’t 

even know about or account for. 

So, I suggested a living, carefully-managed, wikipedia-style process. Important 

questions, most of which are already laid out in the IPCC manifest, would be addressed by teams of Lead Authors who would be far less constrained by the wordcount rules, and so would allow fuller expression of uncertainty and disagreement— 

expressions contributed by the specific people who perform whatever research is 

being discussed. The Lead Authors main task would be to organize and summarize 

the information on each question, acting strictly as Brokers, not Gatekeepers. With 

web-based links to actual text (and data) the Lead Authors would be far less tempted to be biased. Lead Authors need to know they do not have to agree with the findings they report. I believe such transparency would spur the Lead Authors to be 

fairer and more humble in their summary comments. 

34 

Peer-reviewed research of course would dominate the source material, but other 

documents—whose source is clearly identified—could contribute to the discussion. I 

know there would be significant issues of managing such a process, but I believe 

it would be far better than producing big books every six years that are limited, biased and out-of-date when they are printed. We are in the 21st Century, and, to 

the despair of those who find comfort in absolute answers, there are only continuously evolving levels of understanding (and ignorance) to most of the climate questions being asked. This situation begs for a dynamic assessment process. 

The selection of Lead Authors through a two-step political process is a problem 

too. Presently, national governments nominate to the IPCC those who over the 

years, they can generally count on to be consistent with national policy. From this 

pool, the IPCC itself selects those it wants to be Lead Authors. To combat the political influence of governments and the U.N., to a small extent, I would recommend 

that Lead Authors be nominated by appropriate learned societies, such as yours, 

and selected for overlapping, rotating terms. I’m not completely comfortable with 

this as I’m aware that councils of science are deeply involved in political maneuvering which is why I state that to a ‘‘small extent’’ the political influence of governments and the U.N. might be mitigated. 

Some Lead Authors could and should be scholars from other disciplines but who 

have a keen awareness of the hard rules of hypothesis testing, admissible evidence, 

and the power of language. . .physicists, chemists, engineers and yes, even lawyers. 

As I told a colleague the other day, it is clear to me now that climate science needs 

some adult supervision. 

I realize such a recommendation creates consternation among those who have controlled the process up to now and who believe deeply that the ‘‘science is settled’’ 

because they find comfort in easy and unimaginative answers to difficult questions. 

For example, why doesn’t the IPCC report on (and funding agencies invest in) major 

research about the internal dynamical properties of the climate system? At present 

these properties are incapably represented in climate models to date, and yet have 

been shown to be a major source of the variability we’ve seen. Why must we be so 

unimaginative that we just give up and claim that nothing else but enhanced greenhouse forcing explains most of the temperature rise in the past 50 years? 

Others will complain that such an open process I describe will not generate the 

definitive statements necessary to drive policy. To those I say, ‘‘Welcome to climate 

science.’’ If a specific policy is desired, climate science is a weak leg on which to 

stand which means a policy should have multiple, defensible reasons for adoption. 

You will hear from those within the IPCC establishment that the IPCC does a 

terrific job of getting down to the truth about climate science and that the consensus 

reports are the best documents for policymakers. But as one mostly outside the 

‘‘consensus’’, I can not agree, and I am far, far from being alone in that disagreement. I say this as a working-stiff climate scientist who builds datasets from scratch 

to create understanding and test assertions about the climate system. The process 

followed in the Fourth Assessment, in my view, simply did not provide to the world 

the true ambiguities, uncertainties and contentions of our fledgling science. 

In summary, to me, the impediments to providing a more honest expression of our 

science to the world in the current IPCC process are (1) Lead Authors essentially 

having final review authority, (2) the Lead Author selection process which encourages government-approved, homogeneity-of-thought, and (3) the limited size, the 

dead-line character, and the past-expiration-date of printed documents. Thank you. 

35 


1208APP1.eps
36 


1208APP2.eps
37 


1208APP3.eps
38 

Senator CRUZ. Thank you, Dr. Christy. 

At this point in the hearing is when Mr. Aaron Mair, the President of the Sierra Club, would be afforded his opportunity to 

present the Sierra Club’s views on global warming. Unfortunately, 

as we discussed a minute ago, even though he was invited to 

present the Sierra Club’s views, he chose not to attend, and presumably, one reason for that is the last time he presented testimony on this topic, he was unable to answer even the most basic 

questions on the scientific basis for the political theory he was advancing, that we should massively increase the Federal Government regulation of the economy and dramatically drive up the cost 

of living, the electricity bills of millions of hard-working Americans. 

And so we will not be hearing from Mr. Mair now. Instead, we 

will hear from Dr. Curry. 

STATEMENT OF JUDITH A. CURRY, PH.D., CHAIR OF THE 

SCHOOL OF EARTH AND ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, GEORGIA 

INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY 

Dr. CURRY. I thank the Chairman and the Ranking Members for 

the opportunity to offer testimony today. 

Prior to 2009, I felt that supporting the IPCC consensus on climate change was a responsible thing to do. I bought into the argument don’t trust what one scientist says, trust what an international team of 1,000 scientists have said after years of careful deliberation. 

That all changed for me in November 2009, following the leaked 

‘‘Climategate’’ e-mails that illustrated the sausage making and 

even bullying that went into building the consensus. I started 


1208SLID.eps
39 

speaking out, saying that scientists needed to do better at making 

the data and supporting information publicly available, being more 

transparent about how they reach conclusions, doing a better job 

of assessing uncertainties, and actively engaging with scientists 

having minority perspectives. 

The response of my colleagues to this is summed up by the title 

of a 2010 article in the Scientific American, ‘‘Climate Heretic: Judith Curry Turns on Her Colleagues.’’ I came to the growing realization that I had fallen into the trap of group think. I had accepted the consensus based on second-order evidence, the assertion that 

a consensus existed. 

I began making an independent assessment of topics in climate 

science that had the most relevance to policy. And what have I concluded from this assessment? Human-caused climate change is a 

theory in which the basic mechanism is well understood, but whose 

magnitude is highly uncertain. 

No one questions that surface temperatures have increased overall since 1880 or that humans are adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, or that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have 

a warming effect on the planet. However, there is considerable uncertainty and disagreement about the most consequential issues— 

whether the warming has been dominated by human causes versus 

natural variability, how much the planet will warm in the 21st century, and whether warming is dangerous. 

The central issue in the scientific debate on climate change is the 

extent to which the recent and future warming is caused by humans versus natural climate variability. Research effort and funding has focused on understanding human causes of climate change. 

However, we have been misled in our quest to understand climate 

change by not paying sufficient attention to natural causes of climate variability, in particular from the Sun and from the long-term 

oscillations in ocean circulations. 

Why do scientists disagree about climate change? The historical 

data is sparse and inadequate. There is disagreement about the 

value of different classes of evidence, notably the value of global climate models. There is disagreement about the appropriate logical 

framework for linking and assessing the evidence, and scientists 

disagree over assessments of areas of ambiguity and ignorance. 

How then and why have climate scientists come to a consensus 

about a very complex scientific problem that the scientists themselves acknowledge has substantial and fundamental uncertainties? 

Climate scientists have become entangled in an acrimonious political debate that has polarized the scientific community. 

As a result of my analyses that challenge IPCC conclusions, I 

have been called a denier by other climate scientists and most recently by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse. My motives have been 

questioned by Representative Grijalva in a recent letter sent to the 

president of Georgia Tech. 

There is enormous pressure for climate scientists to conform to 

the so-called consensus. This pressure comes not only from politicians, but from Federal funding agencies, universities, and professional societies, and scientists themselves who are green activists. 

Reinforcing this consensus are strong monetary, reputational, and 

authority interests. 

40 

In this politicized environment, advocating for carbon dioxide 

emissions reductions is becoming the default expected position for 

climate scientists. This advocacy extends to the professional society 

that publish journals and organize conferences. 

Policy advocacy, when combined with understating the uncertainties, risks destroying science’s reputation for honesty and objectivity without which scientists become regarded as merely another 

lobbyist group. 

I would like to thank the Committee for raising the issue of data 

versus dogma in support of improving the integrity of climate 

science. This concludes my testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Curry follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JUDITH A. CURRY, PROFESSOR AND FORMER CHAIR, SCHOOL

OF EARTH AND ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

I thank the Chairman and the Committee for the opportunity to offer testimony 

today on ‘Data or Dogma? Promoting Open Inquiry in the Debate on Climate 

Change.’ I am Professor and former Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric 

Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. As a climate scientist, I have devoted 30 years to conducting research on a variety of topics including climate dynamics of the Arctic, climate dynamics of extreme weather events, and reasoning 

about climate uncertainty. As president of Climate Forecast Applications Network 

LLC, I have been working with decision makers on climate impact assessments, assessing and developing climate adaptation strategies, and developing subseasonal 

climate forecasting strategies to support adaptive management and tactical adaptation. 

Over the past decade, I have become increasingly concerned about the integrity 

of climate research, which is being compromised by the politicization of the science. 

My research on understanding the dynamics of uncertainty at the climate sciencepolicy interface has led me to conclude these dynamics are not operating in a manner that is healthy for either the science or the policy process. 

My testimony focuses on the following issues of central relevance to the state of 

climate science: 

• Consensus, uncertainty and disagreement 

• Unsettled climate science: the importance of natural climate variability 

• Scenarios for the 21st century climate 

• The broken contract between climate science and society 

Consensus, uncertainty and disagreement 

Under the auspices of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 

the international climate community has worked for more than 20 years to establish 

a scientific consensus on human-caused climate change. The IPCC consensus about 

dangerous anthropogenic climate change is portrayed as nearly total among scientists with prominence in the field of climate science, and the IPCC consensus has 

been endorsed by the relevant national and international science academies and scientific societies. 

The IPCC consensus building process arguably played a useful role in the early 

synthesis of the scientific knowledge. However, I have argued that the ongoing process to negotiate a scientific consensus has had the unintended consequence of oversimplifying both the problem and its solution, introducing biases into the both the 

science and related decision making processes. 

A scientist’s job is to critically evaluate evidence and challenge and reassess conclusions drawn from the evidence. Disagreement and minority perspectives have an 

important and respected role to play in advancing science, as a mean for testing 

ideas and pushing the knowledge frontier forward. How then, and why, have climate 

scientists come to a scientific consensus about a very complex scientific problem that 

the scientists themselves acknowledge has substantial and fundamental uncertainties? 

Climate scientists have become entangled in an acrimonious political debate that 

has polarized the scientific community and has resulted in political attacks on scientists on both sides of the debate. A scientist’s ‘side’ is often defined by factors that 

are exogenous to the actual scientific debate. Scientific controversies surrounding 

evidence of climate change have become a proxy for political battles over whether 

41 

1http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-heretic/ 

2http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2011BAMS3139.1 

3http://www.climateaccess.org/sites/default/files/CurrylReasoning%20about 

%20climate%20uncertainty.pdf 4http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.141/abstract?userIsAuthenticated=false 

&deniedAccessCustomisedMessage= 5http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/consensus-paper-revised-final.doc 

6http://judithcurry.com/category/ethics/ 

7http://judithcurry.com/category/consensus/ 

8http://judithcurry.com/category/sociology-of-science/ 

9https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5lSPMlFINAL.pdf 

and how to react to climate change. Therefore, ‘winning’ a scientific debate means 

attaining a privileged position in political battle, hence providing motivation for defending the scientific consensus. The quality of both scientific and policy debate has 

suffered as a consequence. 

A climate scientist making a statement about uncertainty or degree of doubt in 

the climate debate is categorized as a denier or a ‘merchant of doubt,’ whose motives 

are assumed to be ideological or motivated by funding from the fossil fuel industry. 

My own experience in publicly discussing concerns about how uncertainty is characterized by the IPCC has resulted in my being labeled as a ‘climate heretic’ 1 that 

has turned against my colleagues. 

There is enormous pressure for climate scientists to conform to the so-called consensus. This pressure comes not only from politicians, but from Federal funding 

agencies, universities and professional societies, and scientists themselves who are 

green activists and advocates. Reinforcing this consensus are strong monetary, 

reputational, and authority interests. 

As a result, I have become very concerned about the integrity of climate science. 

In the last 5 years, I have published a series of papers that address the inadequacies that I see in how climate scientists address the issue of uncertainty, and provide ways forward for improved reasoning about the complex problems in climate 

science: 

• Climate science and the uncertainty monster 2

• Reasoning about climate uncertainty 3

• Nullifying the climate null hypothesis 4

• Climate science: no consensus on consensus 5

How to deal with the politicization of climate science is less obvious, but I regard 

it as highly important to shine some light on these problems. On my blog Climate 

Etc. at judithcurry.com, under the tags of ‘Ethics’ 6, ‘Consensus’ 1A7 and ‘Sociology 

of Science’ 8, I have written a series of essays on biases, the problems of advocacy 

and partisanship among climate scientists, conflicts of interest, and suppressions of 

climate inquiry. 

Unsettled climate science 

Anthropogenic climate change is a theory in which the basic mechanism is well 

understood, but whose magnitude is highly uncertain owing to feedback processes. 

Scientists agree that surface temperatures have increased overall since 1880, humans are adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, and carbon dioxide and other 

greenhouse gases have a warming effect on the planet. However there is considerable disagreement about the most consequential issues: whether the warming has 

been dominated by human causes versus natural variability, how much the planet 

will warm in the 21st century, and whether warming is ‘dangerous’. 

Why do climate scientists disagree? The historical data is sparse and inadequate. 

There is disagreement about the value of different classes of evidence, notably the 

value of global climate models. There is disagreement about the appropriate logical 

framework for linking and assessing the evidence in this complex problem. Scientists disagree over assessments of areas of ambiguity and ignorance. And finally, 

belief polarization resulting from politicization of the science and the IPCC’s consensus building process contributes substantially to the disagreement among scientists. 

What is causing the warming? 

The key conclusion of the 2013 IPCC AR5 Report 9 is that it is extremely likely 

that more than half of the warming since 1950 has been caused by humans, and 

climate model simulations indicate that all of this warming has been caused by humans. 

42 

10 Rohde et al., Geoinfor Geostat: An Overview 2013, 1:1 http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2327- 

4581.1000101 

Global surface temperature anomalies since 1850 are shown below. 

Figure 1: Global surface temperature anomalies from the UK HadCRUT4 dataset http:// 

www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT4.pdf 

If the warming since 1950 was caused by humans, what caused the warming during the period 1910—1945? The period 1910–1945 comprises over 40 percent of the 

warming since 1900, but is associated with only 10 percent of the carbon dioxide 

increase since 1900. Clearly, human emissions of greenhouse gases played little role 

in causing this early warming. The mid-century period of slight cooling from 1945 

to 1975—referred to as the ‘grand hiatus’, also has not been satisfactorily explained. 

Apart from these unexplained variations in 20th century temperatures, there is 

evidence that the global climate has been warming overall for the past 200 years, 

or even longer. While historical data becomes increasingly sparse in the 19th century, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project has assembled the available 

temperature data over land, back to 1750: 

Figure 2: Global land surface temperature anomalies since 1750, smoothed with a 10 year filter 10. 

The Berkeley Earth analysis shows a warming trend back to 1800, with considerable variability around the turn of the 19th century. Some of this variability around 

the turn of the 19th century can be attributed to large volcanic eruptions; this was 

also the time of the Dalton solar activity minimum (1791–1825). Paleoclimate reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere climate—such as from tree rings and boreholes— 


1208JUDY1.eps 1208JUDY2.eps
43 

11http://www.climatechange2013.org/report/reports-graphic/ch5-graphics/, Figure 5.7 12https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5lSPMlFINAL.pdf 13http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/06/03/science.aaa5632.full 14https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5lChapter11lFINAL.pdf 

indicate that overall warming may have occurred for the past 300–400 years.11 Humans contributed little if anything to this early global warming. 

What is the global warming hiatus, and why does it matter? 

The warming hiatus, or ‘pause’, reflects a slowdown of the rate of warming in the 

early 21st century, relative to the rapid rate of warming in the last quarter of the 

20th century. The 2013 IPCC AR5 Report 12 made the following statement: ‘‘the rate 

of warming over the past 15 years . . . is smaller than the rate calculated since 

1951’’. 

The significance of a reduced rate of warming since 1998 is that during this period, 25 percent of human emissions of carbon dioxide have occurred. Most significantly, the observed rate of warming in the early 21st century was slower than climate model predictions. The growing discrepancy between climate model predictions 

and the observations has raised serious questions about the climate models that are 

being used as the basis for national and international energy and climate policies. 

There has been a raging debate in recent months surrounding a new global temperature data set published by NOAA.13 The new data set finds more warming in 

recent decades than other global surface temperature data sets. Media headlines 

touted the conclusion that science now shows that the recent hiatus in warming 

never existed. Other headlines accused NOAA of fiddling with the climate data to 

erase the warming hiatus. 

As NOAA’s new land temperature data set did not become publicly available until 

last month, independent scientists have not yet had the chance to fully assess or 

understand the new data set. The differences during the recent hiatus period between the new NOAA surface temperature data set and the other data sets is illustrated below. 

Figure 3: Global surface temperature anomalies since 1995, for four different data sets. Figure 

courtesy of Robert Rohde of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project 

The new NOAA temperatures (red curve) are somewhat colder prior to 2007, and 

warmer since 2012. The largest discrepancies with other data sets are in the ocean 

data. Scientists are working to understand the reasons for these discrepancies. The 

trend of the new NOAA dataset of 0.1°C per decade for the period 1998–2014 is 

more than 50 percent larger than the trend of some of the other data sets. However, 

even the larger NOAA trend is at the bottom of the IPCC AR5 climate model projections for the early 21st century warming of 0.11 to 0.43 °C per decade 14. 

The warming hiatus is most clearly revealed in the global satellite data sets of 

lower atmospheric temperature (Figure 4). Scientists disagree on the reasons for the 


1208JUDY3.eps
44 

15http://berkeleyearth.org/berkeley-earth-temperature-update/ 16https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5lSPMlFINAL.pdf 

discrepancies between the variations of surface temperature and the lower atmospheric temperatures. The presence of El Nino and La Nina events compounds the 

difficulty in interpreting trends. 

Figure 4: Lower atmospheric temperature anomalies determined from satellite, for two different analyses. Figure courtesy of Roy Spencer, University of Alabama Huntsville. 

The U.S. media touted 2014 as the ‘warmest year’ in the historical record; however, given the uncertainties in the analyses, 2014 was in a statistical tie with 2010 

and 2005. The UK dataset HadCRU, with perhaps a more realistic assessment of 

uncertainties, found 2014 to rank among the top 10 warmest years, all of which are 

since 1998. While the recent decade is the warmest in history, the ties for warmest 

year further reflect a plateau in the warming. 

Scientists working with the global surface temperature datasets have predicted an 

85 percent probability that 2015 will be the warmest year on record.15 Declarations 

of ‘warmest year’ are already being made, before the end of the year, presumably 

to support the current UN climate negotiations in Paris. However, scientists working with the satellite data of lower atmospheric temperatures do not foresee 2015 

as being among the warmest years. 

Scientists continue to investigate the reasons for discrepancies among the data 

sets. It will likely be 5 years into the future before we have the perspective to identify whether the warming hiatus has ended with a resumption of a more rapid rate 

of warming, or whether the warming in 2015 from the large El Nino event will be 

followed by several cool years, as is often the case following El Nino events. 

The oceans: sea ice and sea level rise 

Among the greatest public concerns about climate change are sea level rise and 

melting of the polar ice. However, unless the recent changes are put in context with 

historical variations and an understanding of natural variability, it is easy to erroneously infer that any recent change is caused by humans. 

Sea ice 

The IPCC AR5 SPM 16 reports the following trends in sea ice: 

‘‘[T]he annual Arctic sea ice extent decreased over the period 1979–2012: the 

rate of this decrease was very likely between 3.5 and 4.1 percent per decade 

‘‘It is very likely that the annual Antarctic sea ice extent increased at a rate 

of between 1.2 and 1.8 percent per decade between 1979 and 2012. 

Below are satellite observations of sea ice variability through early December 

2015. 


1208JUDY4.eps
45 

17http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wpcontent/uploads/schweiger/icelvolume/BPI 

OMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1.png 18https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5lChapter10lFINAL.pdf 19Swart et al 2015 Influence of internal variability on Arctic sea-ice trends, Nature climate 

Change, 5, Pages: 86–89 DOI: doi:10.1038/nclimate2483 20Zhang, R. 2015. Mechanisms for low-frequency variability of summer Arctic sea ice extent, 

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, doi:10.1073/pnas.1422296112 21Wyatt, MG and JA Curry, 2013: Role for Eurasian Arctic shelf sea ice in a secularly varying 

hemispheric climate signal during the 20th century. Climate Dynamics, http://curryja 

.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/stadium-wave1.pdf 

Figure 5. Sea ice extent anomalies from 1979 to present. 

Source: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png, 

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png 

With regards to the most recent sea ice variability: since 2013, Arctic sea ice is 

recovering from its summertime minima during the period 2007–2012. Notably, Arctic sea ice volume (a metric that combines both horizontal extent and ice thickness) 

shows a continuing increase since 2012.17 During 2014, Antarctic sea ice set a wintertime maximum record; whereas during 2015, the Antarctic sea ice extent has declined owing to the El Nino event. 

Regarding the causes of the recent variations in sea ice, the AR5 Chapter 10 18

states: 

‘‘Anthropogenic forcings are very likely to have contributed to Arctic sea ice loss 

since 1979. There is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent since 1979, due to the incomplete and 

competing scientific explanations for the causes of change and low confidence in 

estimates of internal variability.’’ 

‘‘Arctic temperature anomalies in the 1930s were apparently as large as 

those in the 1990s and 2000s. There is still considerable discussion of the ultimate causes of the warm temperature anomalies that occurred in the Arctic in 

the 1920s and 1930s.’’ 

The IPCC AR5 states that the increase in Antarctic sea ice is not understood and 

is not simulated correctly by climate models. Further, Arctic surface temperature 

anomalies in the 1930s were nearly as large as the recent temperature anomalies, 

and hence the IPCC uses the weak phrase ‘contributed to’ in reference to anthropogenic influences on Arctic sea ice. 

A recent paper by Swart et al.19 emphasized that internal climate variability can 

mask or enhance human-induced sea-ice loss on timescales ranging from years to 

decades or even a century. A recent paper by Zhang 20 clarifies the natural fluctuations that influence Arctic sea ice loss—heat transported by the Atlantic and Pacific, 

and wind patterns over the Arctic that drive sea ice out from the central Arctic, 

where it melts in the North Atlantic. In particular, the recent cooling in the high 

latitudes of the North Atlantic is associated with the current recovery of the sea ice 

in the Atlantic sector. 

Wyatt and Curry (2014) interpret the multi-decadal natural variability component 

of the Arctic sea ice in context of a ‘stadium wave’.21 The stadium wave is a hypothesized low-frequency climate signal propagating across the Northern Hemisphere, 

whose tempo is set by the multidecadal component of Atlantic Ocean variability— 

the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. Sea ice in the Eurasian Arctic shelf region, 

where sea ice is uniquely exposed to open ocean in the Northern Hemisphere, 


1208JUDY5.eps
46 

22https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5lSPMlFINAL.pdf 

bridges communication between the ocean and atmosphere that sustains propagation of the hemispheric signal. Ocean-ice-atmosphere coupling spawns a sequence of 

positive and negative feedbacks that convey persistence and quasi-oscillatory features to the signal. Further stabilizing the system are anomalies of co-varying Pacific-centered atmospheric circulations. The stadium wave hypothesis suggests that 

a transition to recovery of the natural variability component of the sea ice extent 

has begun in the European Arctic sector, and that the recovery will reach its maximum extent circa 2040. 

Clearly, there is a lot going on with respect to variability in Arctic and Antarctic 

sea ice that cannot be explained solely by warming from human-caused greenhouse 

gases. Climate models do not simulate correctly the ocean heat transport and its 

variations. Scientists do not agree on the explanation for the increasing Antarctic 

sea ice extent, and the key issue as to whether human-caused warming is the dominant cause of the recent Arctic sea ice loss remains unresolved. 

Nevertheless, the IPCC AR5 concluded: 

• ‘‘[I]t is very likely that the Arctic sea ice cover will continue to shrink and thin 

all year round during the 21st century. It is also likely that the Arctic Ocean 

will become nearly ice-free in September before the middle of the century (medium confidence).’’ 

More convincing arguments regarding causes of recent sea ice variations in both 

hemispheres are required before placing any confidence in projections of future 

changes in Arctic sea ice cover. 

Sea level rise 

The IPCC AR5 SPM 22 makes the following statements regarding global sea level 

rise: 

‘‘Over the period 1901–2010, global mean sea level rose by 0.19 [0.17 to 0.21] m’’ 

[about 7–8 inches] 

‘‘It is very likely that the mean rate of global averaged sea level rise was 1.7 [1.5 

to 1.9] mm yr-1 between 1901 and 2010 . . . and 3.2 [2.8 to 3.6] mm yr-1 between 

1993 and 2010. It is likely that similarly high rates occurred between 

1920 and 1950.’’ 

The rate of global mean sea level rise as portrayed in the IPCC AR5 is shown 

in Figure 6 below. 


1208JUDY6.eps
47 

23https://www.ipcc.ch/publicationslandldata/ar4/wg1/en/spm.html 24http://www.nature.com/articles/doi:10.1038/nature16147 25http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/jog/pre-prints/content-ingsljogl15j071 26http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html 27http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113002191 28http://www.crossref.org/iPage?doi=10.1130%2FG36555.1 

Figure 6. 18-year trends of global mean sea level rise estimated at 1-year intervals. The time 

is the start date of the 18-year period, and the shading represents the 90 percent confidence. 

The estimate from satellite altimetry is also given, with the 90 percent confidence given as an 

error bar. [AR5 WGI Figure 3.14] 23

The IPCC AR5 then concludes: 

‘‘It is very likely that there is a substantial contribution from anthropogenic 

forcings to the global mean sea level rise since the 1970s.’’ 

Global sea level has been rising for the past several thousand years. The key issue 

is whether the rate of sea level rise is accelerating owing to anthropogenic global 

warming. It is seen that the rate of rise during 1920–1950 was comparable to, if 

not larger than, the value in recent years (a period contributing less than 10 percent 

of the human caused CO2 emissions since 1900). Hence the data does not seem to 

support the IPCC’s conclusion of a substantial contribution from anthropogenic 

forcings to the global mean sea level rise since the 1970s. 

The IPCC AR5 then makes the following projections regarding sea level rise: 

‘‘Under all RCP scenarios the rate of sea level rise will very likely exceed that 

observed during 1971–2010 due to increased ocean warming and increased loss 

of mass from glaciers and ice sheets.’’ 

‘‘For RCP8.5, the rise by the year 2100 is 0.52 to 0.98 m [20 to 38 inches], with 

a rate during 2081–2100 of 8 to16 mm/yr (medium confidence). These ranges 

are derived from CMIP5 climate projections in combination with process-based 

models and literature assessment of glacier and ice sheet contributions.’’ 

So, for a warming since 1900 that is approaching 1 °C, we have been unable to 

identify an unambiguous signal of human-caused sea level rise that exceeds the signal from natural variability (as evidenced by the large rates of sea level rise from 

1920 to 1950). The extreme emissions scenario (RCP8.5) projects a sea level increase 

of 20 to 38 inches by the end of the 21st century; for the more realistic emissions 

scenario RCP6.0, the projected sea level rise is 13 to 25 inches. These projections 

were obtained using the same CMIP5 models that are arguably running too hot in 

their temperature projections, perhaps by a factor of two. 

The largest concern about a potential catastrophic sea level rise is the possible 

collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS). The IPCC AR5 decided that there 

was insufficient evidence to make an assessment any more precise than the sea 

level rise contribution from WAIS ‘‘would not exceed several tenths of a metre’’ by 

the end of the 21st century. A recent paper in Nature 24 predicts that WAIS instability will most likely contribute 10 cm sea level rise by the end of the 21st century 

but is extremely unlikely to contribute more than 30 cm. 

A recent paper 25 published by NASA scientists found that overall mass gains of 

the Antarctic ice sheet exceed losses, and that the growing accumulation of snow 

over Antarctic is decreasing global sea level by 0.23 mm/yr. This finding is in contrast to the IPCC AR5 conclusion that Antarctica was adding 0.27 mm/yr to sea 

level rise. The issues surrounding the current and potential future contributions of 

Antarctica to sea level rise continue to be debated. 

The essential issue regarding sea level rise is that any dangers are local. Global 

warming (whether natural or anthropogenic) is only one factor that influences local 

sea level rise: other factors are geological sinking/rising, ground water withdrawal, 

and river and coastal engineering. Nearly all locales where sea level rise is regarded 

as dangerous have rates of sea level rise that far exceed the global rate of 3 mm/ 

yr—U.S. examples 26 are the Louisiana coast (9.03 mm/yr) and Chesapeake Bay 

(6.02 mm/yr), and Bangladesh sea level is rising at a rate of 10.7 mm/yr 27. A recent 

study by New Zealand scientists 28 found that 18 of 29 atoll islands in the tropical 

Pacific have actually grown over the past 60 years, in the presence of rising sea levels. 

Summary 

Anthropogenic climate change is a theory in which the basic mechanism is well 

understood, but whose potential magnitude is highly uncertain. What does the preceding analysis imply for IPCC’s ‘extremely likely’ attribution of anthropogenically 

caused warming since 1950? 

48 

29https://www.ipcc.ch/publicationslandldata/ar4/wg1/en/spm.html 30Tung, KK and J Zhou, 2013: Using data to attribute episodes of warming and cooling in 

instrumental records. PNAS http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/01/22/1212471110 

.abstract 31Wyatt, MG and JA Curry 2014: Role for Eurasian Arctic shelf sea ice in a secularly varying 

hemispheric climate signal during the 20th century. Climate Dynamics, 42, 2763–2782. http:// 

judithcurry.com/2013/10/10/the-stadium-wave/ 32http://www.nap.edu/read/13519/chapter/1#xi 33https://www.ipcc.ch/publicationslandldata/ar4/wg1/en/spm.html 34https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5lSPMlFINAL.pdf 

1. After expecting a global mean surface temperature increase of 0.2 °C per decade in the early decades of the 21st century based on climate model simulations and statements in the 2007 IPCC AR4 Report 29, the rate of warming 

since 1998 is only 0.065 °C per decade (HadCRUT4 data set) or 0.1 °C per decade (new NOAA data set). 

2. There have been large magnitude variations in global/hemispheric climate on 

timescales of 30 years, which are the same duration as the late 20th century 

warming. The IPCC does not have convincing explanations for previous 30 year 

periods in the 20th century, notably the warming 1910–1945 and the grand hiatus 1945–1975. 

3. There is a secular warming trend at least since 1800 (and possibly as long as 

400 years), that cannot be explained by CO2, and is only partly explained by 

volcanic eruptions. 

The combination of these three points substantially reduces the confidence that 

we should place in the IPCC’s attribution of warming since 1950 to human causes. 

With regards to the multidecadal variations, a recent paper by Tung and Zhou 30

argue that a natural multidecadal oscillation of an average period of 70 years with 

significant amplitude of 0.3–0.4°C is superimposed on the secular warming trend, 

which accounts for 40 percent of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. 

Tung and Zhou identify this oscillation with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation 

(AMO), although the stadium wave 31 suggests a more complex multidecadal signal. 

The stadium wave provides a common explanation for both the mid 20th century 

warming hiatus (1945–1975) and the 21st century warming hiatus (since 1998). 

These oscillations are strongly reflected also in Arctic temperatures, Arctic sea ice 

extent and Greenland melting. 

What could be the cause of a 200—400 year period of secular warming? The obvious places to look are to the sun and the ocean. Ocean circulation patterns influence 

climate also on century to millennial time scales. Sun-climate connections are receiving renewed interest, as evidenced by the National Academies Workshop Report 

‘‘The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate’’.32 Understanding and explaining the climate variability over the past 400 years, prior to 1950, has received far 

too little attention. Without this understanding, we should place little confidence in 

the IPCC’s explanations of warming since 1950—it is too easy to get the ‘right’ answer for the wrong reasons. 

Whither the 21st century climate? 

The IPCC has made dire predictions that we can expect 4 °C or more of warming 

by the end of the 21st century if carbon dioxide emissions are not reduced. The climate models making these predictions are the same models that predicted too much 

warming in the early 21st century, and do not reproduce the warming from 1910– 

1945 or the mid 20th century grand hiatus. Further, the global climate models cannot predict future major volcanic eruptions or solar cycles, and do not adequately 

predict the long-term oscillations in the ocean. 

Arguments for lower values of climate sensitivity to CO2

Human-caused warming depends not only on increases in greenhouse gases but 

also on how ‘sensitive’ the climate is to these increases. Climate sensitivity is defined as the global surface warming that occurs when the concentration of carbon 

dioxide in the atmosphere doubles. If climate sensitivity is high, then we can expect 

substantial warming in the coming century as emissions continue to increase. If climate sensitivity is low, then future warming will be substantially lower. 

The equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is defined as the change in global mean 

surface temperature that is caused by a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration, allowing sufficient time for the climate to equilibrate. Table 1 compares the 

values of ECS determined by: the IPCC AR4 (2007)33, the IPCC AR5 (2013)34, the 

49 

35http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5lWGI-12Doc2blFinalDraft 

lChapter09.pdf 

36Lewis, N. and J.A. Curry, (2014) The implications for climate sensitivity of AR5 forcing and 

heat uptake. Climate Dynamics http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-014-2342- 

y#page-1 37http://judithcurry.com/2015/03/19/implications-of-lower-aerosol-forcing-for-climate-sensi 

tivity/ 38https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/scc-tsd-final-july-2015.pdf 39Skeie, R. B., T. Berntsen, M. Aldrin, M. Holden, and G. Myhre, 2014. A lower and more 

constrained estimate of climate sensitivity using updated observations and detailed radiative 

forcing time series. Earth System Dynamics, 5, 139–175. 40Masters, T., 2013. Observational estimates of climate sensitivity from changes in the rate 

of ocean heat uptake and comparison to CMIP5 models. Climate Dynamics, doi:101007/s00382– 

013–1770–4 41Stevens, B (2015) Rethinking the lower bound on aerosol forcing. J. Climate, http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI–D–14–00656.1 42Lewis, N, (2015) Implications of lower aerosol forcing for climate sensitivity. http:// 

judithcurry.com/2015/03/19/implications-of-lower-aerosol-forcing-for-climate-sensitivity/ 43http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/en/science/the-atmosphere-in-the-earth-system/ringberg-workshop/ringberg-2014.html 

CMIP5 climate models cited in the IPCC AR5 (2013)35, the observational analysis 

of Lewis and Curry (2014)36 and the update by Lewis (2015)37 with lower aerosol 

forcing, and the U.S. IWG 38 (used to determine the social cost of carbon). 

Table 1: Values of equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) (°C) 

Best Estimate 5th pctile 95th pctile 

IPCC AR4 (2007) 3.0 1.5 — 

IPCC AR5 (2013) — 1.0 6.0* 

CMIP5 models (2013) 3.22 2.1 4.7 

Lewis & Curry (2014) 1.64 1.05 4.05 

Lewis (2015) 1.45 1.05 2.2 

US IWG 3.0 1.72 7.14 

90th pctile 

There are marked differences between the values of ECS determined by the IPCC 

AR5 versus the AR4. The nominal lower bound (5th percentile) has dropped from 

1.5 °C (AR4) to 1.0 °C (AR5). The AR5 finds values of ECS exceeding 6°C to be very 

unlikely (90th percentile), whereas the AR4 did not have sufficient confidence to 

identify an upper bound at this confidence level. It is also significant that the AR5 

does not cite a ‘best estimate’, whereas the AR4 cites a best estimate of 3 °C. The 

stated reason for not citing a best estimate in the AR5 is the substantial discrepancy between observation-based estimates of ECS (lower), versus estimates from climate models (higher). 

Lewis and Curry (2014) found values of ECS approximately half that determined 

from the CMIP5 climate models. Using an observation-based energy balance approach, our calculations used the same data (including uncertainties) for changes in 

greenhouse gases, aerosols and other drivers of climate change given by the IPCC 

AR5. Our range for ECS is much narrower, with far lower upper limits, than reported by the IPCC AR5. Recent papers by Skeie et al 39 and Masters 40 also find 

comparably low values of ECS. 

The latest research suggests even lower values of the equilibrium climate sensitivity. The greatest uncertainty in ECS estimates is accounting for the effects of 

small aerosol particles in the atmosphere, which have a cooling effect on the climate 

(partially counteracting the greenhouse warming). A new paper by Stevens 41 constrains the impact of aerosols on climate to be significantly smaller than assumed 

in the IPCC AR5. Nicholas Lewis has re-run the calculations used in Lewis and 

Curry (2014) using aerosol impact estimates in line with Stevens’ paper.42 Most significantly, the upper bound (95th percentile) is lowered to 2.2 °C (Table 1). 

At the recent international Workshop on Earth’s Climate Sensitivity,43 concerns 

were raised about the upper end of the Lewis and Curry sensitivity being too low, 

owing to uncertainties in ocean heat uptake. Many of the climate model simulations 

used for the AR5 (CMIP5) are using values of aerosol forcing that are now known 

to be far too high. Climate model simulations that are re-assessed and re-calibrated 

to account for smaller values of aerosol forcing can be used to clarify the upper 

bound of ECS. In a presentation at the Workshop, IPCC lead author Bjorn SteVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:09 Oct 04, 2016 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\21644.TXT JACKIE
50 

44http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/fileadmin/atmosphaere/WCRPlGrandlChallengelWork 

shop/Ringbergl2015/Talks/Stephensl24032015.pdf 45https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/scc-tsd-final-july-2015.pdf 46https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5lChapter11lFINAL.pdf 

vens 44 argued for an upper bound to ECS of 3.5 °C based on analyses of climate 

models. Research continues to assess the methods used to estimate climate sensitivity. However, the reduced estimates of aerosol cooling lead inescapably to reductions in the estimated upper bound of climate sensitivity. 

The discrepancy between observational and climate model-based estimates of climate sensitivity is substantial and of significant importance to policymakers—equilibrium climate sensitivity, and the level of uncertainty in its value, is a key input 

into the economic models that drive cost-benefit analyses and estimates of the social 

cost of carbon. In spite of the IPCC AR5 assessment (where a ‘best value’ was not 

given) and this recent research on climate sensitivity, economists calculating the social cost of carbon and the impacts of emissions reductions on climate continue to 

use the ‘best value’ of ECS = 3 °C determined by the 2007 IPCC AR4 Report. 

A particularly egregious example of this is the U.S. Social Cost of Carbon,45 prepared by the InterAgency Working Group (IWG). In May 2013, the IWG produced 

an updated social cost of carbon model. However, the IWG did not update the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) employed in the models, and this decision was reaffirmed by the IWG in July 2015. The values of ECS used by the U.S. IWG (Table 

1) have lower and upper bounds that are indefensible in context of the IPCC values 

and most particularly in light of the recent research. The 95th percentile value is 

of particular importance, since the tail values of ECS drive the social cost of carbon. 

In summary, there is a great deal of uncertainty in the values of climate sensitivity, and this is an active area of research. There is growing evidence in the published literature and recent assessments and workshops that a sensitivity of 1.0 °C 

is the appropriate lower bound to use in a 5 to 95 percentile range, and there is 

decreasing support for values of equilibrium climate sensitivity above 3.5°C. Not 

only are the U.S. IWG sensitivity values much higher than values suggested by the 

latest research, but the U.S. IWG values are indefensible even in context of both 

the IPCC AR4 and AR5 reports. The end result is that misleading values of the social cost of carbon being used to drive U.S. climate and energy policy. 

Climate change in the 21st century 

Chapter 11 of the IPCC AR5 Report 46 focused on near term climate change, 

through 2035. Figure 7 compares climate model projections with recent observations 

of global surface temperature anomalies. 

Figure 7. Comparison of CMIP5 climate model simulations of global surface temperature 

anomalies with observations through 2014 (HadCRUT4). Updated from Figure 11.25 of the 

IPCC AR5, to include observations through 2014. http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/comparing-cmip5-observations/ 

The observed global temperatures for the past decade are at the bottom bound of 

the 5–95 percent envelope of the CMIP5 climate model simulations. Overall, the 

trend in the climate model simulations is substantially larger than the observed 

trend over the past 15 years. 


1208JUDY7.eps
51 

47http://www.wyattonearth.net/images/9WyattlCurryl2013lauthor-versionlmanuscript 

.pdf 48http://webster.eas.gatech.edu/Papers/Kimletlal.2012lGRL.pdf 49Tung, KK and J Zhou, 2013: Using data to attribute episodes of warming and cooling in 

instrumental records. PNAS http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/01/22/1212471110 

.abstract 50http://unfccc.int/2860.php 

Regarding projections for the period 2015–2035, the 5–95 percent range for the 

trend of the CMIP5 climate model simulations is 0.11°C–0.41 °C per decade. The 

IPCC then cites ‘expert judgment’ as the rationale for lowering the projections (indicated by the red hatching in Figure 7): 

‘‘However, the implied rates of warming over the period from 1986–2005 to 2016– 

2035 are lower as a result of the hiatus: 0.10°C–0.23°C per decade, suggesting 

the AR4 assessment was near the upper end of current expectations for this specific time interval.’’ 

This lowering of the projections relative to the results from the raw CMIP5 model 

simulations was done based on expert judgment that some models are too sensitive 

to anthropogenic forcing. 

Multi-decadal ocean oscillations play a dominant role in determining climate on 

decadal timescales. The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) is currently in its 

warm phase, with a shift to the cool phase expected to occur sometime in the 

2020s.47 Climate models, even when initialized with ocean data, have a difficult 

time simulating the amplitude and phasing of the ocean oscillations. In a paper that 

I coauthored, we found that most of CMIP5 climate models, when initialized with 

ocean data, show some skill out to 10 years in simulating the AMO.48 Tung and 

Zhou 49 argue that not taking the AMO into account in predictions of future warming under various forcing scenarios may run the risk of over-estimating the warming for the next two to three decades, when the AMO is likely in its cool phase. 

Projections for the year 2100 

Climate model projections of global temperature change at the end of the 21st 

century are driving international negotiations on CO2 emissions reductions, under 

the auspices of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).50

Figure 8 shows climate model projections of 21st century warming. RCP8.5 reflects 

an extreme scenario of increasing emissions of greenhouse gases, whereas RCP2.6 

is a scenario where emissions peak around 2015 and are rapidly reduced thereafter. 

Figure 8: Figure SPM.7 of the IPCC AR5 WG1. CMIP5 multi-model simulated time series 

from 1950 to 2100 for change in global annual mean surface temperature relative to 1986–2005. 

Time series of projections and a measure of uncertainty (shading) are shown for scenarios 

RCP2.6 (blue) and RCP8.5 (red). Black (grey shading) is the modelled historical evolution using 

historical reconstructed forcings. The mean and associated uncertainties averaged over 2081– 2100 are given for all RCP scenarios as colored vertical bars. 

Under the RCP8.5 scenario, the CMIP5 climate models project continued warming 

through the 21st century that is expected to surpass the ‘dangerous’ threshold of 

2°C warming as early as 2040. It is important to note that the CMIP5 simulations 

only consider scenarios of future greenhouse gas emissions—they do not include consideration of scenarios of future volcanic eruptions, solar variability or long-term osVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:09 Oct 04, 2016 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\21644.TXT JACKIE

1208JUDY8.eps
52 

51 Abdussamatov, H 2013: Current long-term negative energy balance of the earth leads to the 

new little ice age. Journal of Geology and Geophysics http://omicsgroup.org/journals/grandminimum-of-the-total-solar-irradiance-leads-to-the-little-ice-age-2329–6755.1000113.pdf 52https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5lSPMlFINAL.pdf, Table 

SPM.2 53https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf 54http://www.wbgu.de/en/special-reports/sr-1995-co2-reduction/ 55http://unfccc.int/focus/indclportal/items/8766.php 56Lomborg, B, 2015: Impact of Current Climate Proposals, Global Policy http://online 

library.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1758-5899.12295/full 57http://globalchange.mit.edu/research/publications/other/special/2015Outlook 58http://www.iea.org/media/news/WEOlINDClPaperlFinallWEB.PDF 59http://www.climatescoreboard.com 60http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/wigley/magicc/ 

cillations in the ocean. Russian scientists 51 argue that we can expect a Grand Solar 

Minima (contributing to cooling) to peak mid 21st century. 

While the near-term temperature projections were lowered relative to the CMIP5 

simulations (Figure 7), the IPCC AR5 SPM 52 states with regards to extended-range 

warming: 

‘‘The likely ranges for 2046–2065 do not take into account the possible influence 

of factors that lead to the assessed range for near-term (2016–2035) global mean 

surface temperature change that is lower than the 5–95 percent model range, because the influence of these factors on longer term projections has not been quantified due to insufficient scientific understanding.’’ 

There is a troubling internal inconsistency in the IPCC AR5 WG1 Report: the AR5 

assesses substantial uncertainty in climate sensitivity and substantially lowered 

their projections for 2016–2035 relative to the climate model projections, versus the 

projections out to 2100 that use climate models that are clearly running too hot. 

Even more troubling is that the IPCC WG3 report—Mitigation of Climate Change— 

conducted its entire analysis assuming a ‘best estimate’ of equilibrium climate sensitivity to be 3.0 °C. 

The IPCC AR5 declined to select a ‘best estimate’ for equilibrium climate sensitivity, owing to discrepancies between climate model estimates and observational estimates (that are about half the magnitude of the climate model estimates). Hence 

the CMIP5 models produce warming that is nominally twice as large as the lower 

values of climate sensitivity would produce. No account is made in these projections 

of 21st century climate change for the substantial uncertainty in climate sensitivity 

that is acknowledged by the IPCC. 

Impact of reductions in CO2 emissions 

The current negotiations in Paris under the auspices of the UNFCCC COP21 are 

aimed at reducing emissions so as to avoid ‘dangerous’ human interference with climate change.53 The definition of ‘dangerous’ has been rather arbitrarily set at 2°C 

warming since pre-industrial times.54

The world’s nations have recently submitted to the UNFCCC their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs).55 Economists are beginning to assess 

the impact that these INDCs will have on the climate by the end of the 21st century. Danish economist Bjorn Lomborg recently published a paper 56 that assesses 

the impact of the climate policies implemented by 2030, and assuming these policies 

are extended out to 2100. Lomborg concluded that an optimistic estimate (assuming 

the targets are actually met) is that these emissions reductions would prevent 0.17 

°C of warming by the end of the 21st century. Lomborg’s estimate is consistent with 

a statement in the ‘‘MIT Energy and Climate Outlook 2015’’ 57 that projected about 

0.2 °C less warming by the end of the 21st century. 

The second, longer-term reduction commitments (e.g., 80 percent reduction in both 

U.S. and EU emissions by 2050) were not included in Lomborg’s analysis, because 

he regarded promises of what will happen in 2050 to be not as much actual policies 

but political hand waving. The International Energy Agency has issued a report 58

that estimated that full implementation of the path set by the global INDCs would 

be consistent with a global average temperature increase of 2.7°C by 2100. Other 

estimates 59 range higher, up 3.5 °C, although none of these estimates are documented in detail or published in a refereed journal. The bottom line is that all of 

these estimates from climate models are far from achieving the desired objective of 

keeping the warming below 2 °C. 

All of these estimates are being conducted using the MAGICC climate model,60

which allows specification of the value of equilibrium climate sensitivity. MAGICC’s 

53 

61Kaya et al., 2015: The uncertainty of climate sensitivity and its implication for the Paris 

negotiations. Sustainability Science http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11625–015–0339- 

z?wtlmc=internal.event.1.SEM.ArticleAuthorOnlineFirst 62 Hooke, W. 2015: Reaffirming the social contract between science and society. https:// 

eos.org/opinions/reaffirming-the-social-contract-between-science-and-society 63http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-e-mann/judith-curry-climate-changelbl6000636 

.html 64https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/house-science-testimony-apr-15-final.pdf 

default value of ECS is 3 °C, and this number has become so ingrained that you 

see many analyses that do not even cite the value of ECS that was used. 

Of particular note is a recent paper by Japanese economists Yoichi Kaya, 

Mitsutune Yamaguchi and Keigo Akimoto entitled ‘‘The uncertainty of climate sensitivity and its implications for the Paris negotiations’’.61 The key conclusion from 

their paper: 

‘‘The outcome of our model shows global total emissions under major countries’ 

INDCs in 2030 will not be on track to attain the 2 C target if climate sensitivity 

is 3 C. On the other hand, if climate sensitivity is 2.5 C, and if we allow a temporal overshoot of 580 ppmCO2-eq, that the 2 C target is still within reach’’. 

If ECS is even lower, below 2 °C, then it is even easier to stay below the 2 °C 

‘danger’ level. Further, for lower values of ECS, the planned emissions reductions 

will have an even smaller impact on temperatures in 2100. Policy makers meeting 

in Paris seem not to realize that there is large uncertainty in the values of equilibrium climate sensitivity, and that there is growing evidence in support of lower 

values. 

Summary 

The IPCC’s projections of 21st century climate change explicitly assume that CO2

is the control knob on global climate. Climate model projections of the 21st century 

climate are not convincing because of: 

• Failure to predict the early 21st century hiatus in surface warming 

• Inability to simulate the patterns and timing on multidecadal ocean oscillations 

• Lack of account for future solar variations and solar indirect effects on climate 

• Apparent oversensitivity to increases in greenhouse gases 

There is growing evidence that climate models are running too hot and that climate sensitivity to CO2 is on the lower end of the range provided by the IPCC— 

this is acknowledged in the IPCC AR5. Nevertheless, these lower values of climate 

sensitivity are not accounted for in IPCC’s projections of temperature at the end of 

the 21st century or in estimates of the impact on temperatures of reducing CO2

emissions. 

While there is increasing evidence that the threat from human caused warming 

in the 21st century is overstated, the level of uncertainty is such that the possibly 

of dangerous human caused climate change remains. However, if the threat is not 

overstated by the IPCC, there are major shortfalls in solutions proposed by the UN, 

whereby proposed emissions reductions, even if actually successfully implemented, 

are insufficient to prevent what they regard as dangerous climate change. 

The broken social contract between climate science and society 

Working through Congress, the public has been generous with its funding for climate and the related sciences. However, recent stresses have frayed the fabric of 

the social contract between climate scientists and society.62 Unfortunately, many climate scientists have responded by resorting to advocacy, both for increasing funding 

levels and for specific policies related to energy and climate. Even worse, too many 

climate scientists have abandoned any pretense at nonpartisanship and objectivity. 

Scientists advocating for CO2 emissions reductions is becoming the default, expected position for climate scientists; an example is this Huffington Post editorial 

‘‘Curry Advocates Against Action on Climate Change’’ 63 that was signed by five climate scientists. This op-ed was a response to my arguments for values of climate 

sensitivity being on the low end of the IPCC spectrum. I am neither advocating for 

or against ‘action’ in terms of reducing CO2 emissions. My writings on the policy 

response to climate change 64 address frameworks for decision making under deep 

uncertainty, including robust decision making and the concepts of resilience and 

anti-fragility. 

In their efforts to promote their ‘cause,’ the scientific establishment behind the 

global warming issue has been drawn into the trap of seriously understating the uncertainties associated with the climate problem. This behavior risks destroying 

54 

65http://sciencepolicy.agu.org/files/2013/07/AGU-Climate-Change-Position-StatementlAu 

gust-2013.pdf 66http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/15l3.cfm 67http://www.sciencemag.org/content/349/6243/7.full 68https://www.barackobama.com/climate-change-deniers/#/ 69http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/working-paper-29.pdf 70http://judithcurry.com/2015/10/12/conflicts-of-interest-in-climate-science-part-ii/ 

science’s reputation for honesty and objectivity—without this objectivity and honesty, scientists become regarded as merely another lobbyist group. 

The biases of individuals are not an impediment to scientific progress if scholarly 

institutions work to counteract the errors and flaws of scientific research. A fair 

process of peer review and vigorous post-publication peer debate will quickly identify the most obvious errors and biases. Researchers having different perspectives 

(including their values and political identities) will conduct their own research and 

obtain opposing results, and the field will gradually sort out the truth. 

This system works unless the institutions that support science—the professional 

societies that publish journals, organize conference and confer honors—are themselves biased. Nearly all of the relevant professional societies have issued policy 

statements about climate change, including statements such as ‘Human-Induced 

Climate Change Requires Urgent Action’ 65 and ‘call to support actions that will reduce the emissions.’ 66 Even more egregious is overt advocacy by journal editors, notably Marcia McNutt (editor of Science), who recently published this statement in 

an opinion piece in Science 67: ‘‘The time for debate has ended. Action is urgently 

needed.’’ Such official statements from the professional societies provide journal editors with a license to reject papers that challenge the consensus. 

An even more insidious problem is when there is not a critical mass of scientists 

who think differently or who shrink from speaking up because they expect ostracism 

in response. Minority perspectives on climate science are effectively being squeezed 

out of the universities, and dissenting individuals choose to join the private sector, 

retire, join think tanks, or switch research topics. Climate science that dissents from 

the consensus is increasingly being relegated to retired professors and self-supported individuals from other fields, who are asking important questions that aren’t 

‘relevant’ to government research funding priorities. 

While concerns about the behaviors and motives of scientists and the institutions 

that support science are well founded, the other side of the social contract is at least 

equally problematical. President Obama’s administration is using climate science to 

support his political agenda, and is actively discouraging disagreement through consensus enforcement, e.g., ‘‘Call Out The Climate Deniers.’’ 68 So under the current 

administration, the social contract for climate science seems to be: support the consensus and promote alarmism, and you will receive plenty of research funding. 

The potential for Federal funding to bias science is discussed in this recent report.69 From my perspective, here is how research funding motivates what is going 

on. ‘Success’ to individual researchers, particularly at the large state universities, 

is driven by research dollars—big lab spaces, high salaries, institutional prestige, 

and career advancement. At the Program Manager level within a funding agency, 

‘success’ is reflected in growing the size of their program (e.g., more funding) and 

having some high profile results (e.g., press releases). At higher levels, Divisional 

administrators are competing for budget dollars against the other Divisions; tying 

their research to a national policy priority helps in this competition. At the agency 

level, ‘success’ is reflected in growing, or at least preserving, the agency’s budget. 

Aligning yourself, your program, your agency with the current political imperatives 

is a key to ‘success’. 

It is very difficult to obtain Federal research funding for dissenting science. Difficulty in the peer review process is only part of the problem. One problem is reflected in an e-mail 70 I recently received from a scientist employed at NASA: 

‘‘I was at a small meeting of NASA-affiliated scientists and was told by our top 

manager that he was told by his NASA boss that we should not try to publish 

papers contrary to the current global warming claims, because he (the NASA 

boss) would then have a headache countering the ‘‘undesirable’’ publicity’’. 

I hesitate somewhat to call out the NASA leadership here, since I think the bigger 

problems are with the NOAA leadership. The biggest problem, however, is that the 

call for proposals from the Federal funding agencies (notably NASA and NOAA) 

make an implicit assumption of the dominance of human caused global warming in 

the topics for which they are requesting research proposals. 

Something is clearly wrong with the current contract between climate scientists 

and society that is biasing the science and breeding scientists who are advocates, 

55 

71https://www.esri.ie/publications/regulating-knowledge-monopolies-the-case-of-the-ipcc/ 

partisans and alarmist. And the taxpayer foots the bill. How can we press the ‘reset 

button’ on all this? 

First, we need to recognize that the politically driven push to manufacture a premature consensus on human caused climate change is biasing climate research, and 

in particular is resulting in the relative neglect of research on natural climate variability. Until we have a better understanding and predictive capability of natural climate variability, we don’t have a strong basis for predicting the climate in the decades or century to come. 

Second, we need to break the ‘knowledge monopoly’ 71 in climate science—the 

IPCC. As a result of this knowledge monopoly, there is insufficient intellectual and 

political diversity in assessments about climate change. To break this monopoly, we 

need to identify new frameworks for encouraging, publishing and publicizing independent ideas and assessments. 

And finally, we need to find ways to fund a broader spectrum of research that 

challenges the politically preferred outcomes. 

SHORT BIOGRAPHY

Judith Curry 

Professor, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences 

Georgia Institute of Technology 

Atlanta, GA 30332–0349 

curryja@eas.gatech.edu 

Dr. Judith Curry is Professor and former Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology and President of Climate 

Forecast Applications Network (CFAN). Dr. Curry received a Ph.D. in atmospheric 

science from the University of Chicago in 1982. Prior to joining the faculty at Georgia Tech, she held faculty positions at the University of Colorado, Penn State University and Purdue University. Dr. Curry’s research interests span a variety of topics in climate; current interests include climate dynamics of the Arctic; climate dynamics of extreme weather events; cloud microphysics; and reasoning about climate 

uncertainty. She is a prominent public spokesperson on issues associated with the 

integrity of climate science, and is proprietor the weblog Climate Etc. 

judithcurry.com. Dr. Curry has recently served on the NASA Advisory Council 

Earth Science Subcommittee, the DOE Biological and Environmental Research Advisory Committee, the National Academies Climate Research Committee and the 

Space Studies Board, and the NOAA Climate Working Group. Dr. Curry is a Fellow 

of the American Meteorological Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the American Geophysical Union. 

For more information: 

http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/ 

http://www.cfanclimate.com/ 

http://judithcurry.com/about/ 

Senator CRUZ. Thank you very much, Dr. Curry. 

Dr. Happer? 

[Pause.] 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM HAPPER, PH.D., CYRUS FOGG 

BRACKET PROFESSOR OF PHYSICS, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY 

Dr. HAPPER. My name is William Happer. I recently retired from 

a career of 50 years of teaching physics at Princeton and Columbia 

Universities. 

As the Chairman mentioned, I served as Director of Energy Research, Office of Energy Research in Department of Energy from 

1990 to 1993. And among the other projects I supported there was 

the Atmospheric Radiation Measurements Program, which is still 

going strong with facilities all over the world to measure basic climate data. 

56 

After leaving the Department of Energy, I served as Princeton 

University’s equivalent for vice president for research from 1995 to 

2005. I guess I am best known in the scientific community for inventing the sodium guide star that is used on all modern telescopes 

to compensate for atmospheric turbulence. So I have been very involved with the atmosphere for a very long time. 

There is all this talk about carbon pollution, which, of course, is 

meant carbon dioxide pollution, and I would like to set the record 

straight that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. We are sitting in 

this room breathing out carbon dioxide at 40,000 parts per million 

with every breath. 

We are fundamentally in a carbon dioxide famine, geologically 

speaking, now. If you look at the geological history of the Earth, 

most of the time CO2 levels have been three times, four times what 

they are now. The Earth was just fine then. 

And in fact, at the present time, you know, many plants are having a hard time performing as well as they are designed to perform 

because the CO2 levels are too low, and the oxygen levels are too 

high. I won’t go into the details, but there is not much dispute 

about that. 

So the issue is not that CO2 is a pollutant. It is actually very, 

very good for the world. The issue is what will it do to temperature? And Dr. Christy very clearly showed and a version of his display is reproduced here, which is a figure from Nature magazine. 

It is peer reviewed. Nature is anything but a skeptic journal. 

But what it shows in dark bars are the predictions of various climate models of how much warming there would be over two time 

intervals, a 10-year interval, and a 20-year interval. The red bar 

is what is observed, and you notice that the observed warming is 

much, much less than the predictions of climate models. 

Dr. Christy’s chart was another version of that for the atmosphere, the lower atmosphere, and this is actually for surface data. 

But the message is the same for both sets of data, that the climate 

models on the basis of which we are making policy, do not work. 

OK. So let me move on to the fact that CO2 is a very important 

part of life on Earth. 

This picture shows the greening of the planet from 1982 to 2010. 

And so this is satellite images of certain wavelength bands that 

allow you to tell how much plant life there is, and what you see 

is that over most of the Earth, contrary to what you might have 

heard, is that the Earth is getting greener. 

And this is also clear from crop yields. Crop yields are going up. 

Some of that is fertilizer. Some of that is better cropping practices. 

But a good fraction of it is CO2, 15 percent of the increase in crop 

yields is due to the 30 percent increase of CO2 we have had in the 

past 100 years. So to call CO2 a pollutant is just completely wrongheaded. 

Now I would like to conclude by supporting Dr. Christy’s urging 

that we have a red team. I call it a Team B. Science is often so 

complicated and controversial that unless you have some adversarial process, you really can’t be sure who is right. 

So, for example, when I was at Department of Energy, I didn’t 

understand enough about nuclear weapons to know whether Livermore was right or Los Alamos was right. But I knew I could count 

57 

on Livermore to catch any error in Los Alamos or vice versa. That 

is the reason we had two labs. One could catch any mistakes made 

by the other. 

We don’t have two labs for climate. We have one organization, 

one world organization, the IPCC. And funding agencies follow the 

IPCC dogma. I would like to argue very strongly that we set aside 

some fraction of funding for climate research that is not constrained to follow IPCC dogma. 

If you have some proposed research that might show that CO2

is not such a big problem, you should be able to get funding. You 

shouldn’t be last in line and turned away. That is the way it is in 

many other areas of human life. Even to become a saint in the 

Catholic Church, you have to pass a contested trial with a devil’s 

advocate. You can’t be sainted without that. 

So every other region, every other aspect of human life has an 

adversarial process. This is the only area I know of where there is 

nothing adversarial in the science. 

And so I would like to second Dr. Christy’s request for a red 

team. A Team B also would be a good idea to provide a rigorous 

review of how well is science working. I know that there was review of how well science works, that both Dr. Christy and Dr. 

Curry took part in, by the American Physical Society. They did 

very well, and the review represented both sides of the debate. It 

was the only good review I know of. It was organized by Dr. Steve 

Koonin. 

And I noticed that when the list of organizations supporting climate alarmism was read, the one that wasn’t there was the American Physical Society. Maybe that was an oversight. I hope not. I 

hope it was partly due to Dr. Curry and Dr. Christy because it was 

a very informative workshop. 

So let me conclude my testimony here, and thank you very much 

for the invitation. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Happer follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM HAPPER


1208HAPP1.eps
58 

I would like to express my thanks to Senator Cruz, Senator Thune, Senator Nelson and other members of this committee for inviting me to express my views at 

this hearing on climate science. 

My name is William Happer. I recently retired from a career of over fifty years 

teaching physics at Princeton and Columbia Universities. I also served as the Director of the Office of Energy Research, now the Office of Science, in the U.S. Department of energy from the years 1990 to 1993, where I was responsible for all the 

non-weapons basic research of the Department of Energy. In addition to areas like 

high energy physics, materials science, the human genome and others, I had responsibility for DOE’s work on climate science. During my time at DOE, my office established the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Climate Research Facility, 

with remote sensing observatories all around the world. The facility is still going 

strong and providing high quality observational data on atmospheric physics. 

After leaving DOE, I served as Princeton University’s equivalent of Vice President 

for Research from 1995 to 2005. I have published over 200 peer-reviewed scientific 

papers. Scientifically, I am probably best known for having invented the sodium 

guide star, used by modern ground based telescopes to remove much of the blurring 

of stellar images by atmospheric turbulence. 

Along with other witnesses at this hearing, I hope to correct some misconceptions 

about the trace atmospheric gas, carbon dioxide or CO2. In spite of the drumbeat 

of propaganda, CO2 is not ‘‘carbon pollution.’’ As part of my written testimony, I 

have submitted the document, Carbon Dioxide Benefits the Word: See for Yourself. 

This document summarizes the view of the CO2 Coalition, a distinguished group of 

scientists, engineers, economists and others. The benefits that more CO2 brings from 

increased agricultural yields and modest warming far outweigh any harm. 

The key issue here is the equilibrium climate sensitivity: how much will the 

earth’s surface eventually warm if the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is doubled? 

This number has been drifting steadily downward from a youthful Arrhenius’s first 

estimate of about 6 C to the estimate of the International Panel on Climate change 

(IPCC) of 1.5 C to 4.5 C. Observations of very small warming over the past 20 years 

suggest that the sensitivity is unlikely to be larger than 2 C. There are credible estimates that the sensitivity could be as small as 0.5 C. 


1208HAPP2.eps
59 

This slide shows that various mainstream climate models (the gray bars) have 

predicted much more warming than observed (the red bars). For full disclosure I 

add the warming predicted by me and my JASON colleagues in our book, The LongTerm Impacts of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Levels, edited by Gordon 

McDonald, Ballinger Publishing Company, Cambridge, MA (1982). My colleagues 

and I also predicted far too much warming. The models don’t work. The most natural reason for this is that they have assumed climate sensitivities that are much 

too large. Most of the models in the figure use climate sensitivities of 3 C to 3.5 

C. 

Few realize that the world has been in a CO2 famine for millions of years, a long 

time for us, but a passing moment in geological history. Over the past 550 million 

years since the Cambrian, when abundant fossils first appeared in the sedimentary 

record, CO2 levels have averaged many thousands of parts per million (ppm) not today’s few hundred ppm [R. A. Berner and C. Kothavala, Geocarb: III, a revised 

model of atmospheric CO2 over the Phanerozoic time, American Journal of Science, 

301, 182 (2001). Pre-industrial levels of 280 ppm (parts per million), are not that 

far above the minimum level, around 150 ppm, when many plants die from CO starvation [J. K. Dippery, D. T. Tissue, R. B. Thomas and B. R. Strain, Effects of low 

and elevated CO2 levels on C3 and C4 annuals, Oecologia, 101, 13 (1995)]. 


1208HAPP3.eps 1208HAPP4.eps
60 

Thousands of peer reviewed studies show that almost all plants grow better (and 

land plants are more drought resistant) at atmospheric CO2 that are two or three 

times larger than those today. 

This slide summarizes satellite measurements of vegetation changes over the 28- 

year period from 1982 to 2010. The authors of the study have tried to eliminate any 

influences rainfall changes or other confounding factors during the measurement period. The earth is really getting greener, and an important part of the reason is 

more atmospheric CO2. 

For many decades the citizens of the USA and of much of the world have been 

flooded with the message that CO2 is ‘‘carbon pollution.’’ We are supposed to trust 

our government and selfless NGO’s for instructions on how to save the planet. Much 

of the message is false, but its purveyors control key positions in the media, in the 

government, in scientific societies, in charitable foundations etc. This makes it difficult to get out the truth that climate science is far from ‘‘settled.’’ To the extent 

it is settled, it indicates no cause for alarm or for extreme measures. Indeed, a dispassionate analysis of the science indicates that more CO2 will bring benefits, not 

harm to the world. 

The Congress could help by establishing a ‘‘Team B’’ to make a dispassionate review of climate science, with sponsorship by the Federal Government. 


1208HAPP5.eps 1208HAPP6.eps
61 

For credibility, it is essential that Team B be sponsored by the Federal Government. Otherwise there would be vigorous attempts to ignore any findings not considered politically correct, because the team members would be said to be working directly or indirectly for fossil fuel interests. 

CARBON DIOXIDE BENEFITS THE WORLD: SEE FOR YOURSELF

Preface 

This white paper summarizes the views of the CO2 Coalition, a new and independent, non-profit organization that seeks to engage thought leaders, policy makers, and the public in an informed, dispassionate discussion of how our planet will 

be affected by CO2 released from the combustion of fossil fuel. Available scientific 

facts have persuaded Coalition members that additional CO2 will be a net benefit. 

Rather than immediately setting this document aside for promoting such a politically incorrect view, readers would do well to act on the ancient motto of Britain’s 

prestigious Royal Society—nullius in verba, ‘‘don’t take anyone’s word for it,’’ or 

more simply, ‘‘see for yourself.’’ 

Claims that ‘‘97 percent of scientists’’ agree that a climate catastrophe is looming 

because of the emission of CO2 should be greeted with skepticism. Traditional 

science has advanced by comparing observations or experiments with theoretical 

predictions. If there is agreement with theory, confidence in the theory is increased. 

If there is disagreement, the theory is abandoned or it is modified and tested again 

against observations. 

Scientific truth has never been established by consensus, for example, by ‘‘97 percent agreement.’’ History reveals many instances when the scientific consensus of 

the day was later discredited. The widespread embrace and practice of eugenics in 

the early 1900s; opposition to the theory of plate tectonics in geology; and the dominance of Lysenkoist biology in the Soviet bloc, are a few recent examples. Given the 

frequency of mistaken consensus, citizens everywhere should heed the Royal Society’s motto and learn as much as they can about how increasing CO2 levels in the 

atmosphere will affect the planet. 

1. Overview 

Green plants grow faster with more CO2. Many also become more drought-resistant because higher CO2 levels allow plants to use water more efficiently. More 

abundant vegetation from increased CO2 is already apparent. Satellite images reveal significant greening of the planet in recent decades, especially at desert margins, where drought resistance is critical. This remarkable planetary greening is the 

result of a mere 30 percent increase of CO2 from its preindustrial levels. Still higher 

CO2 levels will bring still more benefits to agriculture. 

Plants use energy from sunlight to fuse a molecule of CO2 to a molecule of water, 

H2O, to form carbohydrates. One molecule of oxygen O2 is released to the air for 

each CO2 molecule removed. Biological machinery of plants reworks the carbohydrate polymers into proteins, oils and other molecules of life. Every living creaVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:09 Oct 04, 2016 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\21644.TXT JACKIE

1208HAPP7.eps
62 

ture, from the blooming rose, to the newborn baby, is made of carbon from former 

atmospheric CO2 molecules. Long-dead plants used CO2 from ancient atmospheres 

to produce most of the fossil fuels, coal, oil, and natural gas that have transformed 

the life of most humans—moving from drudgery and near starvation before the industrial revolution to the rising potential for abundance today. 

The fraction of the beneficial molecule CO2 in the current atmosphere is tiny, 

about 0.04 percent by volume. This level is about 30 percent larger than pre-industrial levels in 1800. But today’s levels are still much smaller than the levels, 0.20 

percent or more, that prevailed over much of geological history. CO2 levels during 

the past tens of millions of years have been much closer to starvation levels, 0.015 

percent, when many plants die, than to the much higher levels that most plants prefer. 

Basic physics implies that more atmospheric CO2 will increase greenhouse warming. However, atmospheric processes are so complicated that the amount of warming 

cannot be reliably predicted from first principles. Recent observations of the atmosphere and oceans, together with geological history, point to very modest warming, 

about 1 C (1.8 F) if atmospheric CO2 levels are doubled. 

Observations also show no significant change in extreme weather, tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, or droughts. Sea levels are rising at about the same rate as in centuries past. A few degrees of warming will have many benefits, longer growing seasons and less winter heating expenses. And this will be in addition to major benefits 

to agriculture. 

More CO2 in the atmosphere is not an unprecedented experiment with an unpredictable outcome. The Earth has done the experiment many times in the geological 

past. Life flourished abundantly on land and in the oceans at much larger CO2 levels than those today. Responsible use of fossil fuels, with cost-effective control of 

genuine pollutants like fly ash or oxides of sulfur and nitrogen, will be a major benefit for the world. 

2. Introduction 

Around the year 1861, John Tyndall, a prominent Irish physicist, discovered that 

water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), and many other molecular gases that are 

transparent to visible light can absorb invisible heat radiation—such as that given 

off by a warm tea kettle, the human body, or the Earth itself. Tyndall recognized 

that water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere, with 

CO2 a less important contributor.1

Tyndall’s discovery came as the combustion of coal in the Industrial Revolution 

was beginning to release substantial amounts of CO2. These emissions have coincided with a steady increase of atmospheric CO2, from around 285 ppm (parts-permillion) in the 1860s to around 400 ppm today. 

Increased CO2 levels have likely produced some warming of the Earth and will 

continue to do so in the future, although with ever decreasing efficiency because of 

the ‘‘logarithmic’’ dependence of warming on CO2 concentrations, an important detail discussed more extensively below. At the same time, more CO2 will have a 

hugely beneficial effect on agriculture, forests and plant growth in general. The benefits of more CO2 will greatly exceed any harm.2

3. Key Findings 

Mainstream warming forecasts have been wrong. Over the past two decades, the 

global warming predicted by climate models has mostly failed to materialize. The 

real ‘‘equilibrium climate sensitivity’’—the amount of global warming to be expected 

for a doubling of atmospheric CO2—is likely to be about three times smaller than 

what the models have assumed. Observational data suggest that doubling atmospheric CO2 levels will increase the surface temperature by about 1 C, not the much 

larger values that were originally assumed in mainstream models. Using these 

much smaller, observationally based climate sensitivities, the projected warming 

from continued use of fossil fuels will be moderate and benign for the foreseeable 

future 

Negative effects of more CO2 have been exaggerated. Readily available data from 

governmental and reliable non-governmental sources confirm that extreme weather 

events in recent years have not occurred more frequently or with greater intensity. 

Such data also refute claims of ecologically damaging ocean acidification, accelerating sea-level rises, and disappearing global sea ice and other alleged dangers. 

If further observations confirm a small climate sensitivity, these realities will not 

change. 

Higher carbon-dioxide levels will be beneficial. CO2 is an essential nutrient for 

land-based plants. The Earth’s biosphere has also experienced a relative CO2 famine 

for many millennia—the recent increase in CO2 levels has thus had a measurable, 

63 

positive effect on plant life. Future CO2 increases will boost agricultural productivity 

and improve drought resistance, thereby bolstering food security and contributing 

to a greener, lusher planet. 

4. Global Warming: The Neglected Facts 

Most research that tries to project future climate has focused on developing and 

applying complex computer models that attempt to simulate the Earth’s climate system. These models have sought to explain past climate and have been used to calculate various future global and regional climate scenarios. These future climate 

scenarios have, in turn, prompted policy proposals that would reduce future emissions—thereby, according to the models, limiting future global warming, though admittedly at the cost of reducing future global economic development. 

This emphasis on computer model forecasts has been very costly, with many tens 

of billions of dollars invested but has failed to accurately predict the Earth’s climate: 

the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) estimates 

of the critical parameter, the equilibrium climate sensitivity, for example, have not 

become more precise over the past 25 years. Figure 1 summarizes the IPCC’s findings, as documented in its five comprehensive research reports released over more 

than three decades, as well as the findings of two major pre-IPPC research reports. 

Since scientific research is generally aimed at reducing uncertainty, the lack of 

progress over more than three decades is extremely unusual. 

Figure 1. Key Findings, IPCC and Pre-IPCC Climate Reports* 

* In Figure 1, the far-right column lists successive estimates of the range of the equilibrium 

climate sensitivity (the ‘‘doubling sensitivity,’’ in IPCC reports and two pre-IPCC reports). Extensive research over time nearly always reduces uncertainty; so this lack of progress is rare. 

Source: American Physical Society Climate Change Statement Review framing document 

(2015), http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/upload/climate-review-framing.pdf. 

In science, observational data are the ultimate test of theory and modeling. Climate data show significant divergence between computer predictions and the 

Earth’s actual climate record. Figure 2 shows average global temperature changes 

during 1995–2015, as provided by NASA satellite data: despite a 13 percent increase 

in atmospheric CO2 levels during this period, there is no statistically discernible 

warming trend.3 The climate record is thus at odds with the IPCC’s Third (2001) 

and Fourth (2007) Assessment Reports’ forecasts.4 During this 20-year period, the 

Earth’s atmosphere warmed by only 0.05 C; 5 but computer models predicted a far 

more dramatic 0.4 C rise in global temperature.6


1208ADD1.eps
64 

Figure 2. Global Temperature Change as Measured by Satellite, 1995–2015*

*NASA satellite data for the temperature of the Earth’s lower troposphere for the 20-year period 1995–2014. Monthly global temperature is shown relative to the 1981–2010 base-period average. Despite month-to-month fluctuations, there has been little—or zero—global warming during this period. 

Source: Roy W. Spencer, Earth Systems Science Center, University of Alabama at Huntsville. 

Figure 3 compares various climate forecasts—specifically, 102 computer climate 

models used by the IPCC—with the actual change in average tropical atmospheric 

temperature during 1979–2013, as measured by balloon and satellite. Why focus on 

tropical atmospheric temperature? Because the Earth’s tropical surface and troposphere, the lowest layer of the atmosphere, receive a major portion of the planet’s 

incoming solar energy. The rising warm, humid air from the oceans and rain-forests 

that cover much of the tropics should lead to especially large warming of the middle 

troposphere. As Figure 3 demonstrates, actual temperature changes differ dramatically from those predicted by models: the average computer model forecast warming 

of a full 1 C for the period 1979–2013; in reality, only 0.2 C (at most) has been observed. 

Figure 3. Average Change in Tropical Atmospheric Temperature, Forecasts 

v. Actual, 1979–2013*

* As measured by satellite and balloon, from the Earth’s surface to an altitude of 50,000 feet. 

Forecasts extend to 2024. 

Source: https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG113-SY18-WState-JChristy-20131211.pdf 


1208ADD2.eps 1208ADD3.eps
65 

Figure 4 shows CO2 concentration measured at Hawaii’s Mauna Loa: the longterm rise in CO2 has seasonal oscillations caused mostly by removal of CO2 from 

the air of the northern hemisphere by growing land plants during the summer; and 

by release of CO2 during the winter, when respiration of CO2 by the biosphere exceeds its removal by photosynthesis. 

Figure 4. Atmospheric Concentration of CO2, 2011–15*

* Annual CO2 oscillations represent seasonal variations in the biosphere. The annual growth 

rate (black line) averages about 2 ppm annually. Annual growth, according to the IPCC, accounts for only about half of CO2 emissions from human activities; the other half is naturally 

absorbed by oceans and land. 

Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

The failure of computer models to reliably predict future temperatures has created 

a growing awareness that such models are fundamentally flawed—and have greatly 

exaggerated past and future anthropogenic (man-made) global warming.7 Indeed, 

there is good reason to believe that any future anthropogenic warming will be far 

smaller than projected by the IPCC’s models. The best available evidence suggests 

that the equilibrium doubling sensitivity, the final warming of the surface in response to doubling atmospheric CO2, is closer to 1 C than to the ‘‘most likely’’ 3 C 

of mainstream climate models. 

The best available evidence also suggests that—despite two periods of 20th century warming, as well as a steady increase in atmospheric CO2—the frequency of 

extreme weather events has not risen. And the rise in sea levels has been modest. 

‘‘Ocean acidification,’’ a slight decrease of the alkalinity of the oceans by a few 

tenths of a pH unit, will be much less than variations of pH with location, depth 

and time in today’s oceans. Such facts do not support widespread predictions of imminent planetary catastrophe from rising CO2 levels. Numerous studies suggest 

that a modestly warmer Earth with more atmospheric CO2 will be good for all living 

things.8

4. Benefits of More Carbon Dioxide 

Pure CO2 gas is chemically inert, transparent, colorless, and odorless. On a cold 

winter day, chilled air often condenses the water vapor of human breath—of which 

4 to 5 percent is CO2—into visible fog. Such fog, however, is not CO2. Similarly, 

water vapor often condenses into clouds of steam over fossil-fuel power plants, creating the impression of smoke. Such steam clouds are not CO2, either. 

Of every million air molecules in today’s atmosphere, 400 are CO2. This average 

masks wide variation. For example, without strong ventilation, CO2 levels in crowded indoor spaces, such as classrooms, courtrooms, and trains, commonly reach 2,000 

ppm—with no clinically documented ill effects to people. The U.S Navy strives to 

keep CO2 levels in its submarines below 5,000 ppm.9

On a calm summer day, CO2 concentrations in a cornfield can drop to 200 ppm, 

as the growing corn consumes the available CO2.10 At a concentration of about 150 

ppm or less, many plants die of CO2 starvation.11 The differences between the peak 

winter CO2 levels and minimum summer CO2 levels, measured at Hawaii’s Mauna 


1208ADD4.eps
66 

Loa volcano (Fig. 4), have increased over the past 50 years. This is believed to be 

due a global expansion of forests and other plant life. 

That Earth has experienced a CO2 ‘‘famine’’ for millions of years is also not widely 

known. As illustrated in Figure 5, in the 550 million years since the Cambrian period—when abundant fossils first appeared in the sedimentary record—CO2 levels 

have averaged many thousands of ppm, that is, much larger than the CO2 level of 

400 ppm today.12

Figure 5. CO2 Levels on Earth: A Long View*

* CO2 estimates during the Earth’s Phanerozoic era are derived from fossil records in sedimentary rocks. A typical Phanerozoic CO2 level is about 1,500 ppm, considerably higher than 

today’s 400 ppm. 

Source: Berner and Kothavala 

All animals, including humans, owe their existence to green plants that use energy from sunlight to convert CO2 and water molecules into carbohydrates, releasing 

oxygen into the atmosphere in the process. Land plants get the carbon they need 

from CO2 in the air, and they obtain other essential nutrients from the soil. Just 

as plants grow better in fertilized, well-watered soils, they grow better with CO2

concentrations several times higher than the Earth’s current level.13 For this reason, additional CO2 is often pumped into greenhouses to enhance plant growth.14

Figure 6 illustrates the effect of various levels of CO2 on the growth of sour orange trees. Because the growth rate of plants is proportional, on average, to the 

square root of CO2 concentration, doubling atmospheric CO2 will increase green 

plant growth by 40 percent—a boon for crop productivity and, thus, for global food 

security. 


1208ADD5.eps
67 

Figure 6. CO2’s Effect on Growth of Sour Orange Trees*

*Measured dry weight of above-ground biomass produced by sour orange trees between specified sequential coppicing dates; and mean atmospheric CO2 concentration. Figure 6 is a particularly dramatic example of the CO2 fertilization effect. 

Source: Idso and Kimbal 

CO2’s nutritional value is only part of its benefit for plants. No less important is 

CO2’s contribution to making plants more drought-resistant: plant leaves are perforated by stomata, surface holes that allow CO2 to diffuse from the atmosphere into 

the leaf’s interior, where they are photosynthesized into carbohydrates. Depending 

on the relative humidity of the outside air, as many as 100 H2O molecules can diffuse out of the leaf for each CO2 molecule that diffuses in. This is why most land 

plants need at least 100 grams of water to produce one gram of carbohydrate. 

The 30 percent increase in atmospheric CO2 during the 20th century boosted crop 

productivity by around 15 percent. Continued improvements in crop variety, fertilizer, and water management—coupled with higher CO2 levels—will strengthen 

food security in large parts of Africa and Asia where hunger remains widespread. 

Figure 7 shows how the Earth is getting greener. The study from which the image 

is drawn analyzed plant growth at desert margins and other semi-arid areas and 

found an 11 percent net growth in foliage ground cover during 1982–2006—growth 

attributed to improved water-use efficiency arising from higher atmospheric CO2

levels.15 The study’s authors conclude: ‘‘Our results conﬁrm that the anticipated CO2 fertilization effect is occurring alongside ongoing anthropogenic perturbations to the carbon cycle and that the fertilization effect is now a signiﬁcant 

land surface process.’’ As CO2 levels continue to rise, the Earth will grow greener 

and agricultural yields will continue to increase, with additional contributions from 

better varieties, improved cropping practices, more efficient use of fertilizer, and 

other factors. 


1208ADD6.eps
68 

Figure 7. Greening of the Earth, 1982–2006*

*Percentage change in foliage cover as revealed by satellite. 

Source: Donohue et al 

5. The Developing World 

Developing nations in Asia, Africa, and Latin America will need enormous increases in low-cost energy to power their economic development and lift their citizens out of poverty. Fossil fuels—notably coal, natural gas, and oil—which currently 

supply more than 80 percent of the world’s energy, will remain indispensable. As 

countries grow more affluent, they will also acquire greater means to reduce pollution. Indeed, it is precisely the wealth unleashed by industrialization that enables 

societies to invest in modern technologies and other practices that clean up the environment. 

Further, the best available evidence suggests that current levels—and forseeable 

future increases—of carbon dioxide are not only harmless, but are indeed beneficial 

to plants and humans. Quixotic policies to supposedly limit global warming, by making fossil fuels prohibitively expensive, would condemn much of humanity to wretched conditions unimaginable in developed nations 

6. Initial Members of the CO2 Coalition 

BELL, Larry: Launched the research and education program in space architecture 

at the University of Houston and author of Climate of Corruption: Politics and 

Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax. 

COHEN, Roger, PhD in physics, Rutgers University, Fellow of the American 

Physical Society. Former Senior Scientist ExxonMobil 

EVERETT, Bruce, Faculty Tufts University’s Fletcher School, over forty years of 

experience in the international energy industry. 

HAPPER, William is Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics (emeritus) at 

Princeton University, former Director of the Office of Energy Research Director of 

Research, U.S. Department of Energy, Member National Academy of Sciences. 

HARTNETT–WHITE, Kathleen: Distinguished Senior Fellow in Residence and 

the Director of the Armstrong Center for Energy and the Environment (CEE) at the 

Texas Public Policy Foundation. 

IDSO, Craig: Founder and Chairman of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Member of the American Association for the Advancement 

of Science, American Geophysical Union, and the American Meteorological Society. 

LINDZEN, Richard: emeritus, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Member 

of National Academy of Sciences, author of numerous papers on climate and meteorology. 

MICHAELS, Pat: director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute, a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, former 

Virginia state climatologist, program chair Committee on Applied Climatology of the 

American Meteorological Society. 


1208ADD7.eps
69 

MILLS, Mark: senior fellow Manhattan Institute, CE?O Digital Power Group, a 

tech-centric capital advisory group. He is also a Faculty Fellow McCormick School 

of Engineering and Applied Science at Northwestern University. 

MOORE, Patrick: Co-founder, Chair, and Chief Scientist of Greenspirit Strategies, 

a Vancouver-based consulting firm on environmental and sustainability issues, 

founding member of Greenpeace (nine years as president of Greenpeace Canada and 

seven years as a director of Greenpeace International). 

NICHOLS, Rodney: former President and Chief Executive Officer of the New York 

Academy of Sciences; Scholar-in-Residence at the Carnegie Corporation of New 

York, Executive Vice President of The Rockefeller University, R&D manager Office 

of the Secretary of Defense. 

O’KEEFE, William: Chief Executive Officer of the George C. Marshall Institute; 

founder of Solutions; Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer American Petroleum Institute, Chief Administrative Officer of the Center for Naval Analyses. 

ROGERS, Norman: founder of Rabbit Semiconductor Company, Policy Advisor to 

The Heartland Institute and a member of the American Geophysical Union and the 

American Meteorological Society. 

SCHMITT, Harrison: PhD in Geology from Harvard University, Astronaut and 

last man to walk the moon (Apollo 17), Adjunct Professor of Physics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and former U.S. Senator from New Mexico. 

SPENCER, Roy: Climatologist, Principal Research Scientist at the University of 

Alabama in Huntsville; served as Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s 

Marshall Space Flight Center; Co-Developer of satellite temperature measurement 

system. 

STEWARD, Leighton: Geologist; Environmentalist; Author; Chairman of Plants 

Need CO2.org; Chairman of the Board of The Institute for the Study of Earth and 

Man at SMU, past Chairman of the National Wetlands Coalition, twice Chairman 

of the Audubon Nature Institute. 

YAPPS–COHEN, Lorraine: M.S. in chemistry and an M.B.A. in marketing, former 

communications & marketing manager ExxonMobil, columnist for the Examiner 

newspapers. 

7. References 

1 J. Tyndall, Heat, A Mode of Motion, Longmans, Green and Company, London, 1875. 2See, e.g., R. S. J. Tol, The Economic Effects of Climate Change, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 23,No. 2, pp. 29–51 (2009). Such studies do not fully account for the positive effects 

of CO2 fertilization and water-efficiency gains. 3 R. McKitrick, HAC-Robust Measurement of the Duration of a Trendless Subsample in a Global Climate Time Series, Open Journal of Statistics, Vol. 4, pp.527–535 (2014). doi:10.4236/ 

ojs.2014.47050. 4See, eg., IPCC 4th Assessment Report WG1 (2007), Summary for Policy Makers, p12. 

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf 5From the statistical trend lines of the UAH data set shown in Figure 2, for 1995–2014. 

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6–0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-releasednew-lt-trend-0–11-cdecade/ 6 IPCC 4th Assessment Report WG1 (2007), Summary for Policy Makers, p12, ibid; 3rd Assessment Report WG1 (2001), Summary for Policy Makers, p34; https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ 

tar/wg1/ 7 J.C Fyfe et al, Overestimated Global Warming over the Past 20 Years, Nature Climate 

Change, Vol. 3, p. 767 (2013); P. Stott et al, The Upper End of Climate Model Temperature Projections is Inconsistent with Past Warming, Environ. Res. Lett. Vol. 8, 014024 doi:10.1088/1748– 

9326/8/1/014024. 8 Indur Goklany, Is a Richer-but-Warmer World Better than Poorer but Colder Worlds? Energy 

& Environment, Vol. 18, Nos. 7–8, pp. 1023–1048 (2007). Detailed empirical studies of human 

mortality, in hundreds of communities around the world, show that in all countries and regions, 

minimum mortality is observed when temperatures are warmer than the median for that location. See, eg., Y. Guo et al, Global Variation in the Effects of Ambient Temperature on Mortality, 

Epidemiology, Vol. 25, No. 6, pp. 781–789 (2014). 9 J. T. James and A. Macatangay, Carbon Dioxide, Our Common ‘‘Enemy’’ http:// 

ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20090029352.pdf 10 H. W. Chapman, L. S. Gleason and W. E. Loomis, The Carbon Dioxide Content of Field Air, 

Plant Physiology, 29, 500 (1954). 11 J. K. Dippery, D. T. Tissue, R. B. Thomas and B. R. Strain, Effects of low and elevated CO2

levels on C3 and C4 annuals, Oecologia, Vol. 101,p. 13 (1995). 12 R. A. Berner and C. Kothavala, Geocarb:III, A revised model of atmospheric CO2 over the 

Phanerozoic time, American Journal of Science, 301, 182 (2001). 13S. B. Idso and B. A. Kimball, Effects of the enrichment of CO2 on regrowth of sour orange 

trees (Citrus aurantium; Rutacea) after copicing, Am. J. Bot. Vol. 81, p. 843 (1994). 14http://www.ocap.nl/files/OcaplFactsheet2012lUK.pdf. 15 R. J. Donohue, M. L. Roderick, T. R. McVicar, and G. D. Farquhar, Impact of CO2 fertilization on maximum foliage cover across the globe’s warm, arid environments, Geophysical Research Letters Vol. 40, pp. 3031–3035 (2013). 

70 

Senator CRUZ. Thank you, Dr. Happer, for being here. 

And I will say the one thing on which I think we can all agree 

is that no Members of Congress will be made saints at any time 

in the foreseeable future. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CRUZ. And Mr. Steyn? 

STATEMENT OF MARK STEYN, 

INTERNATIONAL BESTSELLING AUTHOR 

Mr. STEYN. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Cruz. 

I am not a scientist. I am an author, and I am also one of the 

7 billion people on this planet that the governments assembled in 

Paris currently are presuming to determine the future of. So I have 

an interest in that as much as anybody else. 

I have listened to the examples that Senator Peters and Senator 

Nelson gave of toxic infestation in Michigan water and tidal flooding in the streets of Miami Beach. Nothing agreed at Paris is going 

to do anything for that. 

If you expect the agreement at Paris to end the tidal flooding in 

Miami Beach, you are going to be waiting a long time. So if you 

want to do something about the tidal flooding in Miami Beach, the 

Mayor of Miami Beach and the Governor of Florida are the guys 

who should get together and do it. 

This body is called the Subcommittee, I believe—the full name— 

on Science, Space, and Competitiveness. And the most important 

competitiveness in any healthy society is competitiveness in ideas. 

That is how ideas are tested, and that is how good ideas win out 

over bad. And only a very weak idea demands that it must be protected from any criticism. 

Professor Ivar Giaever, the Nobel Prize winner—by the way, 

when I say he is a Nobel Prize winner, I mean he is a real one. 

He won the Nobel Prize in physics in 1973. Not a fraudulent Nobel 

Prize winner like, unfortunately, large members of Rear Admiral 

Titley’s faculty—Michael Mann, Richard Alley, William 

Easterling—all of whom have falsely claimed to be Nobel Prize 

winners on an industrial scale, as have many other climate scientists. 

There has never been a misrepresentation of credentials on this 

scale. It used to be a very serious business. But apparently, it is 

not when your cause is ‘‘saving the planet.’’ But it is a revealing— 

it is this misrepresentation of credentials by people falsely claiming 

to be Nobel laureates is revealing. It gets to the heart of the problem here that they are attempting to cloak the science in an authority that it does not, in fact, possess. 

At any rate, Professor Giaever compared the global warming orthodoxy to a hypothesis that you are not allowed to question. And 

it has gone beyond that in recent years. It is not only that you are 

not allowed to falsify the hypothesis, that the hypothesis is not, in 

fact, falsifiable, but that if you do, you suffer very serious consequences. 

Professor Christy and Professor Curry are very brave individuals, and they were very mild in their remarks about what Congressman Grijalva did when he sent out a disgraceful letter that 

no citizen representative in a parliament of a free society should 

71 

be sending out to free individuals, demanding things like hotel expenses and e-mail communication going back a decade. It was an 

absolutely disgraceful letter, and it represents the next stage of big 

climate enforcement. 

Your colleague Senator Whitehouse has called for the RICO laws, 

laws about racketeering, to be used against those who disagree 

with him on climate science. When you need that, you are not— 

you are not dealing with science. You are effectively enforcing a 

state ideology. 

The Attorney General of New York is currently using securities 

law to do an end run around the First Amendment to chastise enemies of his who do not agree with him on the climate science. 

This—to take a milder example, Rear Admiral Titley has said that 

it is time—when it comes to global warming, it is time for the politicking to stop. 

Well, when you are calling for the politicking to stop, that is 

itself politicking, such as the Democrats on this committee who appeared at a press conference a couple of hours ago under a sign 

saying, ‘‘The debate is ended.’’ I learned from Canada in the battle 

I fought over free speech that Senator Cruz mentioned, I learned 

to always listen very carefully when someone is telling you to shut 

up. 

And although Rear Admiral Titley and the Democrat Senators 

are doing it far more politely than Senator Whitehouse and Congressman Grijalva and the Attorney General of New York, what 

they are telling you is that this idea is so weak, it cannot be subjected to the normal vigorous debate of free society. 

So I thank this subcommittee for allowing at least to recognize 

that there is a divergence of opinion. The science is not settled, and 

the climate system of this planet is too complex for the slogans of 

cartoon climatology we are currently seeing in Paris. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Steyn follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARK STEYN, AUTHOR

My name is Mark Steyn. I am not a scientist. I am an author. My main interest 

in climate science is that Michael E Mann, the inventor of one of its most notorious 

artifacts, is suing me for ‘‘defamation of a Nobel Prize winner’’—a crime that I was 

not aware existed, especially in his case, as according to the Nobel Institute he is 

not a Nobel Prize winner. So I recently edited a book about it called ‘‘A Disgrace 

to the Profession’’: The World’s Scientists—in Their Own Words—On Michael E 

Mann, His Hockey Stick, and Their Damage to Science, Volume One—which I’m 

proud to say was Number One on the Climatology Hit Parade. I have been Number 

Four on the Amazon books chart, and Number Seven on the Amazon easy-listening 

chart, and earlier this very month the Number One Amazon jazz vocalist, but I had 

no idea there was also a climatological bestseller list. Still, I’m happy my book was 

credible enough to get to the top of it. 

That said, at a hearing on ‘‘Data or Dogma?’’, given the distinguished scientists 

here to address the data, I thought I should confine myself mostly to the dogma. 

The Climate of Fear 

In the three years that I have been ensnared in the dysfunctional court system 

of the District of Columbia, I have come to know well what I call the ‘‘climate of 

fear’’ within climate science. Professors Christy, Curry and Happer are sufficiently 

eminent that they can, just about, bear the assault the Big Climate enforcers mount 

on those who dissent from the dogma—although that assault is fierce and unrelenting. If you’re a professor emeritus, you’re told you’re senile. If you’re one of the few 

women in this very male field, you’re told you’re whoring for Big Oil: The aforementioned Michael Mann of Penn State, who is too cowardly to be here today and has 

72 

1http://www.steynonline.com/6333/michael-e-mann-liar-cheat-falsifier-and-fraud 

2http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com.au/2014/05/lennart-bengtsson-leaves-advisory-board.html 

3https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/467310861237760000 

4http://judithcurry.com/2014/03/20/nate-silvers-538-inconvenient-statistics/ 

instead sent his proxy, approvingly linked to an Internet post accusing Dr Curry 

of sleeping with me. This is how a supposedly distinguished climate scientist treats 

those who disagree with him. On May 13th last year I wrote: 

It’s always fun in a legal battle to have something bigger at stake than a mere 

victory. In Canada, we put the ‘human rights’ system itself on trial, to the point 

where the disgusting and indefensible ‘hate speech’ law Section 13 was eventually 

repealed by Parliament. It seems to me that in this particular case the bigger issue 

is the climate of fear that Mann and his fellow ayatollahs of alarmism have succeeded in imposing on an important scientific field.1

The very next day the distinguished 79-year-old Swedish climatologist Lennart 

Bengtsson was forced to resign from a dissident climate group after the Big Climate 

enforcers took the hockey stick to him in the back alley. He had agreed to participate in a group headed by Nigel Lawson. Some of you may know Lord Lawson personally. He was Chancellor of the Exchequer in Mrs Thatcher’s ministry in the 

United Kingdom. He’s nobody’s idea of a fringe madman: He’s a member of the 

House of Lords, a Privy Counselor; his daughter is a popular celebrity chef on America’s Food Network; his fellow trustees include a bishop of the Church of England, 

a former private secretary to the Queen, and an advisor to two Prime Ministers 

from the Labour Party. But they disagree with the tight little coterie of climate 

alarmists, and so Lennart Bengtsson could not be permitted to meet with them. As 

Professor Bengtsson wrote: 

I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all 

over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to 

continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to 

worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than 

resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. 

Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing 

from joint authorship etc. I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a 

situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. 

Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.2

Because it’s no longer about ‘‘meteorology’’, it’s about saving the planet. Bengtsson 

was a former director of the Max Planck Institute of Meteorology, winner of the 

Descartes Prize and a WMO prize for groundbreaking research, and even a friend 

and collaborator of Mann’s at scientific conferences. But he made the mistake of, 

ah, seeking to expand his circle of climate acquaintances, and so Michael Mann now 

sneeringly dismisses him as ‘‘junk science.’’ 3 Nate Silver is the hipster statistician 

who correctly predicted the 2012 election and then set up his own ‘‘538’’ website 

dedicated to ‘‘data journalism’’—just the data, the facts, the numbers, the analysis 

. . . But, when Mr Silver made the mistake of hiring Professor Roger Pielke Jr, 

then Michael Mann and Kevin Trenberth were obliged to explain to him that these 

considerations do not apply to climate science.4 So Nate Silver fired Professor 

Pielke—who has now withdrawn from all climate research. When Professor Willie 

Soon co-authored a paper earlier this year on why the turn-of-the-century climate 

models all turned out wrong, the Big Climate heavies did not attempt to refute the 

paper, but instead embarked on a campaign to get him fired from the HarvardSmithsonian Center for Astrophysics. 

For every Judith Curry or Willie Soon or Lennart Bengtsson, there are a thousand lesser names who see what happens to even the most distinguished people in 

their field and decide to keep their heads down. Professor Ivar Gievar recently spoke 

out against, among other things, the recent adjustment of figures by NASA—an 

agency overseen by this sub-committee—at the annual meeting of Nobel Laureates 

in Lindau. Professor Gievar is a Nobel Laureate. A real Nobel Laureate, I mean, 

not a fake one like Michael Mann, Kevin Trenberth and many other climate scientists who falsely claim to be Nobel Prize winners on the grounds that the IPCC 

was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007, and they once contributed to an IPCC 

report. Mann falsely claimed to be a Nobel Prize winner on his book jacket, on his 

website, in his court complaint about me—even though the Nobel Institute told him 

he wasn’t a Nobel Prize winner and he should cut it out. But this serial misrepresentation of credentials by Mann, Trenberth and others is also part of their intimidation technique. If you’re a real Nobel Laureate like Ivar Giaever, who won the 

73 

5http://climateaudit.org/2014/05/14/the-cleansing-of-lennart-bengtsson 

6http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/a-culture-of-evasion/33485 

7http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/309442/football-and-hockey-mark-steyn 

1973 Nobel Prize in Physics, or if you’re older, tenured and sufficiently eminent, you 

can just about withstand the Big Climate enforcers jumping you in the parking lot 

and taking the hockey stick to you. 

But, if you’re a younger scientist, you know that, if you cross Mann and the other 

climate mullahs, there goes tenure, there goes funding, there goes your career. I’ve 

been stunned to learn of the very real fear of retribution that pervades the climate 

world. 

When I look at what has happened to those who speak out, I recall the wise words 

of Stephen McIntyre: 

As a general point, it seems to me that, if climate change is as serious a problem 

as the climate ‘community’ believes, then it will require large measures that need 

broadly based commitment from all walks of our society.5

Mr McIntyre is exactly right: If we take Big Climate at their word that the entire 

global economy needs massive re-orientation on a scale never before contemplated, 

it will require the largest societal consensus—left and right and center, in America, 

in Canada, in Britain, in Europe . . . Yet all Big Climate does is retreat ever deeper 

into its shrinking echo chamber and compile ever longer lists of people who are beyond the pale—Professor Curry, Professor Christy, Professor Bengtsson, Professor 

Pielke, Professor Soon, Lord Lawson, the Bishop of Chester, the winner of the 1973 

Nobel Prize in Physics, the winner of the 1998 Nobel Prize in Physics. . .It might 

be quicker for Mann, Trenberth, Gavin Schmidt and the other climate enforcers to 

make a short list of those to whom they are prepared to grant a say in the future 

of the planet. 

In shoring up this cartoon climatology, the alarmism industry is now calling on 

courts and legislatures to torment their opponents. I shall outline my own particular 

experience, and then the general climate. 

Mann vs Steyn et al 

On July 12, 2012, former FBI Director and special investigative counsel Louis 

Freeh issued a devastating report regarding the behavior of Pennsylvania State 

University and its most senior figures, as they ignored, abetted and covered up the 

systemic and brutal child sexual abuse conducted by Gerald A Sandusky, longtime 

football coach at the university. 

The following day Rand Simberg posted an article on the Competitive Enterprise 

Institute’s website entitled ‘‘The Other Scandal in Happy Valley’’, which suggested 

that, in light of the revelations regarding the ‘‘rotten and corrupt culture’’ at Penn 

State under the presidency of Graham Spanier, it might be worth revisiting the 

other sham ‘‘investigation’’ on Spanier’s watch—of Dr Michael E Mann, creator of 

the famous global-warming ‘‘hockey stick’’. 

The very same day The Chronicle of Higher Education also tied together the sham 

Sandusky and Mann investigations in a piece titled ‘‘Culture of Evasion.’’ 6 As you 

know, after the Freeh Report was published, criminal charges were filed against 

Penn State President Graham Spanier and other senior administrators. Spanier is 

currently under indictment for grand-jury perjury, obstruction of justice, child 

endangerment, conspiracy and failure to report child abuse. 

Two days later, I wrote a 270-word blog post for the opinion page of National Review Online 7 referencing the Freeh Report and Mr Simberg’s piece. That post appears below in its entirety: 

In the wake of Louis Freeh’s report on Penn State’s complicity in serial rape, 

Rand Simberg writes of Unhappy Valley’s other scandal: 

‘I’m referring to another cover up and whitewash that occurred there two years 

ago, before we learned how rotten and corrupt the culture at the university was. 

But now that we know how bad it was, perhaps it’s time that we revisit the Michael Mann affair, particularly given how much we’ve also learned about his 

and others’ hockey-stick deceptions since. Mann could be said to be the Jerry 

Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has 

molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have 

dire economic consequences for the Nation and planet.’ 

Not sure I’d have extended that metaphor all the way into the locker-room showers with quite the zeal Mr Simberg does, but he has a point. Michael Mann was 

the man behind the fraudulent climate-change ‘hockey-stick’ graph, the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus. And, when the East Anglia e-mails came out, Penn 

74 

8http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/07/climategate-and-the-big-green-lie/ 

59709/ 9http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/16/hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society/ 

State felt obliged to ‘‘investigate’’ Professor Mann. Graham Spanier, the Penn 

State president forced to resign over Sandusky, was the same cove who investigated Mann. And, as with Sandusky and Paterno, the college declined to find 

one of its star names guilty of any wrongdoing. If an institution is prepared to 

cover up systemic statutory rape of minors, what won’t it cover up? Whether or 

not he’s ‘the Jerry Sandusky of climate change’, he remains the Michael Mann 

of climate change, in part because his ‘investigation’ by a deeply corrupt administration was a joke. 

I asked what I thought was quite an obvous question: If an institution is prepared 

to cover up the systemic ongoing rape of minors, what won’t it cover up? 

It’s a legitimate question for an institution that receives taxpayer funding, a certain portion of which falls under the oversight of this committee. Penn State has 

a representative here today, and perhaps he will address some of these questions 

about his institution and its integrity. 

Graham Spanier, the now disgraced president of Penn State who presided over 

the joke investigations of both Sandusky and Mann, remains the President Emeritus of Penn State, and a professor of family studies. His absolution of Michael 

Mann was widely regarded at the time as a total joke even by many who are by 

no means ‘‘climate deniers’’—for example, the venerable American institution The 

Atlantic Monthly: 

The Penn State inquiry exonerating Michael Mann—the paleoclimatologist who 

came up with ‘the hockey stick’—would be difficult to parody.8

Professor Harold Lewis, one of the most distinguished members of the American 

Physical Society, resigned from the organization over the whitewashing of Mann, 

writing: 

When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of 

East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the 

financial penalty for doing otherwise.9

In other words, Spanier’s depraved regime at Penn State turned a blind eye to 

Mann for the same reason it turned a blind eye to the Sandusky rape epidemic: they 

couldn’t afford to take the financial hit. 

In this case, unlike football revenue, the money comes in large part from taxpayers, via you and the agencies you preside over—such as the National Science 

Foundation. Given Penn State’s refusal to disclose materials relating to the Mann 

investigation under the corrupt Spanier regime, it would be appropriate for you to 

put a hold on all NSF funding of Penn State, including Mann’s two current grants 

totaling half a million dollars. And I hope this sub-committee will ask the witness 

here today representing this deeply corrupt institution whether he will join in a call 

for Spanier’s successor to let the sunlight in on all the dank, fetid corners of 

Spanier’s legacy. 

Dr Mann did not want the world to be reminded that the same man who turned 

a blind eye to Sandusky also turned a blind eye to him. He filed suit against me 

and three other parties in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, where neither Mann nor I work or reside. Indeed, I never set foot in this benighted jurisdiction except to come here for matters arising from the court case, such as this hearing. The case was assigned to Natalia Combs Greene, a since reprimanded landlordand-tenant judge appointed by President Clinton and confirmed by this honorable 

Senate. After a botched ruling in which she confused the parties, she said the case 

was ‘‘complicated’’ and shuffled it off on a colleague, but not before procedurally 

mangling it so that, for a while, two different trial judges were ruling on the case 

simultaneously—something that’s a big no-no in functioning jurisdictions, but which 

was partly caused here by Michael Mann falsely claiming in his complaint to be a 

Nobel Laureate and then, after the Nobel Institute told him he wasn’t, having to 

file an amended complaint. 

At this point, my fellow defendants chose to test the DC Anti-SLAPP statute, 

which was assented to by this U.S. Senate in 2010, but was so poorly written as 

to leave unanswered such basic questions as the standard for dismissal and whether 

or not that decision is immediately appealable to the DC Court of Appeals. The 

ACLU, The Washington Post, NBC News, The Los Angeles Times, and various other 

media bigfeet all filed amici briefs opposed to Mann—not because they disagree with 

75 

10http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/commission-on-judicial-disabilities-and-tenure-reportvanessa-ruiz.pdf 

him on global warming (most of them are as hot for climate change as he is) but 

because they understand that putting climate science beyond criticism and into the 

courtroom would inflict the greatest damage on the First Amendment in over 50 

years. Not a single amicus brief was filed on Dr Mann’s behalf. 

Oral arguments were heard over one year ago, yet judges Vanessa Ruiz, Corinne 

Beckwith and Catharine Easterly, all confirmed to the DC court by this Senate, 

have failed to rule. I note that, in writing to President Obama recommending a second 15-year term for Judge Ruiz, the Commission on Judicial Disabilities and Tenure nevertheless observed: 

The Commission would be remiss if it did not address the serious issue of Judge 

Ruiz’s backlog of opinions . . . Of crucial importance to the proper functioning 

of the Court of Appeals is the timely resolution of disputes. The public’s confidence in the Court is eroded when litigants must wait multiple years for decisions to be rendered. The Commission believes that this problem is not only 

about the pace of opinion production, but also about a less than fully adequate 

appreciation on the part of Judge Ruiz as to how her backlog adversely affects 

the litigants, the Court, and her colleagues.10

As a result, an interlocutory appeal has dragged on for almost two years. Judge 

Ruiz is an activist judge who is, inter alia, a trustee of the Carnegie Endowment 

for International Peace, which aspires to be the first global think-tank and is very 

active on the transnational climate scene. All very fascinating. But she’s supposed 

to be a DC judge first and a condition of the Commission in exchange for recommending her for a second term was that her obligation to clear her appalling backlog of cases took precedence over her ‘‘outside activities, no matter how worthy they 

may be’’. A dissenting member of the Commission, Noel J Francisco, was shrewder 

about Judge Ruiz’s failings: 

It should go without saying that an appellate judge’s primary duty—if not her 

sole duty—is to decide cases. On this score, as my colleagues have described, 

Judge Ruiz’s backlog is ‘the highest by far of any of the appellate judges on the 

DC Court of Appeals’ and, as a result, litigants often ‘must wait multiple years 

for decisions to be rendered’ by her . . . As the old adage goes, ‘justice delayed 

is justice denied’. 

The purpose of anti-SLAPP laws is to prevent the use of litigation to chill free 

speech—on climate change and many other issues. When it takes up to three years 

to get a ruling (as it apparently does with Judge Ruiz), there is no point to antiSLAPP legislation. Indeed, when it takes three years to get a ruling, the case is not 

the issue, the judge is. When it takes three years from oral arguments to ruling, 

it may be that the judge is just an incompetent sloth who’s spending far too much 

time with the Carnegie Endowment working on world peace. Or it may be that a 

sclerotic and incompetent DC court system has three-year backlogs because it accepts cases from venue tourists like Michael Mann who have no connection whatsoever with this jurisdiction—and, as a result, the court system is incapable of serving 

the people it’s meant to serve. 

Nevertheless, this Senate confirmed Judge Ruiz. Under the Home Rule Act, the 

District of Columbia operates in a constitutional no-man’s-land whereby it enacts 

legislation for which this honorable body is ultimately responsible. In practice, that 

means they pass slapdash, poorly drafted laws, and you guys rubber-stamp them. 

The constitutional limbo allows serial plaintiffs like Michael Mann to use the DC 

courts to torture non-DC residents: this is a disgrace, and ultimately it is the responsibility of you and your colleagues. 

I responded to Mann’s discovery requests almost two years ago. He has yet to respond to mine. No court around the world within the Common Law tradition to 

which this country is heir has ever presumed to adjudicate science. Judge Natalia 

Combs Greene is not competent to rule on landlord-and-tenant cases, never mind 

the extent of the Medieval Warm Period. Judge Vanessa Ruiz is so lethargic that, 

by the time she does rule on the science, global warming will have kicked in and 

the rising sea levels will have washed away the Maldives, Tuvalu and, with luck, 

the District of Columbia. My three years in the stagnant swamp of DC ‘‘justice’’ 

demonstrate why science in particular and public policy disputes in general are beyond the competence of the judges you confirm and the courts you fund. They belong 

properly in what the eminent jurist Lord Moulton called ‘‘the domain of manners’’. 

76 

11http://www.cato.org/blog/message-catos-center-study-science 12http://www.steynonline.com/6831/the-warmish-inquisition 

Big Climate vs Everyone 

Why is this relevant beyond the travails of one obscure immigrant? Because too 

many people within the climate cartel are demanding that dissent from the alleged 

‘‘consensus’’ should be not merely a civil offense but a criminal one—and far too 

many legislators and bureaucrats are willing to entertain it. Your colleague, Senator 

Whitehouse, is among those who favor criminal penalties for those who disagree 

with him on climate policy. Earlier this year, you, Senator Markey, were rebuked 

by the President of the Cato Institute for ‘‘an obvious attempt to chill research into 

and funding of public policy projects you don’t like . . . You abuse your authority 

when you attempt to intimidate people who don’t share your political beliefs.’’ 11

Likewise, Rau ́l Grijalva, the Congressman from Arizona and Ranking Member of 

the House UnEnvironmental Activities Committee, earlier this year sent a letter to 

seven scientists, including professors Curry and Christy—a quite disgraceful letter 

that no citizen-legislator in a representative parliament has any business sending 

to anybody, demanding among other things details of speaking fees, travel expenses, 

and e-mail communications stretching back a decade 12. Commissar Grijalva presumed to be able to do this because these scientists had voluntarily testified before 

his committee, and thus, as he saw it, had submitted to his jurisdiction over every 

aspect of their lives. I hope this Senate sub-committee will distance itself from 

Commissar Grijalva’s deformed understanding of his role. But, in the event that, following my voluntary appearance here today, any Senator demands in five years’ 

time to see my e-mails and know what hotel I stayed in in Cleveland or Copenhagen, I might as well give you my answer now: You ain’t getting’ nuthin’. 

It takes quite a lot to stand up to powerful congressmen and senators threatening 

to plunge you into half-a-decade of investigative torture for exercising your freespeech and public-advocacy rights. The ultimate verdict of such inquiry is largely 

irrelevant: The process is the punishment. 

The Attorney General of New York, Eric Schneiderman, is presently using securities law to do an end run around the First Amendment and sue Exxon for not holding the same views on climate change as the more pliable oil companies have been 

forced to adopt in public. 

Recently, a group of scientists mainly from George Mason University wrote to the 

President to demand that climate dissenters be prosecuted under the RICO laws. 

RICO, as you know, is supposed to be used against racketeers and mobsters and, 

granted the unfortunate tendency of sloppily drawn Federal laws to metastasize 

under opportunist U.S. Attorneys, one marvels nevertheless that such an absurd 

and ideological expansion of this legislation could ever be seriously entertained. 

Needless to say, as with the Spanier regime at Penn State, it is in fact George 

Mason’s climate community that most closely approximates a mob racket. The first 

signatory on that letter demanding RICO be applied to his enemies is Professor 

Jagadish Shukla of George Mason, who additionally controls a ‘‘non-profit’’ the Institute for Global Environment and Security, Inc. which is part of George Mason’s College of Science. In 2014 alone, this ‘‘institute’’ received over half a million dollars 

in Federal climate grants, including from bodies you oversee. As you know, the NSF 

and other Federal agencies have supposedly strict rules about enriching oneself 

from grant monies. As a general principle, during college vacation you’re allowed to 

earn no more than your monthly salary in research grants. So if you’re paid, say, 

$100,000 per year, you’re allowed to top that up to 20 grand of grant money during 

the summer. Instead, Professor Shukla essentially tripled his income, and since 

2001 has taken some 63 million dollars in Federal science grants for a ‘‘non-profit’’ 

that employed him as president, his wife as business manager and his daughter as 

assistant business manager. There’s a little bit of congressional oversight just waiting to be done, don’t you think? Sixty-three million bucks! But instead Commissar 

Grijalva wants to know whether Judith Curry got upgraded to a junior suite at the 

airport Hilton in 2007. 

This climate of intimidation, led by influential legislators of the most lavishly 

funded government in the world, sends a powerful signal to others. Professor Curry 

has noted the latest stage in the grim descent of the journal Science, whose editor 

Marcia McNutt recently published a statement confirming her journal’s wholesale 

embrace of advocacy over science: ‘‘The time for debate has ended. Action is urgently 

needed.’’ The other most prominent science journal on the planet, Nature, appears 

to be going even further, publishing a statement by three climate scientists arguing 

that ‘‘climate justice’’ is ‘‘more vital than democracy’’: 

77 

13http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v526/n7573/full/526323a.html 14http://www.amazon.com/Broadway-Babies-Say-Goodnight-Musicals/dp/0415922879/ref= 

srl1l1?ie=UTF8&qid=1449452540&sr=8-1&keywords=Steyn+Broadway+Babies 15https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EASpzOX2UNQ 

Democracy emphasizes the mutual roles of actors: all preferences are treated as 

equal. In many regions of the world, however, the results of democratic choices 

can be strongly influenced by power relations and inequitable social arrangements, owing to differences in economic development, access to technology and 

knowledge. 

Elites may use democratic processes to entrench their status or encroach on other 

social goals. This can lead to incremental or undesirable results, which might 

explain why large democratic nations such as the United States continue 

to oppose progressive climate legislation. 

In our view, sound climate and energy planning should not treat all stakeholders 

in the same way. Instead, preferences and roles should be weighted to consider 

criteria related to equity, due process, ethics and other justice principles.13

So the fake 97 per cent consensus is no longer enough. These scientists are saying 

that, because there’s a supposed 97 per cent consensus among climate scientists, 

they don’t need a 51 per cent consensus from the electorate. 

The relationship between government and science today would be unrecognizable 

to real scientists—to Sir Isaac Newton, to Charles Babbage, to the Curies. The creation of the IPCC in particular has led to the establishment of a closed, largely 

Anglo-American climate jet set that, as demonstrated in the Climategate e-mails, 

has had a wholly corrupting effect on peer review among other things. In this culture, what is the proper role of the political class? Is it to do as Senator Whitehouse, 

Congressman Grijalva and Attorney General Schneiderman are doing, and make climate alarmism a state ideology from which it is forbidden to dissent? Or is it time 

for legislators to exercise their responsibility to ensure that the people’s money is 

used in the service of science and not propaganda? 

In that respect, let me close by turning to my area of expertise. I am not a climate 

scientist, but I am an acknowledged expert in the field of musical theatre.14 Last 

year, a show called The Great Immensity opened off-Broadway. It ran a week and 

then closed after largely stinking reviews from The New York Times et al. It had 

received a direct grant of $700,000 from the agency for which you are responsible, 

the National Science Foundation. There is no science in putting on a musical: If 

there were, the Broadway adaptation of the Tom Hanks film Big would not have 

lost its entire investment, nor the Stephen King musical Carrie, nor the supposed 

blockbuster of America’s bicentennial year 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, by Leonard 

Bernstein and Alan Jay Lerner, which closed after five days and led Bernstein to 

conclude that he never wanted to get mixed up with Broadway again. If only the 

National Science Foundation was that savvy. The difference between those shows 

and The Great Immensity is that, with your blessing, only the last had American 

taxpayers’ money in it. The Government of the United States is the brokest entity 

in the history of brokeness. It has to pay back $20 trillion just to get back to having 

nothing at all. Which nobody in human history has ever done. Yet it apparently is 

not so broke that it can’t throw down the toilet 700 grand of funds marked for 

science on a lousy musical. 

I have been around the theatre my entire adult life, and once in a while one runs 

into an example of an official government musical. There was the celebrated socialist operetta, The State Department Store, which was produced in Hungary and other 

Warsaw Pact countries after the Communist regimes banned all the old-school operettas for having too many singing princes and countesses as the principal characters. There was also Zabibah and the King, a musical version of Saddam Hussein’s allegorical novel in which the nubile virginal heroine represents Iraq and her 

manly yet tender expert lover the King represents Saddam. Unlike the NSF-funded 

Great Immensity, it got rave reviews from the Baghdad critics—because, if you gave 

it two thumbs down, you got one head off. The National Science Foundation does 

not yet enjoy that power, although clearly Dr Mann, Senator Whitehouse, Congressman Grijalva, Attorney General Schneiderman, and those scientists demanding that 

climate justice trump democracy are moving in that direction. 

And in fairness neither the Communist regimes of Eastern Europe nor the 

Baathist tyranny of Saddam Hussein had their scientific bodies invest in musicals. 

That grotesque innovation came from an agency for which you are responsible. If 

you click on the YouTube link below.15 which I hope we might listen to during the 

hearing, you will see just how little American taxpayers got for their $700,000. Even 

if the show were not total garbage, it would be tainted and disfigured by the 

78 

$700,000 in direct funding from a government agency. That moves it into the same 

realm of state propaganda as Saddam Hussein’s musical and The State Department 

Store. Propaganda can only disfigure art and science, and it has no place in either. 

The National Science Foundation has no more business sinking three-quarters of a 

million bucks into The Great Immensity than it would have into my cat album, released this month—although, in the latter case, the American people would at least 

have got a return on their involuntary investment. 

In the world of arts funding, bureaucrats and administrators often talk of the 

‘‘arm’s length’’ principle. There is no ‘‘arm’s length’’ between government bureaucracies and contemporary climate science: They are entwined like Saddam Hussein 

and his lush, curvaceous lover in that boffo Baghdad smash, and it has done untold 

damage throughout most of the western world. As a final thought—and here I stray 

from dogma to my colleagues’ field of data—it seems to me that there are more similarities between musical theatre and IPCC climate science than there ought to be. 

As Irving Caesar, the celebrated lyricist of No, No, Nanette, characterized Broadway 

to me many years ago: ‘‘Remember, kid. No one knows nothing.’’ You hire the greatest composer, the hottest choreographer, the biggest star, the best orchestrator, and, 

when you put ‘em all together, it just lies there and it dies there. Likewise, as I 

have come to learn, with climate science: when someone’s up in northern Finland 

collecting lake sediment, that’s science; when someone’s taking tree rings from the 

Gaspe ́ peninsula in Que ́bec, that’s science; when someone’s up to his neck in ice 

cores in Antarctica, that’s science. But, when Michael Mann feeds them all into his 

magic processor and tells you here’s the planet’s temperature for the last two millennia, that’s not science. When the IPCC distills it further into ‘‘This is the hottest 

year of the hottest decade of the hottest century in, like, forever’’, that is way beyond the realm of science. And, when politicians distill that further still into ‘‘Give 

us all your money or the planet gets it’’, we have flown the coop of science and are 

free-floating through clouds of totalitarian fantasy. 

Climate alarmism is going nowhere. The two-decade global-warming pause, which 

no late 1990s climate model foresaw, led the public to doubt Big Climate’s confident 

predictions for the future. In response, Federal bodies such as NOAA and NASA 

have adjusted the past to make the present appear hotter, and thus supposedly 

demonstrated that in fact there is no such ‘‘pause’’. As a result, public opinion, 

which no longer trusts the Big Climate enforcers to tell them what the climate will 

be like in 2050, now no longer trusts them to tell them what it was like in 1950. 

A recent poll found that, notwithstanding the urgings of the President and the Secretary of State and others, only three per cent of Americans regard climate change 

as their major concern. Three per cent. There is your 97 per cent consensus, gentlemen. 

At exactly the time when climate science needs to acknowledge its own failings, 

and the uncertainties of which Dr Curry speaks, and the inability of cartoon climatology and fraudulent gimmicks like the hockey stick to capture the complexities of 

the planet’s climate system, a narrow unrepresentative group of activists is demanding ever more brutal penalties against those who refuse to toe the line. 

There is certainly a role for the state to play in this—not in prosecuting climate 

dissenters under RICO laws or in dumping taxpayer money into unwatchable propaganda musicals, or in having feckless lethargic judges in the District of Columbia 

reward serial plaintiffs for nuisance suits, but rather in standing firm for the most 

expansive definition of free speech, which is vital to scientific inquiry and sorely 

overdue in this particular field, and against the abuse of government funds, which 

has been disastrous for it. 

Senator CRUZ. Thank you, Mr. Steyn. 

Dr. Titley? 

STATEMENT OF DAVID W. TITLEY, REAR ADMIRAL USN (RET.), 

PH.D., PROFESSOR OF PRACTICE AND DIRECTOR, CENTER 

FOR SOLUTIONS TO WEATHER AND CLIMATE RISK, 

PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY 

Admiral TITLEY. Thank you for Chairman Thune to extend this 

invitation to me. 

Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Peters, Ranking Member Nelson, distinguished members of the Committee, thank you. 

This is an important hearing on an important subject. I am here 

today as a private citizen. My views are my own. 

79 

I got involved in climate in 2009. I was minding my own business 

as a one-star admiral, ran the Navy’s oceanography and operational weather forecasting. Got a call while driving to the New Orleans airport across the causeway in Lake Pontchartrain, and it 

was the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Gary Roughead. 

He basically said, ‘‘Hey, Titley, figure out what is going on in the 

Arctic. Is this an issue or not? What is going on with climate? Do 

I need to deal with this? Come up to the Pentagon and figure this 

out.’’ 

So I was a one star. He is a four star. So I said, ‘‘Aye aye, sir.’’ 

And that is what we did. 

And kind of what I looked at it as is really dropping back to the 

training. I was a navigator on an old guided missile destroyer, and 

we didn’t have GPS. So you had to look at all the data, but not believe any one piece of data entirely. 

And that is kind of how I have looked at this because, actually, 

I wasn’t really convinced one way or the other what was going on. 

So that is what I did. And the more we looked at the data, the 

more we saw that not only were the air temperatures coming up, 

but the ocean temperatures were coming up. The sea level was 

coming up. The glaciers were retreating. The oceans were 

acidifying. And as I said, the sea levels were actually rising. 

So when you put all of those independent lines of evidence together, coupled with a theory that was over 100 years old and had 

stood the test of time, it kind of made sense. Does it mean we know 

everything? No. But does it mean that we know enough that we 

should be considering this and acting? Yes. It is called risk management, and that is what we are here doing. 

So that is kind of where, you know, the science in general works 

there. Can you test your hypothesis? What is the cumulative 

weight of error? Can you replicate? What is the discovery? 

You know, and over time, you can identify what is known with 

confidence. Not every publication is correct. That is OK. But it informs what we need to study over the next few years. 

So, you know, basically, what do we know today about climate 

science? We know that the Earth’s climate is changing at an unusual pace compared to the natural changes that the Earth has experienced in the past. We know emissions of greenhouse gases from 

human activities—primarily, but not exclusively fossil fuels—are 

the principal drivers. 

We know it is already causing harm, as Senator Nelson has 

pointed out. Will continue for some time, that harm will continue 

because there is inertia in the system. There is inertia in the physical system. There is inertia in the world’s energy system. And we 

can limit that harm, though, by remedial action. 

In the military, you don’t always have perfect information. In 

fact, you hardly ever have perfect information. But you still make 

decisions based on what you know, and we know a lot. 

General Sullivan, who serves with me on the CNA Military Advisory Board, famously said that if you wait for 100 percent certainty 

on the battlefield, you will probably be dead. Let us not do that. 

We know in 2014 the CNA Military Advisory Board put out another report that talked about the climate risks are accelerating, 

the threats are being magnified, and the complex, cascading conVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:09 Oct 04, 2016 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\21644.TXT JACKIE
80 

sequences can lead to a failure of imagination. We have already experienced that in the last 15 years in this country. We don’t need 

to do that again. 

So what do we do? We are already paying today a de facto carbon 

tax, one that nobody voted on. You look at the cost of the New Orleans levees. You look at the cost of Sandy. You look at the cost 

of Florida. You look at the cost of relocating communities in Alaska. Those are all carbon taxes, and we are paying those today. 

These are the impacts to society, not necessarily mid-tropospheric corrections to MSU data. These are the kinds of things that 

we have got to figure out. 

So what can we do? I will use my last little bit of time here to 

really plead to the Congress that your leadership is essential. Big 

things happen in the United States with the Congress. The Executive Branch can do some things. It can’t do a ton. 

We have seen this in the Department of Defense. GoldwaterNichols, that was a big change for the Department of Defense. 

Nuclear power. The way nuclear power came into the Navy is because the Congress made it happen. The Congress is massively important. 

Ultimately, we need to decarbonize our energy system. It is going 

to happen anyways, but the speed of that transition is important. 

And as has been mentioned, there are 190 countries right now in 

Paris. So that energy system is going to transform. They are talking about this. Why don’t we lead it? 

We have already heard the Ranking Member talk about that. 

Why don’t we—why don’t we lead it? 

So here is my belief. I believe that we are still the exceptional 

country that much of the world looks to for leadership. I believe we 

all want a better life for ourselves, our children, our grandchildren. 

Please let us not pull a ‘‘Thelma and Louise.’’ Let us get a better 

future. Let us start it today. 

Thank you very much. I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Admiral Titley follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID W TITLEY, REAR ADMIRAL USN (RET.), PH.D., 

PROFESSOR OF PRACTICE AND DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR SOLUTIONS TO WEATHER AND

CLIMATE RISK, PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

Thank you Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Peters, distinguished members of 

the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation for the opportunity to come before you today and discuss this very important topic. 

I am David Titley and currently serve as the Founding Director of the Center for 

Solutions to Weather and Climate Risk at the Pennsylvania State University. I had 

the honor of serving in the United States Navy for 32 years and retired last year 

as a Rear Admiral and Assistant Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Information 

Dominance. When I retired, I was also the Oceanographer and Navigator of the 

Navy, and Director of U.S. Navy Task Force Climate Change. Subsequent to my 

time in the Navy, I served as the Chief Operating Officer position of the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). My Center at Penn State currently receives no Federal Funding. Although I have consulted with many distinguished climate scientists in preparation for this testimony, my views are my own— 

any mistakes are my responsibility. 

I am here today because I believe coming to a consensus on how to develop policies that address the challenge of a changing climate is a very important discussion 

for our Nation’s leadership to have. Thank you for holding this hearing. 

In the Navy we have a saying, to just give me the ‘Bottom Line Up Front’ or 

BLUF. So here’s my BLUF for today’s hearing: 

81 

1MacCracken, M. ‘‘Climate Change in Six Well-Documented Findings’’. http://www.climate 

.org/topics/climate-change/science-in-six-findings.html 

• We know how to do Science: Science is not a simple linear process, performed 

in an isolated, sterile environment, but rather an iterative process with continual interaction between exploration and discovery, feedback and input from 

peers, inputs from society, but most importantly, testing ideas, called 

hypotheses and theories, with evidence. New evidence can change existing 

ideas. The better ideas fit actual observations, disparate or seemingly unrelated 

observations or previously unknown observations, the more likely the idea is to 

be accepted widely by science. Results are provided in many venues, but peerreviewed journals are especially important. Peer-review does not guarantee the 

ideas being published are correct, but the process does ensure the work acknowledges previous work in that field, the experiments and methods were 

well-designed, the evidence cited logically leads to the conclusion. If new evidence becomes available, or subsequent researchers find errors in the methods 

published, the original ideas are modified. Science is based on the cumulative 

weight of the evidence available. If initially published contrarian results stand 

the test of independent confirmation and corroboration, these initially 

contrarian (or even revolutionary) results become part of the accepted body of 

science. 

• The climate is changing more rapidly than has been observed in the past; we 

understand why that is so, and we understand that those changes will continue, 

absent meaningful action in reducing Greenhouse Gas emissions: The change in 

the climate, and therefore the change in the weather, is real. Multiple independent sources of data show a rise in temperatures and rise in the ratio of 

record high temperatures to record low temperatures; an increase in the intensity of precipitation events—that is, the hardest rains are getting harder; the 

continued collapse in the area and amount of summer-time sea ice in the Arctic 

Ocean; an acceleration of sea level rise; acidifying oceans; and ecosystems moving poleward and up in elevation where possible. We understand why the climate is changing, based on science extending back to the mid-19th century. The 

basic concept of greenhouse gasses trapping heat and keeping the atmosphere 

warmer than it would be in the absence of these gasses is extremely well understood. This idea explains not only the temperature of the Earth, but the same 

concept also applies to understanding the temperatures of Venus and Mars.1

• We know how to succeed even when the future is not perfectly known: Traditional 

risk planning takes the chance or probability of an event and multiplies it by 

the impact. But even when it is difficult to assess the likelihood of a specific 

event, there are still available methods by which risk planning and mitigation 

can be accomplished. Our national security teams frequently have to account for 

these ‘‘deep uncertainties’’ and they have a variety of tools to assist them. Rich 

scenario planning, assumptions-based planning and similar methods can be 

used with the goal of identifying all plausible vulnerabilities and their subsequent impacts. National Security and strategic military planners have used 

these tools successfully for decades—we can apply these methods and adapt 

them to the climate change challenge. 

The earth’s climate has naturally varied for millions of years (Figure 1—From 

John Englander ‘‘High Tide on Main Street’’; it will continue to do so for millions 

more (e.g., . However, humans, primarily through the release of greenhouse gases, 

also have the capability to modify the earth’s climate in a way that previously could 

occur only by nature. If the climate has always changed in the past and will do so 

in the future, then why do we care? We care because we are forcing a change to 

a system that has been remarkably stable in the past 8–12 thousand years (Figure 

2—From John Englander ‘‘High Tide on Main Street’’); the time when humans developed agriculture, civilization and our modern way of life. It’s not that the climate 

of the past few thousand years is optimal per se, but its stability allowed us to base 

a civilization on an overall predictability of where our coasts would be, when the 

rains would come, and the length of the growing seasons. Later on we would construct our buildings, towns, and cities all based on a historical understanding of the 

averages and extremes of our historical climate. And most importantly, we made a 

fundamental assumption that the future climate would be like the past. That assumption no longer holds. 

82 

Figure 1—From John Englander ‘‘High Tide on Main Street’’ 

Figure 2—From John Englander ‘‘High Tide on Main Street’’ 

Dr. John Holdren, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology 

Policy, provided extensive written testimony on the subject of climate change data 


1208TITL1.eps 1208TITL2.eps
83 

2The National Academies reports on climate change include the four-volume set, America’s 

Climate Choices (2010) and a host of other reports completed since 2010, all accessible at: 

http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/ 3 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 and 2013–2014 IPCC Fourth and 

Fifth Assessments, accessible at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publicationslandldata/publications landldatalreports.shtml#1 4 Climate Change: Evidence and Causes—An Overview from the Royal Society and the U.S. 

National Academy of Sciences, 2014: http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/exec-officeother/climate-change-full.pdf 5Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States, 2009: http://nca2009.globalchange.gov 

and Climate Change Impacts in the United States, 2014: http://nca2014.globalchange.gov. 6 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) State of the Climate reports, accessible at: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/ 7http://www.globalchange.gov/browse/reports 

8Department of Energy (DOE) 2011 Quadrennial Technology Review: http://energy.gov/sites/ 

prod/files/QTRlreport.pdf 

and evidence to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and 

Technology in September 2014. While I have no ties to the current administration 

I believe Dr. Holdren describes accurately the state of climate science today. The 

following is an extract of his written statement: 

‘‘There is an immense amount of [climate science] primary, peer-reviewed, published research . . . carried out by a wide variety of competent national and 

international bodies (including Federal agencies and scientific advisory boards 

and committees reporting to them). Important examples include the comprehensive reviews by the U.S. National Academies 2 and the Intergovernmental Panel 

on Climate Change (IPCC),3 the recent joint review by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the U.K.’s Royal Society of London,4 the Second and Third 

U.S. National Climate Assessments,5 the annual State of the Climate reports 

of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,6 the periodic 

synthesis and assessment reports of the U.S. Global Change Research Program,7 and the first Quadrennial Energy Technology Review of the U.S. Department of Energy.8 Notably, the U.S. National Climate Assessments, which are 

required under the Global Change Research Act of 1990, reflect substantial 

input from the public, outside experts and stakeholders. The most recent such 

Assessment, which was released in May of 2014, was the result of a three-year 

analytical effort by a team of over 300 climate scientists and experts, informed 

by inputs gathered through more than 70 technical workshops and stakeholder 

listening sessions held across the country. The resulting product was subjected 

to extensive review by the public and by scientific experts inside and outside 

of government. 

The Natural Science of Anthropogenic Climate Change 

Decades of observation, monitoring, and analysis have demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that: 

(1) the Earth’s climate is changing at an unusual pace compared to natural 

changes in climate experienced in the past; 

(2) emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from human activities, principally the combustion of fossil fuels but also land-use change, are 

the principal drivers of the recent and ongoing changes in climate; 

(3) climate change is already causing harm in many parts of the world (and many 

parts of the United States); 

(4) this harm will continue to grow for some time to come, because of the time 

lags and inertia built into the Earth’s climate system and the inertia in civilization’s energy system (which prevents drastically reducing the offending 

emissions overnight); but 

(5) there is a large difference between the amount of additional harm projected 

to occur in the absence of vigorous remedial action versus that expected if 

such action is taken promptly. 

The recent measured changes in climate include a multi-decade increase in the 

year-round, global-average air temperature near Earth’s surface, but they are not 

limited to that. The changes also include increased temperatures in the ocean; increased moisture in the atmosphere; increased numbers of extremely hot days; 

changed patterns of rainfall and snowfall; and, in some regions, increases in 

droughts, wildfires, and unusually powerful storms. 

In consequence of the temperature increase, moreover, glaciers are melting, the 

Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are losing mass, and sea level is rising. While 

84 

9 Note: The highest value cited by the IPCC’s 2013 climate-science synthesis is 1.25 meters, 

but a December 2012 NOAA report put the upper limit at 2 meters (see Parris, A., P. Bromirski, 

V. Burkett, D. Cayan, M. Culver, J. Hall, R. Horton, K. Knuuti, R. Moss, J. Obeysekera, A. 

Sallenger, and J. Weiss. 2012. Global Sea Level Rise Scenarios for the U.S. National Climate 

Assessment. NOAA Tech Memo OAR CPO–1: http://cpo.noaa.gov/sites/cpo/Reports/2012/ 

NOAAlSLRlr3.pdf) 

the pace of sea-level rise is relatively slow—the current rate would produce an increase of about a foot over a century—there are three main reasons that the problem should not be underestimated: 

(1) The rate appears to be increasing and is now about twice the average for the 

20th century; increases as high as 1 to 2 meters (3.3 to 6.6 feet) above the 

pre-industrial value by 2100 cannot be ruled out.9

(2) Even modest amounts of sea-level increase constitute a significant threat to 

ecosystems and infrastructure in low-lying coastal areas, not least because of 

the amplification of storm surges and increased intrusion of salt water into 

coastal aquifers. 

(3) The momentum in the processes driving sea-level rise is such that it is expected to continue for centuries even under the most optimistic scenarios for 

climate-change mitigation; it can be slowed, but it cannot be stopped on any 

time scale of practical interest. 

The ‘‘fingerprint’’ of human responsibility for most of the climate change observed 

over the past few decades is unmistakable: science has established persuasively that 

the atmospheric build-up of the key greenhouse gases has resulted from human activities; and the spatial and temporal patterns as well as the magnitudes of the observed changes in temperature are consistent with what theory and models predict 

would result from that build-up, after allowance is made for the partially offsetting 

effect of increased atmospheric concentrations of reflective and cloud-forming particulate matter (also of human origin). 

Civilization’s emissions of carbon dioxide, in particular, have led not only to a 

build-up of the stock of this important heat-trapping gas in the atmosphere (where 

it’s responsible for close to half of the total warming influence of all the heat-trapping substances humans have added over time); those emissions have also led to an 

increase in the dissolution of carbon dioxide into the surface layer of the ocean. 

There the dissolved CO2 forms carbonic acid (H2CO3) and thus lowers the pH (increases the acidity) of ocean waters. This ongoing acidification increasingly puts at 

risk coral reefs and other marine organisms that build their shells or skeletons from 

calcium carbonate (including clams, oysters, and some plankton). 

The foregoing conclusions are based on an immense number of observations and 

measurements made by thousands of scientists at both governmental and nongovernmental institutions around the world, as well as on fundamental understandings about atmospheric physics and increasingly sophisticated computer models of ocean-atmosphere-ecosystem interactions, all recorded in tens of thousands of 

peer-reviewed scientific publications. These key findings about climate change have 

been endorsed by every major national academy of sciences in the world, including 

those of [the United Kingdom], China, India, Russia, and Brazil as well as that of 

the United States, and by nearly every U.S. scientific professional society, by the 

World Meteorological Organization and the UN’s Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and by the recently released Third U.S. National Climate Assessment.’’ 

(I have attached additional, more technical parts of Dr. Holdren’s statement providing evidence of changes in our climate in Attachment A, submitted with this testimony.) 

I would be remiss if I did not address the so-called ‘pause’ in global surface temperatures. Dr. Holdren provides additional details (submitted as part of Attachment 

A). It is easy to find arbitrary 5–15 year periods when, with careful choosing of the 

start and stop dates, one can claim there has been no change in global temperatures. This method of analysis though does not account for the longer-term upward 

trend that persists through the relatively short-term variations. As an analog, I 

drive west on Interstate 70 from Washington DC back to Penn State. However, for 

nearly the first 25 miles in Pennsylvania, I–70 runs north, or even northeast. But 

even with that short-term variation (to account for the mountains) the road, overall, 

still takes me from east to west. Likewise, due to natural variability, there are 

short-term ups and downs in year-to-year temperature. But this structure does not 

remove the long-term, and upward, trend. A recent graphic (Figure 3) from Dr. 

85 

10http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-kevin-e-trenberth/fact-not-opinion-climate-lbl8703012 

.html 11Summary for Policy Makers of the Working Group I contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (2013) 12http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm 13http://insideclimatenews.org/news/01122015/documents-exxons-early-co2-position-seniorexecutives-engage-and-warming-forecast 

Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research 10 shows this 

trend, and also shows how 2015 is very likely to be the warmest year recorded in 

the modern record—and by a significant margin. 

Figure 3—Global Temperature change and CO2 concentration 

In summary, a combination of multiple, independent sources of data provide the 

basis to the latest conclusion from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: 

‘‘Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the 

observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. . .Human influence 

on the climate system is clear. This is evident from the increasing greenhouse gas 

concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming, and 

understanding of the climate system.’’ 11 We should not be surprised; these conclusions rest on science discovered in the 19th century by Fourier, Tyndall, Arrhenius 

and their colleagues 12 and validated by many scientists in the subsequent decades. 

It is worth noting that private industry independently arrived at these same conclusions decades ago. Recently released documents 13 show that in 1980 Exxon researchers projected the impacts on global temperature due to increasing greenhouse 

gasses with astonishing accuracy (e.g., Figure 4). Again, the basis of the science of 

climate change is exceptionally well-understood and can be—and has been—applied 

by many researchers inside and outside the government. 


1208TITL3.eps
86 

14 ‘‘National Security and the Accelerating Risks of Climate Change.’’, CNA Corporation, May 

2014. https://www.cna.org/cnalfiles/pdf/MABl5-8-14.pdf 15 Burroughs, William ‘‘Climate Change in Prehistory: The End of the Reign of Chaos’’, Cambridge University Press, 2005 16http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/image/president27sclimateactionplan.pdf 

Figure 4—Exxon Projection of global temperatures 

So what should we do? I recommend we take a risk-management approach, similar to how the CNA Military Advisory Board (MAB) has done in their most recent 

report on the risks of climate change to security.14 Although most of the CNA MAB 

members are not scientists, their positions as former senior three-and four-star leaders in the United States Military trained them to seek and assess technical advice 

from many different fields of expertise. They have accepted the overwhelming evidence of the mainstream, international science community, and understand that if 

significant new and compelling evidence is discovered, the conclusions may need to 

be adjusted accordingly. Climate risks and security risks share another trait in common: ‘‘The worst matters much more than the bad’’ 15. In other words: What are the 

near-term and future risks to our way of life—and what policies and structures 

should we put in place to manage and mitigate those risks? 

How might we meet this challenge? One way might be to start with these four 

recommendations, consistent in broad goals with the President’s Climate Action 

Plan 16: 

• Set up and support a monitoring system that will allow the U.S. and the world 

to detect and assess changes to future climate. Assign specific responsibilities. 

Many National Academies of Science (NAS) reports have called for such a monitoring system. As a recent example, the NAS ‘Abrupt Climate Changes’ report 

calls for such a monitoring system. 

• Adjust policies today for what we know—and for what we might reasonably expect in the coming decades. Ensure we do not simply plan for the best case or 

even the most likely, but also consider seriously the most damaging and harmful scenarios (think ‘Katrina’ and ‘Sandy’). We learned in the military a long 

time ago that hope by itself is rarely a good strategy. 

• Invest in better understanding—and ultimately prediction—at the boundary between weather and climate. While scientifically this is very challenging, it is 

also very important for people and a myriad of decisions. From a security, economic, agricultural, infrastructure and policy perspective, greater climate 

knowledge of the next few seasons to the next decade or two would be extremely 

useful. While we should not use today’s uncertainty as an excuse to defer action, 

better understanding of the climate over the next 2–20 years would be very useful in allocating scarce resources. The Department of the Navy is funding today 


1208TITL4.eps
87 

17http://espc.oar.noaa.gov/ 

the ‘Earth System Prediction Capability’ or ESPC—an interagency program designed to provide our country the next-generation of integrated air-ocean-iceland prediction system.17 Navy is working with other components of the DoD, 

as well as NOAA, NASA and the Department of Energy to ensure our Nation 

has the world’s best operational weather and climate prediction tools at our disposal. This national imperative must be a national priority. 

• As we work on adapting to our changing climate we should not lose sight of 

the big picture: how to move the world’s energy system to a predominantly noncarbon based energy source to power the world. How can we unleash the innovation and energy that makes our country great to solve one of the grand challenges of the 21st Century? The United States has responded to grand challenges of the past, in part by investing for the future. As seen in Figure 5, we 

responded to President Kennedy’s call to go to the moon and President Nixon’s 

response to the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo. To date though, there has been no serious response to the need to transforming our energy system. We are the country 

that is developing a self-driving car and whose private companies can send satellites to geosynchronous orbit. With the right policies and encouragement from 

the Federal Government I am sure our private sector can develop—and profit 

from—energy solutions that will power the world in a sustainable fashion into 

the future. 

In closing, our country is dealing with a significant change in the world’s climate; 

it is a very serious challenge and if we do not manage this risk climate change, unchecked, will make many of our existing threats worse. But our country has met 

challenges of this magnitude before and succeeded—and we will do so again. While 

we don’t know everything—and we never will—we do know more than enough to 

act now. By focusing our efforts in a risk-based framework on meeting the climate 

challenge, we can prepare for the short-term while shaping our longer-term future. 

We can provide the policies, stability and guidance our country needs to unleash our 

country’s energy, creativity and initiative. I am convinced we will be proud and 

amazed at what we can accomplish. 

Thank you very much for your time and attention; I look forward to taking your 

questions. 

Figure 5—Non-Defense U.S. R&D 1953–2015 


1208TITL5.eps
88 

18 Note: The GWP of an initial emissions pulse of a greenhouse gas is calculated by summing 

its warming effects over a specified number of years into the future. Because different greenhouse gases have different lifetimes in the atmosphere, the relative importance of their respective emissions at a given time—as measured by GWP—depends on the length of time chosen 

for those sums. One hundred years is a common choice. Note also that the IPCC’s new approach 

to allocating the responsibility for forcing (as of the 2013–14 assessment) is based on the contribution of emissions of the heat-trapping substances and their precursors between 1750 and 

2011, not on the changes in concentrations of the heat-trapping substances as was the approach 

in the IPCC’s previous assessments. The two approaches to allocation give somewhat different 

numbers because emissions of some substances affect not only their own concentrations but also 

the concentrations of others. 

ATTACHMENT A 

Additional excerpts from Dr. John Holdren’s (Director, Office of Science 

and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President of the United 

States) written statement to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee 

on Science, Space, and Technology, given 17 September 2014 

Elaboration on the human drivers of global climate change 

Scientists have developed good estimates of the magnitudes of both human-caused 

and natural influences on the global climate (called ‘‘forcings’’ in climate science) 

since the start of the Industrial Revolution around 1750. The results show that the 

human influences in this period have far outweighed the natural forcings, as well 

as internal variability of the climate system. The 2013 IPCC report found, specifically, that the positive forcing (warming influence) attributable to human-caused 

emissions over the period 1750–2011 was about 80 times as large as the positive 

forcing from changes in solar irradiance (the largest natural influence) over that period. Studies going back 20 years and more show that increases in globally-averaged 

temperatures over the last several decades have been too rapid and too sustained 

to be a result of internal climate variability. 

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most important greenhouse gas emitted by humans. 

Emissions of CO2 between 1750 and 2011 accounted for 42 percent of the total positive forcings resulting from all human emissions over this period; and current CO2

emissions are responsible for around 75 percent of the century-scale Global Warming Potential (GWP) of all current human emissions of heat-trapping substances.18

In 2012, about 90 percent of global anthropogenic CO2 emissions came from fossilfuel combustion and cement production (40 percent coal, 30 percent oil, 16 percent 

natural gas, 4 percent cement) and 10 percent from deforestation and other landuse change. Of the ‘‘industrial’’ (fossil fuel and cement) emissions in that year, 

China accounted for about 29 percent, the United States for about 15 percent, the 

27 countries of the European Union for about 11 percent, India for about 6 percent, 

Russia for about 5 percent, and Japan for about 4 percent. These relatively few 

countries alone, then, accounted for about 70 percent of global industrial CO2 emissions in 2012. 

The second most important greenhouse gas emitted by humans is methane (CH4). 

It has a far shorter atmospheric lifetime than that of carbon dioxide, but methane 

emissions between 1750 and 2011 nonetheless accounted for about 24 percent of the 

total positive forcings resulting from all human emissions over this period. Part of 

this contribution is because chemical reactions involving CH4 lead to increases in 

tropospheric ozone and stratospheric water vapor. The activities responsible for civilization’s methane emissions are, approximately: fossil-fuel production, processing 

and transport, 30 percent; animal husbandry, 27 percent; waste management, 23 

percent; rice cultivation, 10 percent; and biomass burning, 10 percent.12

Emissions of halogen gases (leaked from a variety of commercial products and industrial uses) accounted for another 9 percent of the total positive forcing as of 

2011, compared to 1750, but about 40 percent of the positive forcing from the halogen gases was cancelled out by the reduction in the stratospheric concentration of 

ozone caused by their emissions. Emissions of nitrous oxide (from combustion and 

fertilizer use) contributed about 4 percent of the total positive forcing up to 2011. 

The other major contributor to positive forcing since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is not a greenhouse gas at all but ‘‘black carbon’’—heat-absorbing 

particles emitted primarily by biomass burning and by many two-stroke and diesel 

engines. Although the atmospheric lifetime of these particles is only days to weeks, 

their emissions had contributed about 16 percent of all positive forcing as of 2011, 

compared to 1750. 

The positive forcings from the sources just mentioned are currently being partially 

offset by negative forcing that comes from reflective and cloud-forming particles that 

also have increased in concentration in the industrial era. The main sources of these 

89 

19 Note: The one year in the top 14 that occurred prior to 2000 was 1998. It was the third 

or fourth warmest year since 1880 as a result of an unusually powerful El Nin ̃ o, which boosted 

the global-average surface temperature well above the trend line. The recent rate of temperature 

increase can be made to look smaller by ‘‘cherry-picking’’ the 1998 spike as the new start date 

for one’s trend line, as a number of contrarians have done to bolster their claim that global 

warming has stopped. 

particles are certain oxides of sulfur and nitrogen emitted by fuel combustion. There 

are strong incentives to reduce those emissions for reasons of public health and the 

protection of ecosystems from acid precipitation, however, and when this happen the 

resulting reduction of negative forcing by the associated reflective and cloud-forming 

particles will ‘‘unmask’’ some of the warming that currently is being offset. 

Elaboration on the ‘‘hiatus’’ in global warming 

A number of climate-change contrarians have been propagating the claim that 

there has been no global warming since 1998. This is not correct. 

Although the rate of increase in the globally and annually averaged temperature 

of the atmosphere near the surface has slowed since around 2000 19 compared to the 

rate of increase over the preceding three decades, near-surface warming of the atmosphere has indeed continued. The 2000s were warmer than the 1990s, and the 

2010s so far have been warmer than the 2000s. 

Thirteen of the 14 warmest years since decent thermometer records became available (around 1880) have occurred since 2000. During the recent period in which the 

rate of increase of the average surface air temperature has slowed, moreover, other 

indicators of a warming planet—shrinkage of Arctic sea ice and mountain glaciers, 

increased discharges from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, increased ocean 

temperatures, and sea-level rise—have been proceeding at or above the rates that 

characterized the preceding decades. 

The long-term warming trend resulting from the build-up of heat-trapping gases 

and particles in the atmosphere is superimposed on a considerable amount of variability—year-to-year and decade-to-decade ups and downs in the global-average atmospheric temperature resulting from variations in solar output, in volcanic activity 

that injects reflecting particles into the strato-sphere, and in ocean circulation patterns that govern how much of the trapped heat goes into the oceans as opposed 

to staying in the atmosphere. Scientists therefore do not expect the rate of atmospheric warming, which results from the combination of human and natural influences, to be uniform from year to year and decade to decade. Climate models show 

short periods of slow warming and even cooling within long-term warming epochs, 

much as we see recently in observations. 

The reduced rate of warming since around 2000 is thought to be the result of a 

partial offsetting, by a combination of natural factors that tended to cool the atmosphere in this period, of the warming influence of the continuing greenhouse-gas 

build-up. An increase in emissions of sunlight-reflecting particles from an increase 

in global coal use may also have contributed. Among the natural factors thought to 

be involved, oceans are likely to have played a major role in slowing atmospheric 

warming in this period. The oceans normally take up more than 90 percent of the 

excess heat trapped by anthropogenic greenhouse gases; thus, a small percentage 

increase in what goes into the ocean can take a large share away from what otherwise would have gone into the atmosphere. 

When the variability that has lately slowed surface-atmosphere temperature 

trends next shifts to contributing warming, of course, it will then reinforce rather 

than offset the warming influence of the build-up of greenhouse gases. The rate of 

increase of the global-average surface temperature will then rebound, becoming 

more rapid, rather than less rapid, than the long-term average. 

It is not clear, finally, that all of what has long been called ‘‘natural variability’’ 

is completely free of human influences. It’s known that the geographic unevenness 

of anthropogenic global warming (amplified in the Northern Hemisphere by the 

shrinkage of Arctic sea ice, among other factors), affects atmospheric and oceanic 

circulation patterns. There is considerable evidence that the El Nin ̃ o/La Nin ̃ a cycle, 

as well as other patterns that affect how much trapped heat ends up in the oceans 

rather than in the atmosphere, are being influenced to some extent by anthropogenic global warming. 

It has been suggested that the slow rate of recent warming calls into question our 

understanding of the importance of CO2 in determining Earth’s climate. There is no 

reason to believe this. Short periods of slow warming and even cooling amidst longer 

warming epochs are expected and are seen in instrumental records, geologic temperature reconstructions, and in climate-model output. Internal redistributions of 

energy (as are suspected to be responsible for most of the recent slowdown in atmosVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:09 Oct 04, 2016 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\21644.TXT JACKIE
90 

pheric warming) in no way conflict with our understanding of CO2 as a dominant 

driver of long-term changes in Earth’s climate. 

Senator CRUZ. Thank you, Dr. Titley. And thank you to each of 

the witnesses for testifying. 

Dr. Happer, I want to start with you, and I want to just make 

sure I understood your testimony correctly. As I understood what 

you told this committee, you had a series of facts. That CO2 is not 

a pollutant. That CO2 is good for the planet. That CO2 is good for 

plant life in particular. That the world right now is currently 

greening. And that for much of our history, there has been substantially more CO2 in the atmosphere than there is right now. 

Am I correct in understanding each of those facts? 

Dr. HAPPER. That is completely correct. But by history, I mean 

for since the last 500 million years, you know, since the Cambrian. 

Senator CRUZ. And I would note that the history with markedly 

more CO2 predated the Industrial Revolution. So it didn’t come 

from automobiles or the burning of carbon fuels. Is that correct? 

Dr. HAPPER. That is correct. 

Senator CRUZ. OK. So those are facts we are beginning with. I 

would note those facts are directly contrary to what the global 

warming alarmists tell us day in and day out and to what the 

media, which echoes their concerns, say day in and day out. 

I want to pull up charts number 1 and number 2. I guess the 

bias on the charts of the computer models is causing the chart to 

fall over. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CRUZ. So, Dr. Christy, this first chart here, the bright 

red line, do I understand it correctly that the bright red line is 

what the computer models—and this is an average of quite a 

many—quite a significant number of computer models, what the 

computer models said should be happening with our temperature, 

that we should see warming spiking like crazy. Is that correct? 

Dr. CHRISTY. Yes, and that is the bulk atmosphere, where the 

biggest signal of greenhouse warming is supposed to be seen. So 

that is precisely where you want to measure it. 

Senator CRUZ. So we see the computer models, and if that were 

fact, we might have something to talk about. But the bottom line 

there, the blue and green, those are the actual measurements of 

what is, in fact, happening in the atmosphere. Is that correct, Dr. 

Christy? 

Dr. CHRISTY. Yes, and I think the nice thing about that chart is 

there are seven different datasets involved in that observations 

there, not just one. 

Senator CRUZ. So when you compare alarmist theories, the red 

line, to actual facts, the blue and green dots, you see that the facts 

don’t back up the theories. And we are being asked as a Congress 

to act and impose trillions of dollars of cost on humanity because 

of the red-line theory that is not backed up by the facts. Is that 

correct? 

Dr. CHRISTY. I think so. In fact, going along with your hearing, 

you might want to say dogma is the red line. Data is the blue and 

the green. 

Senator CRUZ. I think that is very well said. I would note this 

chart on the right, which shows for the last 18 years that there has 

91 

been no significant warming whatsoever. Now that is directly contrary to what the dataset showed. 

Now, Dr. Titley, I noticed in your written testimony that you 

took a moment to address what you described as the so-called 

‘‘pause’’ in global temperatures. By the pause, are you referring to 

the last 18 years of no significant recorded warming? 

Admiral TITLEY. Well, unlike your previous witness, I am not referring to the 1940s. It is—I thought you would like that. 

Senator CRUZ. Indeed. 

Admiral TITLEY. Yes. The pause is very interesting. As you know, 

sir, 1998, big El Nin ̃ o. So it is kind of interesting we start at 18 

years. We don’t look at a 15-year dataset or a 10-year dataset or 

a 20-year dataset. We look at an 18-year dataset. 

But even if you do that, that is fine. Let us look at that. We 

have—this is low budget here. I have got to do my own charts. 

[Laughter.] 

Admiral TITLEY. Thanks, Amanda. 

Senator CRUZ. Well, let me take a moment on—— 

Admiral TITLEY. So here, sir, just to answer your question, Senator. Here was 1998, and here is today. 

So, on me, I mean, I am just a simple sailor. But it is hard for 

me to see the pause on that chart. So I think the pause has kind 

of come and gone. 

Senator CRUZ. Do you dispute the satellite measurement? 

Admiral TITLEY. Let us not talk about the satellite. Here is—— 

Senator CRUZ. But, sir—sir, I am asking, do you—I understand 

that the global warming alarmists don’t want to talk about the satellite data, but I am asking—— 

Admiral TITLEY. OK, sure. I will talk about the satellite. Let us 

talk about the satellite measurements. Let us talk about orbital 

decay. Let us talk about overlapping satellite records. Let us talk 

about stratospheric temperature contamination. 

I think Dr. Christy and Dr. Spencer, when they put this out, they 

had been wrong I think at least four consecutive times. Each time 

the data record has had to be adjusted upwards. There have been 

several sine errors. 

So when—with all due respect, sir, I don’t know which data exactly your staff has, whether it is the first or second or third or 

fourth correction to Dr. Christy’s data. We used to have a negative 

trend, then we had no trend, and now we begrudgingly have an upward trend. 

So looking at those data, you know, it is OK. But here is where 

we live—— 

Senator CRUZ. Let me see if—let me see if I can understand. The 

first argument you gave in response to this, and it is an argument 

that a number of the global warming alarmists use is they say, 

well, 18 years ago was El Nin ̃ o, and it is arbitrary to begin there. 

And I will confess I don’t understand that argument because we 

have 18 years of no significant warming. So if you don’t like an 18- 

year window, we can start in 1999. There is no significant warming 

for 17 years. 

If you don’t like a 17-year window, we can start in 2000. Then 

we don’t have a significant warming. It is true for any date across 

those 18 years. So I fail to see the significance—— 

92 

Admiral TITLEY. Actually, Senator, it is not. If you take off that 

top really big spike and you take that out, you start getting the upward bias, and this is what people do when you start looking at 

these relatively arbitrary times is you start with a really high number at the left-hand side, and that kind of influences basically your 

linear trend. 

So when you start looking at things like every decade, you have 

an upward trend in the data, and that is from the World Meteorological Organization. 

Senator CRUZ. And I would note you asked about the source of 

the data on the right chart. It is actually not Dr. Christy’s data. 

It is the Remote Sensing Systems, the RSS data that is up there. 

At this point, my time has expired. But we are going to have another round. 

Admiral TITLEY. Thank you, sir. 

Senator CRUZ. And we will return to questions on these topics. 

Senator Peters? 

Senator PETERS. Thank you, and again, thank you to our panelists for your testimony here today. 

Now it was interesting as I heard the testimony from folks and 

some of the comments that were being made, that this is the socalled consensus of climate change and warming. I heard one of the 

panelists say the argument is so weak that it can’t stand up to any 

other scrutiny. 

As I look at the facts, I don’t understand where those—where 

those comments are coming from. My understanding is that—and 

this is in a number of peer-reviewed journals that have looked at 

where scientists are, particularly those who are climate scientists— 

roughly 97 percent of those folks in the profession believe that the 

climate is, indeed, changing and that humans had a significant aspect to it. 

But it is not just in the scientific community. We have got, in 

fact, just recently a letter of 150 of the leading companies in this 

country who are having to make business decisions and are concerned about changing climate. Companies important to me in 

Michigan like General Motors and Kellogg, but also Coca-Cola, 

Walmart, UPS. It is a list of the ‘‘who’s who’’ of companies in this 

country who believe this is a concern. 

We have some of my colleagues who are in Paris. Nearly 190 

countries have come together, realizing this is something that we 

have to deal with. So, and we hear those numbers, that seems like 

there is overwhelming amount of scientific support. 

That is not to discredit the folks who are testifying here. Certainly your view is important, and we need to hear that. And I 

think, as, Dr. Titley, you mentioned, nothing is ever 100 percent. 

And I want to pick up on that, and you mentioned it briefly in your 

comments as well, particularly as someone who is an admiral in 

the Navy and as a military person. 

We expect our Department of Defense to evaluate potential 

threats that we face to our national security, threats that we face 

as a country. If we are in—if we have to go to war, our commanders have to make constant assessments of threats, and they 

rely on the intelligence community to give them data before they 

93 

commit men and women into harm’s way. People’s lives could be 

at stake. 

These are huge decisions, serious decisions, ones that I know 

commanders agonize about. But they know if they make the wrong 

decision, the consequences could be even more significant. 

So, and I spent some time in the Navy as well, and I don’t know 

that an intelligence report will ever give you 100 percent certainty. 

In fact, they will give you all sorts of caveats in providing any kind 

of intelligence assessment. 

So speaking as a man from the military, if you are an operational 

commander and someone said we can give you 97 percent confidence, but not 100, is that going to be enough? And really, what 

is—speak to what sort of certainty you are going to need. 

Admiral TITLEY. Senator, thanks for the question, sir. 

If somebody could tell me with 97 percent certainty what is going 

to happen on the battle space or in the operating environment, I 

mean, you would take that in a heartbeat. Our intelligence community does wonders. They have been supported by the Congress, supported by the administration, tremendous hard-working men and 

women. 

But if the intelligence community could tell you as much as the 

climate community could about the state of the world 50 years from 

now, we would find General Clapper, whatever he is doing today, 

stop him. Fly him to the White House and give him the Presidential Medal of Freedom this afternoon because that would be just 

an outstanding feat. 

Now this is not a knock on the intelligence community. They are 

dealing with people. They are trying to deal with people who deceive us. We are just dealing with physics. The physics isn’t trying 

to deceive anyone, and we understand the basic theory. 

We certainly don’t understand everything, and we certainly do 

understand that there are short- and medium-term variations, ups 

and downs, some of which we do pretty well on, others not so 

much. That is why we need research. That is why we need better 

observations. 

But the degree of certainty that you ask for, sir, we—we would 

love to have that for operational commanders making military decisions. 

Senator PETERS. And certainly that is in weather decisions. You 

are a part of the meteorologic or for part of meteorology with the 

Navy. As a meteorologist, what level of certainty on weather forecasts is acceptable to mission commanders who make operational 

decisions? Obviously, they don’t go into battle without checking 

with you and other meteorologists. 

Admiral TITLEY. Yes, sir. Usually they would say, ‘‘Shut up, 

Titley. Don’t give me that weather stuff. Just tell me what is going 

to happen.’’ 

So what they are looking for—but they do understand risk. In all 

seriousness, people do understand risk. Sometimes weather forecasts are taken to the bank. It is going to start snowing at whatever time. 

Other times, like hit-and-miss showers, like the Ranking Member, you know, in Florida, trying to figure out where that thunderstorm is and is not is pretty tricky. But you can communicate that 

94 

in terms of risk, in terms of probabilities, and that is really when 

you extend into climate. This is all we are doing. 

I think anybody who says, you know, you have 100 percent of 

whatever, you probably don’t. But if you start having significant 

numbers and you look at the impacts, I mean, that is the other 

part of risk is what is the impact if you are wrong? You know, and 

then how do you buy that down? How do you manage that risk so 

that it becomes acceptable? And that is what we are trying to do. 

Senator PETERS. And that is the thing is the risk that could be 

potentially catastrophic or go anywhere from bad to catastrophic. 

But you mentioned and I mentioned the short-term weather effects. 

If you would just briefly—or my time is about up, but briefly, there 

is a difference between weather events and climate. And I think 

that is oftentimes confusing to folks. It is to me. 

Could you elaborate why short-term weather events, we 

shouldn’t spend too much time focusing on those and instead need 

to be looking at the long-term impact of climate change? 

Admiral TITLEY. Yes, sir. I mean, I often tell people you live in 

weather and you plan for climate. Climate is simply this amalgamation or it is put together in space and time, over decades over 

large regions. Those are the trends. That is climate, up, down, 

whatever it is. 

Weather is day-to-day, you know, and even out to a week, 2 

weeks, 3 weeks. And then in between is where it gets interesting, 

and you know, when we talk about 18 years, this is an interesting 

time. You have some ocean pieces, but also climate. And you get 

these—get these interactions here, and this is the interesting time. 

Long-term, though, we know where the climate is going. 

Senator PETERS. Thank you, sir. 

Admiral TITLEY. Thanks. 

Senator CRUZ. Senator Daines? 

STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE DAINES, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA 

Senator DAINES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding this hearing today. 

Ranking Members Peters, Nelson, thank you. 

I do not have a Nobel Prize, just for the record to be clear. I do 

have a degree in chemical engineering. I am the only chemical engineer on the Hill. So I very much appreciate and I like being on 

this science kind of debate and on this committee. 

My home state of Montana is well known for its beautiful landscapes, pristine environment, and clearly, we have a moral responsibility to be good stewards of that environment. But Montana families also rely on our natural resources. We are called the Treasure 

State for a reason. And it is not because of elk antler furniture and 

huckleberry jam, as much as we enjoy those things. We are called 

the Treasure State because of our natural resources, which includes coal. 

These are good-paying jobs, that coal creates. It is reliable, affordable energy. And I believe Montanans and most Americans believe we can achieve a balanced approach of protecting our environment, as well as ensuring we have affordable energy. 

95 

I can tell you there is a lot of concern about the regulations that 

are coming out of the debates like we are having here today and 

the magnitude of the devastating impacts on families. The University of Montana, which is not a conservative think tank—my dad 

is a proud graduate of the University of Montana. But I will tell 

you they just published a study on the Clean Power Plan, which 

probably should be called the unaffordable energy plan. 

And that study stated that the Clean Power Plan could potentially be the largest economic event to occur in Montana in more 

than 30 years. Here is what the study said, coming out of the 

EPA’s Clean Power Plan. 

It will cost us 7,000 jobs, $500 million a year in annual income, 

and the loss of $145 million in state tax revenues for our schools 

and for our teachers. Two weeks ago, I held a telephone town hall. 

We had thousands of Montanans participating with concerns about 

these regulations. 

What do we do? What do we tell the boilermaker union workers 

back in Montana who will lose their jobs? What do we tell senior 

citizens and the working poor who are on fixed incomes and looking 

at significant and huge increases in energy costs as a result of 

these regulations from Washington, D.C.? 

Let us remember the facts and the data. The United States consumes 10 percent of the coal in the world, 10 percent. Said another 

way, 90 percent is consumed outside of our country. In Montana, 

51 percent of our electricity comes from coal. 

I love Tesla automobiles. I have a friend who has a Tesla. It is 

great to see him plug that into the charging station there in Bozeman. But the reality is in the back of that Tesla, let us just say 

this Tesla is powered by coal. That is where the electricity is coming from to power that Tesla. 

But you think about the United States, about 40 percent of our 

electricity comes from coal. Look at the numbers—27 percent from 

natural gas, 19 percent nuclear, 6 percent hydro, 4 percent wind, 

and 0.4 percent solar. 

Now with that as background, as we think about the global challenges that we face as we look at carbon and so forth, with 10 percent coming from the United States and 90 percent outside, we 

ought to be making sure this is a global conversation and not unilaterally disarming our economy through these regulations coming 

out of Washington, D.C. 

China is building a new coal-fired plant every 10 days. Japan— 

I used to have an office in Tokyo. I had a private sector job for 28 

years before I came to Congress a few years ago. I had an office 

in Tokyo. Japan is building 43 coal-fired plants as we speak, looking to the future. 

And yet these regulations, coming out of the EPA, are going to 

absolutely kill our economy and kill our natural resources industry. 

Dr. Christy, in your testimony, you mentioned the importance of 

affordable and accessible energy and the importance to human 

health and welfare. I remind everybody in this room that over 1.3 

billion people in the world today do not have access to electricity. 

What impact will the Clean Power Plan have on greenhouse gases, 

and what impact will it have on the well-being of families? 

96 

Dr. CHRISTY. First of all, I lived in Africa, and I can assure you 

that without energy, life is brutal and short. The effect that these 

regulations will have will be negligible on both the carbon dioxide 

concentrations in the atmosphere and on whatever the climate 

might do as a result. And we calculated many scenarios in that regard. 

Senator DAINES. And so if it is negligible, negligible—now we can 

quantify the impact on tax revenues, on jobs, on energy prices and 

what that means for, as you said, a negligible impact, and we have 

heard similar kinds of conversations and comments actually from 

the EPA on that very point. Do you realize China—and the New 

York Times was reporting here just a month ago that China has 

been underreporting their emissions by a quantity equivalent to 70 

percent of the total U.S. emissions. That is what their underreporting has been. 

Should we consider such costly remedies as what is going on 

right now with this Clean Power Plan for merely symbolic changes? 

Dr. CHRISTY. Well, if you are asking a State climatologist who 

deals with economic development of poor State, basically, I would 

say no. There is no consequence that is positive that I see in regulating the energy in this way. 

Senator DAINES. Dr. Curry, in your testimony, you explain how 

funding motivates research. The Clean Power Plan not only harms 

workers, but it stifles investments that could lead to innovation 

and make coal cleaner. I would hope that the U.S. would be leaders 

in innovation. Because as we lead in innovation and cleaner technologies, we can not only lead our country, we can lead the world 

as we look at the environment here. 

What can be done, in your opinion, to incentivize objective research that can make affordable energy sustainable? 

Dr. CURRY. Well, that is a topic—I mean, I applaud the goal that 

you state. We need to—we need more research and development on 

advanced energy technologies. How to effect that, private sectorGovernment, you know, is a challenge for politicians. I don’t have 

any particular insight as a scientist as to how that might work. 

But in terms of having—you have to allow people to have opportunity to fail. And if you are going to look for blue sky technologies 

and something really innovative, you have to have a mechanism 

that allows people to fail. You need maybe three good ideas, and 

this may mean, you know, 50 or 100 of them have to be tried before 

you find a few good ones that are going to work. 

And so pretending that wind energy and at least the current 

solar technology are going to solve the problems is fairly ludicrous. 

Senator DAINES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am out of time. 

Senator CRUZ. Thank you, Senator Daines. 

Senator Nelson? 

Senator NELSON. Could you call on Senator Schatz? He has got 

a meeting to go to. 

Senator CRUZ. Sure. Senator Schatz? 

STATEMENT OF HON. BRIAN SCHATZ, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII 

Senator SCHATZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Ranking Members Nelson and Peters. 

97 

Thank you for having this hearing. It gives us an opportunity to 

clarify that climate change is real, it is caused by humans, and it 

is solvable. And only in the four corners of the United States Capitol is that still being debated. 

It is ironic that we are holding this hearing in the Committee 

with jurisdiction over science because this committee is turning its 

back on the real science. Now I suppose that it is possible that 

what the four people on the left-hand side of this dais are saying 

is true, which is that basically everybody else is wrong, that everybody else is wrong. 

But I think it is more likely that 97 percent of the scientists have 

come independently to the same conclusion. Scientists should and 

do receive Federal research dollars based on the merit of their 

work, not on their conclusions. The only reason that so few climate 

deniers or skeptics, whichever you prefer, as a percentage of the 

whole receive Federal support for their research is because the vast 

majority of scientists independently come to the same conclusions 

that the climate is changing due to human activity. 

A review of nearly 12,000 peer-reviewed journal articles over 20 

years found that 97 percent of those articles and 98 percent of scientists agree that humans are influencing the climate. The vast 

majority of climate scientists around the world will tell you that 

greenhouse gas emissions, primarily from the burning of fossil 

fuels, have increased the concentration of carbon in the atmosphere, which, in turn, has raised average global temperatures. 

Now I suppose everybody could be wrong. In fact, the American 

Academy for the Advancement of Science has said the science linking human activities to climate change is analogous to the science 

linking smoking to lung and cardiovascular diseases. There may be 

a doctor out there who doesn’t believe there is a connection between smoking and lung cancer, but I would keep that doctor away 

from me and my family. 

Just as there is no genuine scientific debate over whether we are 

responsible for changing the climate, there is also no global conspiracy to manufacture data. The skeptics do not know more than 

the National Academies of Science, NASA, the DOD, the CIA, the 

American Chemical Society, the American Physical Society, the 

American Medical Association, the American Geophysical Union, 

the American Meteorological Society, the American Society of Plant 

Biologists, and the National Academies of Science from 80 countries, the World Health Organization, NATO, and a litany of other 

organizations. 

I, for one, believe that the Department of Defense has to contend 

with what is, not with how we view—how we wish things would 

be. And my question is for Admiral Titley. 

Could you please describe the relationship between CO2 and the 

atmosphere and global temperature? 

Admiral TITLEY. Senator, thank you for the question, sir. 

I give some talks to the public on this, and basically, what I tell 

people is what you have asked me is cutting-edge 19th century 

science here. A bunch of old dead white guys figured this stuff out, 

starting with Fourier, Arrhenius, Tyndall. By the time you get to 

1896, we were actually doing calculations of global warming. Now 

98 

it was with stubby pencil and paper, but we actually kind of figured it out. 

So in, you know, basic terms, energy comes in at one wavelength. 

Energy comes back out through the atmosphere at a different 

wavelength. The carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases actually re-radiate that longer wavelength. The short stuff comes in 

from the Sun. The long stuff gets basically bounced around, reabsorbed, readmitted, and that is really good for us. 

If we did not have greenhouse gases, we wouldn’t all be here because we would be living on an ice cube. It would be about 59 degrees Fahrenheit colder than it is right now. So greenhouse gases 

provide life on Earth. 

But there can be too much of a good thing, and we have literally 

formed human civilization in a period of wonderful climate stability, where we have not been varying either the greenhouse gases 

or much of the other part of the atmosphere. So we have had this 

stability. 

Now as we inject a whole lot of extra greenhouse gases, they are 

just doing what physics does. So they are re-radiating, warming the 

atmosphere, as you talked about, sir. 

Senator SCHATZ. And tell me about the observations on page 3 

of your testimony. It seems to me that there is a nearly one-to-one 

relationship between global temperatures, CO2, fossil fuel consumption, and sea level and ocean temperature. Is that about right? 

Admiral TITLEY. Yes, sir. Everybody here at this table knows 

that correlation doesn’t necessarily mean causality, but there has 

been a lot of work shown—— 

Senator SCHATZ. How would you establish causality in an experiment involving our planet? 

Admiral TITLEY. We only have one planet. That makes it kind of 

tough to run the control case, if you will. So this is what the computer models help you with. 

Senator SCHATZ. Thank you. 

Admiral TITLEY. But we only have one planet. Thank you, sir. 

Senator SCHATZ. Thank you very much. 

Mr. STEYN. Senator Schatz, could I comment on that? You said 

that the four people—— 

Senator SCHATZ. Mr. Chairman, I do have a meeting at 4:30 

p.m., and I did not ask a question of Mr. Steyn. I apologize. I do 

have to go. 

Thank you. 

Mr. STEYN. Well, I would like to make a comment on what 

he—— 

Senator CRUZ. You are welcome to give a response, sure. 

Mr. STEYN. I would like to make a comment on what he said because he said these people represent a tiny minority point of view. 

The 97 percent consensus from these papers does not argue for the 

kind of measures that are being discussed here today. 

We are talking about the greatest—just to take the pro-climate 

people at their word, we are talking about the greatest shift in the 

global economy that has ever been contemplated. We hear a lot of 

talk about risk management. This is a hell of a risk. And it requires—if we are to take these pro-climate people at their word, it 

99 

would require the greatest societal consensus—left, right, and center—across North America, Europe, and the developing world. 

So to exclude, if you exclude Professor Christy, if you exclude 

Professor Curry, if you exclude Professor Happer, if you exclude the 

French weatherman who basically just lost his job for writing a 

book countering climate change, if you refuse Professor Lennart 

Bengtsson, whose career was destroyed because he wanted to meet 

with a skeptic think tank—the great Swedish climatologist—if you 

exclude the Nobel Prize winner in physics from 1973 and the Nobel 

Prize winner in physics from 1988, you wind up with what has 

happened to climate alarmism, where the polls show the real 97 

percent consensus that only 3 percent of Americans view this as 

their overriding priority. 

The point that Admiral Titley made about things we could do, he 

brought up—he brought up Superstorm Sandy as an example of climate change. You know what would have stopped Sandy? If they 

would have built the same storm barrier that the Dutch coast has, 

that the Russians have in St. Petersburg, and that London has 

with the Thames barrier. 

For a couple of billion dollars, you wouldn’t have had water in 

the New York subway. But instead, when we talk about all the saving the planet stuff, the flood barrier never gets built. And that is 

what elected legislators should focus on, the real issues involving 

them now, not the pie in the sky stuff. 

Senator CRUZ. Thank you, Mr. Steyn. And I would note Dr. 

Titley made reference to dead white guys, and in response to Senator Schatz’s question about 97 percent of scientists and this one 

bogus and discredited study, in the year 1615, I suspect if you 

asked, 97 percent of scientists at the time would have said categorically that the Sun rotates around the Earth. 

And yet an individual named Galileo dared to actually be a scientist and take measurements and stand up to that enforced consensus. And I would note it was the Roman Inquisition that 

brought heretics before it who dared to say that the Earth rotates 

around the Sun, and today the global warming alarmists have 

taken the language of the Roman Inquisition, going so far as labeling anyone who dares point to the actual science as a denier, which 

is, of course, the language of religion. It is calling someone a heretic. 

And anytime you hear people saying scientists should not question the conventional wisdom, you are hearing someone advocating 

essentially for the abolition of science. 

Senator Udall? 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO 

Senator UDALL. Chairman Cruz, thank you very much. 

And you know, today we are having a hearing on climate change 

science. And while this is an extremely important topic and great 

for Senators to engage on, I am disheartened by the frame here. 

It is called ‘‘data or dogma’’ is part of this title of this hearing. 

And quite clearly, this hearing was called to inject controversy 

and skepticism into the issue of climate science and research, to 

cast doubt on the work of many scientists, including those at AmerVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:09 Oct 04, 2016 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\21644.TXT JACKIE
100 

ican universities in all of our States, the National Laboratories— 

New Mexico has two of those National Laboratories—and the National Academy of Sciences, who have been researching the effects 

of climate change and the impacts that humans are having on the 

climate. 

This year is almost over. It will likely be the warmest year on 

record, and the current record holder, last year, 2014. The impact 

is clear, and people are seeing it all over the world with rising sea 

levels that increase drought. 

The Southwest is in the eye of the storm. In New Mexico, temperatures are rising 50 percent faster than the global average not 

just this year or last year, but for decades. Through all of this, Congress has been slow to act. We could be using this time right now 

to push forward on strong, comprehensive energy policies that curb 

greenhouse gas emissions. 

So I want to turn to you, Dr. Titley. I was really interested in 

your role as the lead oceanographer for the U.S. Navy and your 

history of 32 years of service in the Navy. And I have a simple 

question for you. 

Do we have time to waste, in your opinion? 

Admiral TITLEY. Senator, thanks, sir. 

There is a saying in the Navy, in naval aviation that the two 

things that are of no use to you is altitude above you or runway 

behind you. Right now, we are putting runway behind us. 

Now how much more there is, that is hard to say. But we are 

certainly taking time that we should be using to start mitigating 

this, and actually, some of the other witnesses have brought up 

some things. I think Dr. Curry talked about more research and development for energy. 

We need to transform our energy system. The Federal Government, the Congress can be very, very helpful on that. So, but we 

are not doing that right now, sir, because we have these debates 

that—which is fine. But at some point, we need to do something. 

Senator UDALL. And you believe, I think, that it would be very 

prudent to look at the science, which is overwhelming, and we have 

heard the 97, 98 percent and proceed to do something in a bipartisan way that is constructive and find solutions. 

Were you always convinced that climate change is occurring? 

Admiral TITLEY. I was—I think there is a YouTube video out 

there or a TEDx talk I did. I talked about I was kind of a skeptic, 

as I think—as the chair introduced me, I have—my degrees were 

in meteorology. You see a lot of day-to-day variation in weather, 

and you also see, when you take a look at weather models, back 

when I started back in the dark ages of the 1970s, after about 3 

days they weren’t really worth very much. 

So it took me, honestly, a while to realize that in weather, it 

really matters about how do you start those models. It is called initial conditions, for the science folks. Whereas the climate models 

really work on boundary conditions. It is like how much energy is 

coming in? How many greenhouse gases do we have? Where are 

the continents? Where are the oceans? 

And you realize that, and this is why the climate models are useless at telling you what it is going to be like today or tomorrow, 

things like that. But they are pretty good at the overall trend. 

101 

So when I looked at that and when, frankly, I was asked by the 

Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Gary Roughead, to look at this 

for the Navy, I just said, well, what does the evidence show? And 

that is where it really—I came to it. 

So, you know, I am probably like the reformed smoker. But it 

was really just simply looking at all these independent lines of evidence. That, to me, said we have got an issue here, and we are 

going to have to do something. 

Senator UDALL. And Doctor, the evidence is right behind you on 

that chart. That is the evidence you are talking about. 

Admiral TITLEY. Just one—— 

Senator UDALL. Yes, one data point, but—— 

Admiral TITLEY—to have a chart like that for the rising seas and 

for many, many other lines. Yes, sir. 

Senator UDALL. And do you believe science has progressed on climate, on climate change? 

Admiral TITLEY. I think the evidence has shown that science in 

many fields and including climate, it is not a nice linear process, 

but fits and starts. So when you take things like, you know, whether it is different observation techniques, I mean, there is a paper 

that just came out—I think I saw a day or two ago—from NASA 

measurements, talking about maybe more snow in Antarctica. We 

are going to have look at that, but that is interesting. 

So we get these ups and downs. But overall, and we have seen 

this in the IPCC and many other conclusions that the level of confidence that the basic theory of greenhouse gases from the 19th 

century is, in fact, correct. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CRUZ. Thank you, Senator Udall. 

Senator Markey? 

STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD MARKEY, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much for having this hearing. 

And hopefully, this will go better than Galileo because Galileo 

was put under house arrest, Dr. Titley, in 1633. And the Catholic 

Church did not issue an apology to Galileo until 1992. So we wish 

you a long life so that 359 years from now, you can get the apology 

you deserve for actually using scientific data to back up your arguments here today. 

2014 is the warmest year ever recorded. Is that correct, Dr. 

Titley? 

Admiral TITLEY. Yes, Senator. That is what I understand. 

Senator MARKEY. That is what you understand. Now what would 

that be based on? Science? 

Admiral TITLEY. A whole lot of thermometers, yes, sir. 

Senator MARKEY. Whole bunch of thermometers. A very, very sophisticated technology. So this is going back to the beginning of the 

measurement of the temperature of the planet using thermometers. 

So that goes back to 1880, 1870. 

102 

Now I am told that the first 6 months of this year are the warmest 6 months ever recorded on the history of the planet. Is that correct? 

Admiral TITLEY. Yes, sir. And I think that now extends to the 

warmest November as well. So we are up to 11 months and counting. 

Senator MARKEY. The warmest October and the warmest November now ever recorded using thermometers, the same measurement 

for about 150 years right now. Very clear calculations that have 

been made. And so, so I guess we are pretty much 150 years into 

the 359 years to getting kind of the apology from those who are the 

deniers. 

Now, you know, in Paris right now we have got just about every 

single scientist in the world, every country in the world is there, 

all saying the planet is dangerously warming and that the cause 

of it is human activity. Even the Pope said that it is dangerous, to 

name a Jesuit who taught high school chemistry. You actually get 

somebody who says that, you know, it is happening, and it is 

caused by human beings and that there is a moral responsibility 

to do something about it. 

So this panel that we have in this committee, this last redoubt 

of denial on the planet, of all the countries on the planet, this last 

place, you know, has the flip of witnesses that have every other 

place. We have four here who deny it and one who believes in the 

science. 

And so we clearly here are at a historic moment, and there will 

be a day when you get your apology, Dr. Titley, for being kind of 

the sacrificial lamb here, like Galileo, standing up for actual 

science. And so what we have here is just one of the clear national 

security challenges of our time. Just as we were focused on protecting the planet from the threat of Communism in the 1950s, we 

need to be focused on protecting the planet from the threat of climate change now. 

We sit here in the Space, the Science, and the Competitiveness 

Subcommittee, which has oversight over NASA. We should all be 

cognizant of the fact that NASA was established in 1958 when this 

country felt the very real threat of Communism. If we had ignored 

that threat in the 1950s, America wouldn’t be the leader it is today. 

And it was in response to the threat of Communist domination 

in space when 53 years ago President Kennedy announced the ambitious goal of sending an American safely to the Moon. He told us 

that we would need a giant rocket made of new metal alloys, some 

of which had not yet been invented. It would have to be fitted together with a precision better than the finest watch, and it would 

have to be returned to Earth safely at speeds never before reached 

by humans. And it would all have to be done in less than 8 years. 

President Kennedy urged us to be bold, and America responded 

to his call not by saying it couldn’t be done, not by denying the 

threat, but by boldly putting our scientists and our engineers to 

work protecting our Nation and the world. 

Today, a growing global danger lies in the cascading impacts of 

climate change. Temperatures are increasing. Sea levels are rising. 

More extreme rains are falling. The ocean is becoming more acidic. 

103 

And all of this has consequences for people, public health, and for 

prosperity. 

That is why our national security, military, and intelligence leaders have warned that a changing climate can worsen the tensions 

that are fueling terrorism and conflicts around the world. More 

than 50 years ago, we looked to the scientific community to help 

protect our Nation from Communism. Today, the same scientific 

rigor we used to send astronauts to space is used to evaluate our 

changing climate. 

And just as President Kennedy urged our Nation to be bold in 

the space race, the global community is meeting in Paris right now 

to hold bold action to protect our climate. But the Republicans’ 

message to the world is, Houston, we do not have a problem. And 

that is the wrong scientific message. 

They are once again questioning the integrity of the scientific 

community and the basic scientific principles behind climate 

change. The truth is the only thing that requires a serious scientific investigation is why we are holding today’s hearing in the 

first place. 

Climate science stands on a foundation of more than 150 years 

of research, laboratory experiments, demonstrated carbon dioxide 

traps heat in the same year that Charles Darwin published on the 

Origin of the Species. So we should listen to the planet’s doctors. 

The more fossil fuels we burn, the more carbon pollution we put 

in the air, the higher the risk for catastrophic climate consequences. 

But the Republicans’ response to this existential challenge is to 

insist that the brightest minds of the United States of America who 

once figured out how to send a man to the Moon and bring him 

back safely can’t possibly figure out how to generate energy from 

anything other than burning the cane plants that have been sitting 

underground since the time of the dinosaurs. 

But we all know that failure is not an option. There is no planet 

B. We must solve this problem. The science dictates that we solve 

this problem. It is time to stop denying the science and start deploying the climate solutions. 

Admiral Titley, we have heard a lot about temperature measurements today. When I am feeling sick and I go to the doctor, she 

takes my temperature. But the doctor always checks my blood 

pressure, listens to my heart and lungs, and looks at my ears, eyes, 

and throat to get a broader assessment of my health. 

This chart behind me is NOAA’s assessment of the Earth’s climatic vital signs. Yes, temperatures are going up, but so is the 

heat in the ocean, the sea level, and the humidity. And snow and 

glaciers and Arctic Sea ice are going down. 

Do you agree, Dr. Titley, that a wide range of independent observations indicate that the planet is warming and the climate is 

changing and that there are no emergency rooms for planets, and 

we have to engage in preventive care? 

Admiral TITLEY. Yes, sir. 

Senator MARKEY. What would you say is the basis for your decision? Is it based on data, or is your answer based on dogma? 

Admiral TITLEY. It is based on the evidence, sir. 

104 

Senator MARKEY. It is based on the evidence. And I agree with 

you, Admiral, and I thank you so much for your service to our 

country, both in the active Navy and here today before this committee. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Senator CRUZ. Thank you, Senator Markey. 

Senator Nelson? 

Mr. STEYN. Dr. Curry wanted to respond to the Senator—— 

Dr. CURRY. Is it possible for me to respond? You basically—— 

Senator MARKEY. I did not ask for—ask you a question. 

Mr. STEYN. Really? Why can’t she respond, Senator? 

Dr. CURRY. Yes, I was—— 

Senator CRUZ. Dr. Curry, you are welcome to—— 

Mr. STEYN. You impugned her integrity. I think she is entitled 

to—— 

Senator CRUZ. You are welcome to respond, Dr. Curry. 

Dr. CURRY. I was basically called a denier, that I am denying 

science. Did you read my written testimony? Are you aware that 

the IPCC and the consensus has no explanation for the increase of 

ice in the Antarctic? Are you aware that they have no explanation 

for the fact that the rate of sea level rise from 1920 to 1950 was 

as large, if not larger, as it currently is? 

Are you aware that temperatures have been warming for more 

than 200 years and that in the 20th century, 40 percent of the 

warming occurred before 1950, when carbon dioxide was not a factor in the warming. OK. And I could go on and on. Many of these 

issues are raised in my written testimony. 

And most of it is pulled from the IPCC itself. The IPCC has an 

explanation for—so it says, for warming during the period 1975 to 

2000. It doesn’t have an explanation for the flat period since 2000. 

It doesn’t have an explanation for the early century—— 

Senator MARKEY. Dr. Mair, as I just said in my—Doctor, as I just 

said in my testimony, corroborated by Dr. Titley, this is the warmest year ever recorded. Last year is the warmest year ever recorded 

until this year. This is the warmest November ever recorded. October is the warmest October ever recorded. 

You do not have an answer for that, Dr. Mair. You continue to 

ignore the chart, which Dr. Titley has over his left shoulder. He 

has documented for this committee the warming trend, which is inexorable, inevitable in terms of its consequences unless we take action here. 

That is the science you are having a hard time in responding 

to—— 

Dr. CURRY. No, the issue—— 

Senator MARKEY.—here, Dr. Mair—— 

Dr. CURRY. The issue is what is causing the warming? Is it natural variability, or is it humans? 

Senator MARKEY. Like Galileo, he said, no, the science—— 

Dr. CURRY. Are you aware—— 

Senator MARKEY. The science—the science is clear. You are depending upon something that perhaps is God made rather than dependent upon something that is manmade, which is anthropogenic 

and documented by 97 percent of all of the scientists—— 

105 

Mr. STEYN. Are you saying there is no natural variability, Senator? 

Senator MARKEY. What I am—— 

Mr. STEYN. There were alligators at the North Pole. What was 

that? Was that you in your SUV? 

Senator MARKEY. What I am saying is that this warming is 

something that while it may have a variability year to year in specific parts of the planet, that the trend is straight up. 

Mr. STEYN. Yes, do you know what—do you know what the Little 

Ice Age was, Senator? 

Senator MARKEY. And again, it is climate change. We had 110 

inches of snow in Boston last year, with measurements of water 21 

degrees warmer than normal off of the coast of Massachusetts, OK? 

This was an unusual event for us. 

The warming of the ocean intensifies the amount of precipitation 

when Arctic air hits that water. Now if you want to deny that, if 

you want to ignore that these changes are taking place and that 

they are having a dramatic impact, then you are in the right place. 

You are in the right—— 

Mr. STEYN. Do you know what the winters were like at Plymouth 

Rock? Do you know what the winters were like at Plymouth Rock, 

Senator? 

Senator MARKEY. Well, here is the thing. We—— 

Mr. STEYN. You don’t. How long has your family been in Massachusetts? 

Senator MARKEY. We are new arrivals, and I have to admit—— 

Mr. STEYN. You should have been there in 1750. 

Senator MARKEY. The Irish weren’t arriving in 1750. So I apologize for being late to the country, and I will have to chastise my 

grandparents for not leaving until the economic conditions in 1902 

forced them here. 

But that notwithstanding, there is as much consensus that man 

is causing climate change as there is in Galileo’s original theory, 

and all which—— 

Mr. STEYN. What percentage of climate change is man causing, 

Senator? 

Senator MARKEY. Excuse me, sir? 

Mr. STEYN. What percentage of climate change is anthropogenic? 

Senator MARKEY. Well, according to the scientists who are in 

Paris right now, which would fill pretty much the entire space of 

the building in which we are in right now, and the number of 

deniers would still be the ones who are—— 

Dr. CURRY. Are you aware—— 

Mr. STEYN. What percentage, Senator? 

Dr. CURRY. Are you aware of a recent survey of the professional 

members of the American Meteorological Society? When asked the 

question how much is the recent changes natural versus human 

caused, 52 percent of the membership said it was majority human 

caused. 

Senator MARKEY. Dr. Titley? Dr. Titley, could you respond to 

that question in terms of what you believe is the amount of warming that is relatable to human activity? 

Admiral TITLEY. Thanks, Senator. 

106 

Right now, there is—as has been pointed out, there are natural 

variations, things like volcanoes, things like changes in sunlight. 

And then there is something called internal variations, and these 

are the oscillations or basically the back-and-forths of the ocean 

currents. So even if you had no change and forcing. 

But what we are doing is we are changing and forcing, and I 

think the IPCC has come down pretty strong, along with multiple, 

multiple National Academy panels, saying that the human-caused 

forcing is very, very significant. That doesn’t mean there isn’t natural variability. It doesn’t mean there is not internal variability. 

But the human-caused forcing is very significant, and that is, I 

think, what we need to deal with. 

Senator CRUZ. Thank you, Dr. Titley. 

Senator Nelson? 

Senator MARKEY. And could I just make—I agree with you, and 

I agree with this Pope. I disagree with the Pope in 1632. This Pope 

is correct, and we have a moral responsibility to act. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CRUZ. Senator Nelson? 

Senator NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My approach to this is a little more ‘‘coolly aloof’’ and look at 

facts. Admiral, the chart behind you, is that a measurement of surface temperature? 

Admiral TITLEY. Senator, thank you, sir. 

It is near surface temperatures. Basically, it is about 10 feet 

above the—you know, 6 to 10 feet above the surface. So for all intents and purposes, it is surface temperatures. 

Senator NELSON. That surface temperature would reflect that 

heat, most of which is absorbed by the oceans. Why don’t you give 

us your perspective on that as an admiral? 

Admiral TITLEY. Thanks, sir. 

The oceans are absorbing roughly 90 percent, nine zero percent 

of the excess heat. What I have told people is that if you think of 

the—you know, when you study climate, try to get more and more 

oceanographers involved, and the oceanographers are certainly involved because that is where the action is, that is where the heat 

is. It is sort of like why did Willie Sutton rob banks? It is where 

the money was. 

So the heat is in the oceans, and then the atmosphere is sort of 

the tail on the dog. The atmosphere gets sort of driven, ups and 

downs, depending on what the ocean is doing. So the heat is in the 

ocean, sir. 

Senator NELSON. And when water is heated, what happens to it? 

Admiral TITLEY. It expands. 

Senator NELSON. Right. And therefore, that would indicate a reason why we are seeing sea level rise? 

Admiral TITLEY. Yes, sir. 

Senator NELSON. Not just the melting of glaciers and that additional displacement of water, but mainly from the absorption of the 

oceans, which cover two-thirds of the Earth, of the heat—the absorption of the heat. Is that right? 

Admiral TITLEY. Yes, sir. The scientists would call it thermal expansion. It is the expanding of the water. 

107 

Senator NELSON. Are you familiar with the satellite, it is really 

not a satellite, it is a spacecraft named Discover that was put up 

earlier this year at a Lagrange point a million miles from Earth 

between the Earth and the Sun? 

Admiral TITLEY. Yes, sir. I think it is at what the scientists 

would call L1. 

Senator NELSON. That is correct. There is an instrument—there 

are four main instruments on that spacecraft, but there is an instrument that looks back continuously at Earth to measure the 

heat in and heat out. 

If in addition to our surface temperatures and other instruments 

that measure, if we get the total amount of heat being radiated 

into the Earth’s atmosphere and we measure the total amount of 

heat coming out and subtract one from the other, we should be able 

to have a very precise measurement of the amount of heat that is 

trapped in the Earth’s atmosphere? 

Admiral TITLEY. Yes, sir. 

Senator NELSON. OK. Now this heat that is trapped in the atmosphere, the Sun’s rays come in, and normally, when they hit the 

Earth’s surface, some are absorbed, but some radiate back out into 

space. Is that correct? 

Admiral TITLEY. Yes, sir. 

Senator NELSON. If there is something trapping that heat from 

being radiated back out into space, you naturally would start to 

have the heating up of the Earth’s atmosphere, and you, as a climatologist, would you speculate that that would be gases such as 

CO2 and SO2? 

Admiral TITLEY. Senator, yes. I mean not as a climatologist, but 

just basic—basic physics. There are greenhouse gases that re-radiate or trap, as you said, the heat, and that actually allows us to 

have life on Earth. Yes, sir. 

Senator NELSON. So that could be another reason that reflects 

why the surface measurements are showing the chart that you 

have? 

Admiral TITLEY. As we increase the greenhouse gases, the temperature should come up. And that is what we are seeing. Yes, sir. 

Senator NELSON. Would you answer one more question, and we 

have not covered this today. The Department of Defense is quite 

concerned about the heating up of the Earth because of the implications for our national security. Would you trace a few of those for 

us? 

Admiral TITLEY. Yes, sir. So the Department of Defense, in their 

2014 Quadrennial Defense Review, they talk about climate change 

really in three ways. They talk about increasing risk of conflict and 

instability overseas, the impacts of Department of Defense operations on operations people in installations, and also the impact of 

stability, development, human security, and other nations. So that 

was in 2014. 

Later on in 2014, the Department of Defense, they released their 

Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap. Really, that assessed climate change. It directed the department to assess climate change 

impacts on infrastructure, commissions, and activities; fully integrate climate considerations across a full range of department missions and activities; collaborate with partners internal and external 

108 

to better understand what is going on; and also a bureaucratic 

part, they designate a climate change officer. 

If I may, sir, just one more thing. Just a few months ago, the geographic combatant commanders released an assessment, a report 

to the Congress. So these are the four-star admirals and generals 

who have direct control over the operating forces. They report to 

the Secretary of Defense and President. 

They had four issues, primarily issues. Persistently recurring 

conditions, such as flooding, drought, higher temperatures. More 

frequent and more severe extreme weather events that may require 

more humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, or support—defense support of civil authorities here in the United States. 

The sea level rise and the temperature change, greater chance of 

flooding in coastal communities, adverse effects impacting navigation safety, damages to infrastructure, displaced populations. And 

then, finally, the Arctic. As the Arctic changes, that is a whole category to itself. 

I will stop there, sir. But those are just some of the more recent 

documents that the Department of Defense has released concerning 

climate change. 

Senator CRUZ. Thank you, Senator Nelson. 

All right. We are going to have a second round, and then the 

hearing will conclude. 

I want to start with Dr. Curry. When Senator Markey was haranguing you, he said that you had no response to his assertion 

that 2014 was the hottest year on record. Am I correct that NASA 

stated that that assertion, that 2014 was the hottest year on 

record, that they had a 38 percent level of confidence in that, which 

means that 62 percent or substantially more likely than not 2014 

was not the hottest year on record? Is that an accurate statement? 

Dr. CURRY. Yes, basically, 2014 was, according to the NASA/ 

NOAA datasets, in a statistical tie with 2010 and 2005. The U.K. 

dataset, which has, I think, more credible error bars on their 

dataset, found that it was in the top 10 warmest years. They 

couldn’t fine-tune it anymore than that, given the great uncertainties in the reconstruction of global surface temperature data. 

And I think the uncertainty levels are really too low on all of 

those estimates, in my opinion. 

Senator CRUZ. And indeed, NOAA included 2014, 2010, 2005, 

2013, and 1998, five different years as potentially being tied for 

being the warmest? 

Dr. CURRY. Correct. 

Senator CRUZ. The last hearing I chaired when Mr. Mair, who 

should have been sitting next to you, testified, he told the Subcommittee, ‘‘Our planet is cooking and heating up and warming.’’ 

Does the evidence and data we have been discussing support the 

assertion that the planet is cooking? 

Dr. CURRY. Not cooking, no. 

Senator CRUZ. And indeed, another reference was made by Senator Markey to the measurements. Now I would note none of the 

Democratic Senators who participated in a press conference earlier 

today saying how dare you ask the data, not a single Democratic 

Senator addressed the satellite data. Not a single Democratic SenVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:09 Oct 04, 2016 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\21644.TXT JACKIE
109 

ator addressed the fact that for 18 years there has been no significant warming recorded. 

Because, I suppose, it is contrary to their computer model and 

to their political desire to massively increase Government control 

of the economy and impose trillions of dollars of cost on people who 

can’t afford it. But let us turn to the different measurements, not 

the satellite data, and if we can put up the next two charts? 

These next two charts are from the United States Historical Climate Network. These are the measurements of the thermometers 

that are measuring climate change. And these in particular record 

the adjustments that NOAA has done to the climate data. 

Chart on the left you can see that between 1900 and 1960, 

NOAA made relatively few adjustments, and they were relatively 

minor. And then we see that for the more recent years, they have 

been adjusting them upwards. And the adjustments consistently 

are upwards. They are never adjusting downward. 

Now the chart on the right likewise looks at the raw numbers 

are on the top. The raw numbers demonstrate a fair degree of uniformity. But the adjusted numbers, the old temperatures are cooler, and the new temperatures are warmer. 

Dr. CURRY. Well, the different—there is a number of different 

groups who do global temperature datasets, and they have different 

methods for dealing with spatial representativeness, missing data, 

changes in temperature, measuring instrumentation, adjusting for 

the time of day, all sorts of different adjustments that they make. 

And the adjustments, as you can see, are rather huge, OK? 

So should we—so, to me, the error bars should really be much 

bigger if they are making such a large adjustment. So we really 

don’t know too much about what is going on in terms of, you know, 

it is a great deal of uncertainty. Yes, I do believe that we have 

overall been warming, but we have been warming for 200, maybe 

even 400 years, OK? And that is not caused by humans. 

OK. There is natural variability involved. And this is exactly 

what has not been sorted out. 

Now the ocean—the ocean temperature is the current focus of 

controversy. I mean, the land datasets are sort of starting to agree, 

but there is a great deal of controversy and uncertainty right now 

in the treatment of the ocean temperatures. And that has not been 

sorted out. 

And so especially looking in the recent period, if we are trying 

to sort out what is going on with the hiatus or the pause, we need 

to look at the satellite data. I mean, this is the best data that we 

have and is global, and we need to sort out the differences between 

the satellite and the surface observations. And then there is the 

numerical weather prediction reanalysis data simulation systems 

that give us a global view, and we haven’t been really using that 

for climate purposes, and I think we need to. 

So the work is just starting in terms of trying to sort this out. 

And we don’t have—— 

Senator CRUZ. Now, Dr. Curry, you said something very important there in that you said the satellite data are the best data we 

have. Can you explain, as a scientist, why that is the case? 

Dr. CURRY. Well, it is global coverage. It is not a simple measurement. You have to do, you know, a retrieval and weighting funcVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:09 Oct 04, 2016 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00113 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\21644.TXT JACKIE
110 

tions, and it is a complex problem. But it is reasonably well calibrated and consistent over the last 30-ish years. 

Senator CRUZ. And not a single Democratic Senator had any response to the satellite data that demonstrates their entire theory 

of global warming for 18 years hasn’t been happening? 

Dr. CURRY. Yes. I mean, we need to sort this out rather than ignore it. I mean, this is what I am concerned about. 

Senator CRUZ. And Mr. Steyn, you look like you want to make 

a comment. 

Mr. STEYN. Yes, I—— 

Senator CRUZ. I want to ask a question on this because you also 

are quite familiar with the cooking of the books—— 

Mr. STEYN. Right. 

Senator CRUZ.—of the hockey stick, and indeed, Dr. Curry, you 

mentioned Climategate and the scientists receiving a whole lot of 

funding to conclude global warming was occurring and then adjusting their results to reflect that. I would note if you systematically 

add, adjust the numbers upwards for more recent temperatures, 

wouldn’t that, by definition, produce a dataset that proves your 

global warming theory is correct? 

And the more you add, the more warming you can find, and it 

just—you don’t have to actually bother looking at what the thermometer says. You just add whatever number you want? 

Mr. STEYN. No. That is what is fascinating about this. Could you 

just tell me the left-hand data on your chart, Senator? What is it? 

I can’t quite see it from here. 

Senator CRUZ. On the left—— 

Mr. STEYN. On the right-hand chart, the blue and red line, what 

is the—— 

Senator CRUZ. In both of them, it is 1900. 

Mr. STEYN. 1900. So you look at the blue line, you look at the 

red line, this is the adjustment of figures that is going on. 

Senator CRUZ. Yes. 

Mr. STEYN. What has happened since the global warming pause 

is that the public does not trust the alarmist establishment to tell 

them what the climate will be like in the year 2050. What that 

chart shows is why the public is moving to a new position now 

where it doesn’t even trust these Federal agencies to tell them 

what the climate was like in 1950 or 1920 or 1900. 

And that is interesting. If these adjustments are merited, if an 

adjustment in the official recorded observed temperature because 

Gavin Schmidt at NASA wasn’t standing out by the thermometer 

in the year 1920, but he suddenly decides a century on—what are 

we now, 95 years on—the 1920s temperature needs adjusting, that 

tells you how uncertain the science is. 

I would also like, Senator, just to say a word about this whole 

national security thing because I have never heard anything quite 

so ridiculous. We are a country in which we have an enemy overseas who so-called radicalizes suburban couples in California who 

go out and kill people. But we are planning now for global security 

threats a century hence because the Maldives might have been 

swept away by water by then. 

111 

The entire population of the Maldives are all Sunni Muslim. So 

they will fit in perfectly fine if they all move to this Brussels suburb that produced the shooters in Paris. 

But the biggest—climate change is irrelevant to the long-term 

patterns. And I cannot tell you how absurd it is to be talking about 

climate change as a security threat compared to, say—just to pluck 

at random—population. In 1920, the British Isles and British West 

Africa had the same population, about 45 million people for England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales on the one hand and what are now 

Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Ghana, the Gambia on the other hand. 

Now the British Isles has a combined population—England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales—about 69 million, and British West Africa 

has a population of 250 million. So the security threat is exactly 

what we see in Europe at the moment that Niger, a country that 

can’t—that has increased its population by 50 percent in this century, since the year 2000, and had millions of starving people already that it couldn’t feed and is expected to increase its population tenfold by the end of the century, and all those people are 

just going to get on a boat and walk into Italy, Greece, Spain, Portugal. 

And the idea that somehow climate changes impact on that is absolutely trivial to the remorselessness of those numbers. And I understand that governments find it easier to deal with cloud-cuckoo 

fantasyland, saving the planet type issues. But this is a complete 

waste of time for an already-beleaguered Defense Department having difficulty fighting the wars it is actually in right now in Afghanistan and Iraq and elsewhere suddenly dealing with sea levels 

in the Maldives in the 22nd century. 

It is completely preposterous and complete waste of time. 

Senator CRUZ. So I will leave that aside for a moment. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CRUZ. And simply observe if we look to the satellite data, 

we see for 18 years no significant recorded warming. We see no response from the Democratic Senators. 

If we look to the raw data, according to the raw data, 1940, it 

appears from this chart, the 5-year mean temperature was higher 

than it is in recent time. But once you adjust it, if you subtract 

from the old temperatures and add to the new ones, then you can 

have measurements that reflect your theory. 

Dr. Happer, you wanted to comment on this? 

Dr. HAPPER. Yes, I just wanted to say one more thing about the 

satellite data, and that is that they are cross-calibrated with 

weather balloons all over the world. And so it is not simply a couple groups measuring satellites. There is a quality check that goes 

on, and there is no similar check for the surface data that I know 

of. 

Senator CRUZ. It is a very good point, and indeed, Dr. Christy’s 

chart, as he described, was an average of several measurements of 

both the satellites and the weather balloon. 

If we could move to the next two charts, I want to—the final line 

of questioning I want to address is the effect of censorship, of dogmatism, of intimidation. So both of these come from barack 

obama.com, a website I will admit I don’t spend a lot of time perusing. 

112 

On barackobama.com, the President of the United States is 

issuing a call, ‘‘Call out the climate deniers. Too many of our elected officials deny the science of climate change. Along with their 

polluter allies, they are blocking progress in the fight against climate change. Find the deniers near you. Find the heretics and call 

them out today.’’ 

And indeed, they show a number. And I will say when I first 

looked at that chart, I was quite disappointed. I thought I was 

omitted, but then I discovered I am, indeed, included, along with 

a number of other elected officials. Indeed, I might note, a number 

of elected officials. 

What does it do to scientific debate when anyone who dares question political ideology is branded a denier and a heretic? What are 

the consequences in the academic world when that occurs? Dr. 

Curry? 

Dr. CURRY. There is a chilling effect, OK? People keep their 

heads down. They look for opportunities just to do something else 

and to move on, retire, get out of the business. I have talked to any 

number of scientists who have done this, recent Ph.D. recipients on 

up to very senior scientists. It has a very chilling effect. 

As a tenured scientist who is relatively senior, I felt sufficiently 

secure to speak out. But younger scientists, scientists who are not 

tenured, fear for their jobs. They have mortgage payments, whatever, and you know—and kids to support. They can’t afford to 

speak out. 

The social contract currently between the Obama Administration 

and climate scientists is if you say alarming things, you will get 

plenty of funding. That seems to be how it is working. And that 

is very, very pernicious for science. 

Senator CRUZ. And do you get funded—— 

Dr. CURRY. I am—— 

Senator CRUZ.—if you are researching anything other than the 

orthodoxy of global warming alarmists? 

Dr. CURRY. I am no longer applying for government grants. I 

can’t get funded to do anything I want. 

Senator CRUZ. Let me speak more in the aggregate. Does one get 

funded? If one is a scientist and one—you know, I recall being back 

in high school and studying science, the scientific method that you 

started with a hypothesis, and then you look to evidence to prove 

or disprove the hypothesis. And often disproving it is the more useful thing to try to do. 

Do those who are actually trying to disprove the hypotheses— 

mind you, the hypotheses that will drive up the electric bills and 

the cost of living for millions of Americans, will hurt people who 

are struggling, will hurt single moms, will hurt Hispanics, will hurt 

African Americans. Does anyone doing any research that might 

contradict the political dogma, are they at all likely to get funding? 

Dr. CURRY. OK. The funding—the issue is this. The funding 

agencies do a call for proposals or an announcement of opportunity, 

and they are already implicitly assuming that human-caused climate change is dangerous. There is not even an opportunity or 

something that even makes sense to submit a proposal. 

Senator CRUZ. All right. 

113 

Dr. CURRY. So that is the real problem. So a lot of the skeptical 

research is really being conducted by independent scientists who 

are not asking for any Government funding. 

Senator CRUZ. OK. So my final two questions. One of the letters 

that the minority has submitted into the record is a letter from the 

American Association for the Advancement of Science. A sentence 

within that letter. 

‘‘We are committed to the principle that scientific inquiry and 

open scientific communication, regardless of field of study, should 

proceed unhampered by intrusions on academic freedom.’’ 

Now that is a noble-sounding statement and one that I—with 

which I agree emphatically. I want to ask the members of the 

panel, how does that noble sentiment comport with the call from 

our colleague Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse that anyone 

who dares dispute the global warming alarmist orthodoxy should 

face criminal prosecution under RICO? 

Are those two statements somehow compatible, that you can 

have academic freedom and robust debate when you have got politicians saying we will criminally prosecute you as a racketeer if you 

dispute our political orthodoxy? 

Dr. CURRY. Well, that statement by Science, the AAAS is really 

a myth because about 2 months ago, well, maybe 3 months ago, the 

editor of Science, Marcia McNutt, had an op-ed in Science that said 

the debate is over. Urgent action needed, essentially. And this was 

the editor of Science, which is the flagship journal of the American 

Association for the Advancement of Science. 

When an editor of a scientific journal makes a statement like 

that, it gives all of the editors a license to completely ignore any 

publication that is submitted that questions a consensus, and this 

is the real pernicious thing that is going on. So right now we are 

more ruled by the RICO mentality than we are by those lofty sentiments expressed by the American Association for the Advancement 

of Science. 

Mr. STEYN. Senator, you said your parents were, I think, mathematicians, statistical modelers. We have had a lot of talk today 

about climate science. I compiled a book that you were kind enough 

to mention the title of, and what was fascinating to me about that 

book was that climate science evolves. Twenty years ago, it was basically a branch of—30 years ago, physical geography. Now it is basically computer modeling. 

Yet at the same time, the majority of statisticians who look at 

the climate models think they are grossly unprofessional. Mathematicians and statisticians who look at the—at the way these climate models and the way the hockey stick were constructed are not 

onboard with it at all. A majority of engineers are not onboard with 

it. A majority of physicists, non-climate physicists are not onboard 

with this. 

So this idea that climate science is this hermetically sealed specialty that is sealed off from the rest of the world is nonsense. Climate science, there is—you have dendrochronology types. You have 

statistical modeling types. And there are elements of all in the 

work that they do. But certain people—mathematicians, engineers, 

statisticians—are not onboard with this. 

114 

And Judith mentioned—Judith mentioned Science magazine. Nature magazine went even further. They are the two most prestigious science journals on the planet, Nature and Science. And Nature printed a statement recently from a group of climate scientists 

who said, ‘‘Climate justice,’’ climate justice is more important than 

democracy. 

So that the fake 97 percent consensus is no longer enough. The 

fake 97 percent consensus of so-called climate scientists now has to 

trump the 51 percent of the electorate. 

No science in history has conducted itself like this, and it would 

be unrecognizable to Sir Isaac Newton or Charles Babbage or the 

Curies to see a self-sustaining, malign, politico science nexus supporting itself and excluding all other voices. It is at odds with scientific inquiry across the centuries. 

Senator CRUZ. Let me—in 2009, August 31, 2009, then-Senator 

John Kerry, as I discussed in my opening, said, ‘‘Scientists project 

that the Arctic will be ice free in the summer of 2013. Not in 2050, 

but 4 years from now.’’ The nice thing about this is, unlike theories 

that can’t necessarily be disproven, this is actually a statement 

that can be tested by actual facts and evidence. 

Dr. Happer, was it, in fact, accurate in the summer of 2013 the 

Arctic was ice free? 

Dr. HAPPER. No, it certainly wasn’t ice free. But if I could follow 

up on something my colleague just said, this dogmatism is not unprecedented. If you look at the Soviet Union, for 30 years, Lysenko 

had complete control over biology. You got fired or worse if you 

didn’t agree with his brand of biology. 

And that was finally brought to an end, partly because of people 

from other fields. For example, Andrei Sakharov, the inventor of 

the Soviet hydrogen bomb, led some of the opposition because he 

had enough stature to stand up and push back. 

But most people were afraid. So there was a state of fear that 

was actually quite a bit worse than that associated with climate 

science right now. It is a good lesson to remember. 

Senator CRUZ. And my final question, Dr. Titley, based on your 

three decades serving in the Navy, do you agree with President 

Obama, who said holding a global warming summit in Europe was 

a powerful rebuke to the ISIS terrorists who just committed a horrific act of terrorism in Paris and, indeed, likewise in San 

Bernardino? 

Admiral TITLEY. Senator, thanks, sir, for the question. 

The way I describe these geostrategic risks of climate change, climate is the risk, and it makes the threats, threats such as ISIS 

worse. So this doesn’t—this is not an either/or. It is not a false—— 

Senator CRUZ. But I am asking your judgment as a military man 

if you agree with President Obama that holding a global warming 

summit was a powerful rebuke to the ISIS terrorists? I find that 

statement absurd on its face. 

I am asking, based on your military judgment, do you agree with 

the President? 

Admiral TITLEY. We have to address both, sir. Thank you. 

Senator CRUZ. From your declining to answer, I take it that the 

inference of that is that your answer is no? 

115 

Admiral TITLEY. My answer is, sir, we have to address both the 

risk of climate change and the threat of ISIS. 

Thank you. 

Senator CRUZ. Thank you. 

Senator Peters? 

Senator NELSON. Mr. Chairman, I am going to go first, with your 

permission. 

Senator CRUZ. Senator Nelson? 

Senator NELSON. And Mr. Chairman, I might say, just supporting the Admiral, sea level rise is a threat to an area such as 

Bangladesh. It would cause a huge—it will cause a huge displacement of population, which will cause turmoil, which is the conditions that are ripe for extremists to exploit. 

So there are answers to that, and I would just conclude my remarks by saying, you know we have been talking about censorship 

here. Mr. Chairman, you are my friend, and as you know, I am respectful to you and the other Senators. I find it somewhat ironic 

that we are talking about censorship against those that speak 

against climate change when, in fact, it has been exactly the opposite over and over. 

And it was so much so that we saw examples where various levels of government said that you couldn’t even use the term ‘‘climate 

change’’ that I offered an amendment in March in front of the full 

Senate. A majority voted for my amendment, including two Republican members of this committee, Senator Rubio and Senator 

Ayotte. 

And so when we start talking about muzzling of scientists, I 

think we better watch out how we are talking about which side is 

trying to do the muzzling because that amendment to prevent muzzling of scientists on the subject of climate change, it actually had 

a majority, and it was a bipartisan majority that voted for it in the 

Senate. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CRUZ. Thank you, Senator Nelson. 

Senator Peters? 

Senator PETERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I certainly have enjoyed the hearing and the testimony, but 

actually, to pick up on comments by Senator Nelson about muzzling, certainly that didn’t occur in this hearing. We heard from 

three witnesses, scientific witnesses, as well as the political commentator about issues related to climate change that represented 

a particular point of view that is not shared by the vast majority 

of the scientific community, has been very clearly demonstrated in 

numerous documented studies, the 97 percent figure, for example, 

that has been documented by a number of studies. 

So I was curious. We had three folks testifying with concerns 

about the science. And if you look at it in a ratio of 97 folks, we 

had 3 scientists who had some questions who represent not 60 percent of the scientific consensus. We have Mr. Steyn, the political 

commentator, which I know if we had all the political commentators on both sides of the issue, it would be a lot more than one out 

of five, I am sure. It would probably fill several rooms here. 

Dr. Titley, you were here by yourself. But if we put it in perspective, we had the three that took this perspective, and I think there 

116 

is probably—I don’t know if there is 100 people in this room, but 

probably everybody else in this room would have a different position. 

Certainly, as policymakers, this is about leadership. It is about 

making decisions. It is about someone who has to make decisions 

that are going to impact the country. 

Dr. Titley, we talked about military commanders that have to 

make decisions based on intelligence reports and best estimates of 

the risk involved and then weigh that against the potential consequences. That is exactly what we have to do here in this committee. It is what we have to do as U.S. Senators is that we have 

to listen to experts. 

I am not a climatologist. I rely on climatologists to give me information and then make policy decisions based on that. And oftentimes, it is—this is about weighing, weighing the opinions of folks, 

and in this case, the scales of justice are weighing are clearly on 

a side different than what we have heard from four of the five witnesses. 

So today you had that opportunity to present that view and in 

a very unbalanced way. It would have been great if we could have 

had 100 scientists and had 97 telling us one thing and the 3 of you 

something else. That is not what we had, but I think it is important to keep that image in mind. 

And if we are going to be serious policymakers that are going to 

make decisions that are going to impact this country and are going 

to impact the world, we have to make decisions based on expertise 

from those who understand this science better than anyone. And 

that is where I come. I try to come from a dispassionate side. Let 

us listen to the science. Let us listen to folks who are experts. 

And that is why I am disappointed that we didn’t have a more 

balanced hearing, but I certainly appreciate your testimony, Dr. 

Titley. And I would like to just ask you a few questions related to 

that because we heard quite a bit about satellite data. And Chairman Cruz had a line of questioning related to that. 

And I am concerned that from listening to that, people might 

think that satellites are just basically thermometers in space running around. We know that that is not the case. In fact, I would 

like to enter into the record, Mr. Chairman, this report that is a 

2006 Synthesis and Assessment Report of the U.S. Climate Change 

Science Program. 

And it really underscores the difficulty in using satellite data in 

that it is a complex numerical model that converts satellite observations to—in order to determine temperature. If we could put that 

in, I would appreciate it. 

Senator CRUZ. Without objection, it will be entered in the record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

117 


1208TEMP1.eps
118 


1208TEMP2.eps
119 


1208TEMP3.eps
120 


1208TEMP4.eps
121 


1208TEMP5.eps
122 


1208TEMP6.eps
123 


1208TEMP7.eps
124 


1208TEMP8.eps
125 


1208TEMP9.eps
126 


1208TEMP9.eps
127 


1208TEMP10.eps
128 


1208TEMP11.eps
129 


1208TEMP12.eps
130 


1208TEMP13.eps
131 


1208TEMP14.eps
132 


1208TEMP15.eps
133 


1208TEMP16.eps
134 


1208TEMP17.eps
135 


1208TEMP18.eps
136 


1208TEMP19.eps
137 


1208TEMP20.eps
138 


1208TEMP21.eps
139 


1208TEMP22.eps
140 


1208TEMP23.eps
141 


1208TEMP24.eps
142 


1208TEMP25.eps
143 


1208TEMP26.eps
144 


1208TEMP27.eps
145 


1208TEMP28.eps
146 


1208TEMP29.eps
147 

Senator PETERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And given that thought, Admiral Titley, if you could explain 

briefly, a little bit expand on that, how satellites is a complex 

mechanism in order to do that, as well as if you could briefly explain the corrections that have been made over time to UAH satellite datasets since the original estimates were published. 

These datasets are revised on a regular basis because of the difficulty in correlating. Is that correct? 

Admiral TITLEY. Senator, thank you. Thank you, sir. 

I mean, kind of the bottom line, it is not rocket science. It is actually harder. Once you get the satellite up in the air, then you 

have to do something with the data. 

And as has been talked about I think several times in this committee, they are not thermometers in space. There is all different 

types of frequencies, all the way from visible, the pictures that you 

see on the TV, infrared, and there is also some things called micrometer. So it is basically almost like radar. It is not exactly, but 

some of them are. 

And what you do is you are trying to look down through the atmosphere. But of course, the atmosphere doesn’t say, oh, here is 

the low part, and then there is a nice dividing, and here is the middle. So you have different frequencies that are mostly sensitive, but 

not entirely sensitive to those different parts. And then you have 

to put all of that stuff together, and it is. It is complicated. 

A lot of work in meteorology was done in this, and it was one 

of the real big advances when we figured out how to use these data 

directly and not make them like thermometers. That happened 

around the turn of—around the year 2000 or so, and it was a big 

advance. 

As you have mentioned, sir, there have been just a number of 

corrections that have had to be made to the UAH dataset. Merging 

overlapping satellite records. So when you have satellite A and satellite B, how do you, in fact, cross-calibrate? How do you compare 

them? 

As the satellites go around and around, they actually start falling back to Earth. Very slightly, but they fall back to Earth. You 

have to account for that orbital decay. 

You have to account for the stratosphere, the air up above what 

we have been talking about, this where we live or near where we 

live, and is that contaminated? And then there is even things like 

the diurnal heating correction. So like when the satellite is in 

where the Sun, you have to account for that. 

And those have—it has taken other people, such as Mears and 

Wentz from Remote Sensing Systems and other external scientists, 

to help with those datasets to get them corrected. And again, it is 

not easy stuff to do. It is hard stuff to do, but there have been a 

number of errors. 

Senator PETERS. So I get from that testimony that satellite data 

alone may be inadequate. We need to look at a variety of other 

measurements of climate indicators. So how do climate models 

compare with these measurements and observations in the aggregate when we are looking at a variety of tools to measure what is 

happening on our planet? 

148 

Admiral TITLEY. There is a saying certainly in the weather community and other communities as well that all models are wrong, 

but some are useful. And in a technical sense, it is really hard to 

find a weather or a climate model that is exactly right all the time. 

But they can tell you very useful things. 

So even back in 1979, Jim Hansen of NASA published in Nature—it was published, I think, in May 1980—his climate model. 

This is from 35 years ago, when probably his computer system was 

not even as powerful as our iPhones today. And what that showed 

in published record, anybody can look it up, is the temperature was 

going to start going up. 

And then when you overlay the actual temperatures on there, he 

was wrong. But he was wrong because he was actually slightly too 

cold. But it was very useful because it said, guys, we are going to 

get on this escalator and we are going to start going up. 

So the climate models are useful. They are certainly getting better. Are they perfect? No. Could we use more research and development, better computers? Yes. Could we use better observations? 

Yes. 

But they are very useful, and they do help us understand the future. 

Thank you, sir. 

Senator PETERS. Well, thank you, Dr. Titley. 

One, another question here. We have heard about or had testimony that folks sometimes have difficulty getting their positions 

heard. If you could explain to us the importance of skepticism in 

the scientific process, that that is, indeed, very important and specifically how the peer review process works, which leads to these 

academic journals and studies? 

Admiral TITLEY. I mean, skepticism is what drives science. I 

mean, very frankly, it is what drives science. It is people who ask 

different questions in different ways. They either get inspired. They 

come up with a new dataset. They see a way to use a new dataset. 

And that can sometimes challenge the very orthodoxy. I mean, you 

look at Darwin, who challenged the very orthodoxy. 

As far as the peer review, the peer review doesn’t mean that this 

is the final settled science, but it does mean there is a logical flow. 

It means that the scientist or the author has, in fact, correctly 

taken a look at his or her field previously and documented that. 

The methods are clear, and the conclusions are consistent with the 

evidence that was presented. 

It may not be the final word, but it is sort of that Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval, if you will. So that if you are reading 

from another field or if you are policymaker, if you understand it 

is peer reviewed, there is some sort of certification or quality control. It may not be perfect, but over time, it is a pretty good process. 

Senator PETERS. So these papers aren’t based on dogma. It is a 

very robust scientific process that has significant review by peers 

who have expertise in the area? 

Admiral TITLEY. Senator, in my opinion, the vast majority of papers are based on data and not dogma. 

Senator PETERS. Doctor—or Admiral Titley as well, what do we 

understand about the natural phenomena that has contributed to 

149 

warming from the last 150 years versus effect of carbon that humans have released? We have heard that from some of our other 

panelists that there is other natural phenomena. Could you kind 

of dive into that a little more and give us a better sense of what 

we know about humans’ impact? 

Admiral TITLEY. Yes, sir. The humans’ impact is really primarily, 

although not exclusively, from greenhouse gases. Land use also has 

an impact. Agriculture has an impact. But primarily, it is our energy uses, fossil fuels. And what they are doing is putting billions 

of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. 

So even though in absolute terms, 400 parts per million doesn’t 

sound like that much, compared to where we started the pre-Industrial Revolution at about 275, 280 parts per mission, it is a significant increase. And we are seeing those effects. We are seeing the 

temperatures come up, but we are also seeing the rainfall come up. 

A warmer atmosphere has a potential to hold, if you will, more 

water vapor. So when it rains, it can rain harder. 

The temperatures are melting the ice. We have already talked 

about, I believe, with Senator Schatz, the sea level or the thermal 

expansion. So we are seeing all these different independent lines 

of evidence. And since we built human civilization based on climate 

stability, that is the challenge that we have. 

We now have to adapt. And I think I have heard some of the 

other panelists say we need to adapt. So we are going to have to 

adapt to the climate changes that are coming that we cannot stop, 

but at the same time, we need to figure out how not to drive over 

the cliff, how to change ourselves so that all we have is a bumpy 

ride, put your seatbelts on, and we will be OK. 

But if we don’t get serious with this, we could have a very, very 

rough ride, indeed. 

Senator PETERS. Well, hopefully, that is where we will spend 

time in this committee in the future is thinking through how do we 

adapt, how do we design policy prescriptions to what is a complex, 

but potentially dangerous change in the climate. 

I want to go back because I didn’t hear the response, I think Dr. 

Happer talked about carbon dioxide, and I just want to have opportunity for you to respond, Dr. Titley. Is that we know that there 

have been periods in Earth’s history prior to the evolution of photosynthesis, I believe, when carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere 

were much higher than they are now. 

Can you talk about what the Earth was like in times past when 

carbon dioxide levels were much higher and what that might mean 

for us now? And you heard Dr. Happer’s testimony. Perhaps your 

response would be helpful now. 

Admiral TITLEY. Yes, sir. There certainly have been times in the 

past where carbon dioxide levels have been much, much higher, but 

there weren’t modern humans, and there certainly weren’t billions 

of humans. So our challenge is how do we deal with these new rises 

in carbon dioxide with 7, 8 billion people onboard? 

The plants—certainly, in general, plants do better, but so do the 

weeds. So if you are looking at agriculture, what you have to deal 

with is not only are the plants that you want to grow are going to 

do better, the weeds are going to grow better, but they are going 

to do so in a hotter environment. 

150 

Do you start crossing thresholds, either not only daytime thresholds, nighttime thresholds? Does it mess up with the germination? 

Does it mess up with the pollination? Where are you going to get 

the water from if you have changed the basic water cycle? 

So all of those issues become a great challenge, and you need to 

be able to look at the entire system of agriculture in a changing 

climate to see where the risks are and where the challenges are. 

Senator PETERS. Well, I think those are important points, Dr. 

Titley, and I would actually like to enter in the record two studies, 

one in 2006 by Stephen Long and another study here by Samuel 

Myers, also has a little different perspective on CO2 levels than 

what we heard in testimony today. 

If I could introduce that in the record, Mr. Chairman? 

Senator CRUZ. Without objection, they will be made part of the 

record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

151 


1208MYER1.eps
152 


1208MYER2.eps
153 


1208MYER3.eps
154 


1208MYER4.eps
155 


1208MYER5.eps
156 


1208MYER6.eps 1208MYER7.eps 1208MYER8.eps
157 


1208MYER9.eps 1208MYER10.eps
158 


1208MYER11.eps
159 


1208LONG1.eps
160 


1208LONG2.eps
161 


1208LONG3.eps
162 


1208LONG4.eps
163 

Senator PETERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And then I also have—we have had some references by members 

of the panel regarding Senator Whitehouse and some comments 

that he had made. I would like to enter into the record as well a 

speech that he made that should be entered into the record as to 

refute some of the comments that were made by the panel. 

Senator CRUZ. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

TIME TO WAKE UP: THE PAUSE THAT WASN’T

Senate Floor Speech by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse 

Tuesday, September 29, 2015 

Mr. President, I rise today for my 113th ‘‘Time to Wake Up’’ speech on climate 

change. They say 13 is unlucky. I don’t know what 113 is, but I do know what climate change is. It is very real. We shouldn’t kid ourselves. And it is an urgent challenge for our country and our world. Our leading scientific organizations say so. Our 

national security leaders say so. All of our National Laboratories say so. Major 

American businesses say so. Religious leaders of all faiths say so. Pope Francis certainly said so last week. But the Senate is jammed by persistent, meretricious climate denial. The denial comes in many guises, but, like a compass, all the denial 

points in the same direction: whatever helps the fossil fuel industry keep polluting. 

That is the true north of climate denial—whatever helps the fossil fuel industry. 

Look at the fossil fuel money pouring into the Republican Party and tell me this 

is a coincidence. 

We have Senators who deny that anything is happening, who say it is a hoax. 

We have Senators who deny that we can solve this. We have Senators who deny 

their faith in the American economy to win if we innovate. We have Senators who 

simply shrug and say: I am not a scientist. A bunch of Senators say: Don’t even 

worry about it; climate change has stopped. The junior Senator from Florida tells 

us, ‘‘Despite 17 years of dramatic increases in carbon production by humans, surface 

temperatures [on] the earth have stabilized.’’ The junior Senator from Texas proclaims that ‘‘satellite data demonstrate for the last seventeen years, there’s been 

zero warming. None whatsoever.’’ 

Let’s leave aside for a moment the cherry-picked data this conclusion is based on, 

which leaves out the oceans, which cover a mere 70 percent of the Earth’s surface. 

I will get back to oceans in a minute. But even this cherry-picked data needs a trick 

to deny the long-term trend. Using their trick, you could convince yourself climate 

change has stopped six times in the history of this increase from 1970. It is easy 

to do. You pick a spot here and you pick a spot there, and in the variability you 

make it a flat line and you say: There, you see a pause. The problem is that these 

manufactured pauses keep climbing. 

When this bogus climate pause idea was trotted out in an op-ed in the Providence 

Journal, my home state paper, PolitiFact quickly determined that it uses ‘‘cherrypicked numbers and leaves out important details that would give a very different 

impression.’’ 

When we look at the linear trend for this whole data set, from 1970 to 2013, no 

one can deny that the Earth is warming. Research shows that climate change is 

marching on. The past decade was warmer than the one before that, which was 

warmer than the one before that. Seventeen of the 18 hottest years in the historical 

record have occurred in the last 18 years. NOAA and NASA count 2014 as the hottest year on record, and so far 2015 is on track to be even hotter than 2014. Fluctuations do not statistically alter the trend. 

It is a disservice to the truth and to this Senate to suggest that this heralds the 

end of climate change. As noted UC Berkeley physics professor Richard Muller put 

it, ‘‘When walking up stairs in a tall building, it is a mistake to interpret a landing 

as the end of the climb.’’ 

Plus, for what reason would it have stopped? There is no basis for the pause. We 

know why it is happening. Global warming is caused by carbon pollution. We have 

known that science since Abraham Lincoln wore a top hat around this town. That 

is not news. And our carbon pollution sure hasn’t stopped. 

We just broke 400 parts per million of carbon in the atmosphere for the first time 

in the history of the human species. 

There is no intellectual basis behind the pause theory. These claims of a climate 

change pause have been debunked. Just a couple of weeks ago, researchers from 

164 

Stanford University published a study: ‘‘There is no hiatus in the increase in the 

global mean temperature, no statistically significant difference in trends, no stalling 

of the global mean temperature, and no change in year-to-year temperature increases.’’ In other words, there is no pause. 

A different study prepared for the U.S. Climate Variability and Predictability Program reviewed this so-called pause data and said this: It ‘‘not only failed to establish a trend change with statistical significance, it failed by a wide margin. [A]ny 

argument that global warming stopped 18 or 20 years ago is just hogwash,’’ said 

one of that report’s authors—just hogwash. When legitimate scientists and statisticians examine the data for global mean temperature, they don’t find any so-called 

pause. 

This chart I have in the Chamber shows global average temperatures since the 

late 1800s, which is about the time we began burning fossil fuels in the Industrial 

Revolution. In yet another study out this month, researchers did a little test. They 

showed this chart to 25 economists, but instead of temperature they told the economists that the chart showed world agricultural output. That stripped the data of 

any political baggage of climate change. It made this a simple statistical question: 

Does this chart show that the measured phenomenon—climate change, temperature, 

world agricultural output—does this chart show whatever the measured phenomenon is stopped in 1998? The economists looked, and they flat out rejected that 

conclusion. What they agreed was that claiming the phenomenon had stopped would 

be misleading and ill-informed. 

So why did this pause theory appear that is a mistake, that is hogwash, that is 

based on cherry-picked numbers all toward a conclusion that is misleading and illinformed? Why? Because the big carbon polluters and their allies in Congress don’t 

want us to act. So we keep getting this mischief fed to us. 

The enterprise that performs that evil task of feeding mischief into this debate 

is perhaps the biggest and the most complex racket in American history. It is phony. 

They cherry-pick a handful of statistically insignificant data points and tell us the 

whole problem went away on its own. Then the real scientists take a look at it and 

say that is bunk. But in the meantime, the polluter enterprise notched a public relations victory. It bought some time to keep polluting for free, and sadly it got some 

of our colleagues to be party to it. 

Telling the American people there is a pause in global warming may lull the gullible to sleep, but it is phony, it is inaccurate, and it is wrong. It ignores the truth. 

It ignores the science. Basically what it is, is cheesy fossil fuel PR dressed up in 

a lab coat to look like science, just enough to fool people that little bit. 

Now let’s turn back to the oceans—that 70 percent of the Earth’s surface the 

other data left out. These data show the decades-long warming of the surface 

oceans—1960 to 2010. No pause. Remember, the deniers conveniently left all this 

data out when they cherry-picked their pause data—70 percent of the Earth’s surface left out. 

The first law of thermodynamics, conservation of energy, decrees that all of that 

heat in the ocean had to come from somewhere. Research shows that greenhouse 

gases trap excess heat in the atmosphere and that over 90 percent of that excess 

heat went into the oceans, was absorbed by our oceans. People who insist that the 

climate has not warmed in recent decades ignore this one little thing—the oceans, 

which cover 70 percent of the surface of the Earth. The oceans don’t lie. This warming is changing the oceans and our fisheries. Water expands when it warms. That 

is the law of thermal expansion—unless somebody wants to come and deny that. 

The seas are rising across the globe. In Rhode Island, we measure it at the Newport 

Naval Station tide gauge. Basically it is a glorified yardstick. It is not complicated. 

There is no theory involved. It is a measurement. It says we are up nearly 10 inches 

since the 1930s. That may be funny to landlocked States, but when there are 10 

more inches of sea to be thrown against your shores by a big ocean storm, coastal 

states take that stuff very seriously. NASA measures it around the world with satellites; it is not just the coastal stations that take these measures. NASA measures 

from satellites. We measure the exploding acidity of the seas. The exploding acidities of the sea are directly related to CO2 absorption—unless people want to deny 

chemistry. You can put CO2 seawater in a high school lab and you can make the 

pH change. That is what we are doing on a global scale, and we don’t get to repeal 

laws of chemistry around here, no matter how powerful the special interests. 

Last week, His Holiness Pope Francis called on us to work together to protect our 

common home. He warned us in his recent encyclical: ‘‘Those who will have to suffer 

the consequences of what we are trying to hide will not forget this failure of conscience and responsibility.’’ But first we have to want to protect our common home. 

If what we want to protect is the fossil fuel industry, at all costs, at any cost, we 

need a priority adjustment. 

165 

In our rotten, post-Citizens United, billionaire special interests politics, perhaps 

the Pope would have had more effect if he had a super Pac, but it shouldn’t take 

a super Pac for us to heed the Pope’s warning or to heed the science or to heed our 

national security leaders or to heed everyone else who has lined up to try to wake 

us up. 

Pope Francis also said ‘‘to avert the most serious effects of the environmental deterioration caused by human activity,’’ now is the time for courageous actions and 

strategies. 

Today’s New York Times has this headline: ‘‘Many Conservative Republicans Believe Climate Change Is a Real Threat.’’ Once you get away from this building and 

the pernicious influence of the fossil-fuel industry and its relentless money and 

threats, it is not a question of ideology, it is a question of special interest influence, 

and conservative Republicans increasingly understand that this is real. Eleven of 

them just broke rank in the House. 

It is time to come together in good faith to tackle this real and persistent threat— 

the threat of climate change. 

It is time for us to wake up. 

I yield the floor. 

Senator PETERS. Thank you very much. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CRUZ. Thank you, Senator Peters. 

I want to thank each of the witnesses for being here. Dr. Happer, 

you wanted to briefly—— 

Dr. HAPPER. I just wanted to make one response about satellite 

temperature measurements. They measure temperature the same 

way as hospitals do today. Nobody sticks a thermometer in your 

mouth anymore. They use a temporal scanner or they put something in your ear. And so they are measuring radiation in exactly 

the same way the satellites do, except medical thermotheres use infrared radiation, not microwave radiation. 

Senator CRUZ. Thank you, Dr. Happer. That is helpful. 

This hearing was a hearing to discuss facts and evidence and 

data rather than partisan dogma and ideology, and there are at 

least seven facts that our witnesses have laid out here to which 

there have been, I believe, no effective response. 

Number one, that carbon dioxide, rather than being a pollutant, 

is good for plant life. 

Number two, that the Earth right now, today, is greening. 

Number three, that for significant periods in history there has 

been markedly more CO2 in our atmosphere, and that was prior to 

the Industrial Revolution. So it could not have come from the burning of fossil fuels. 

Number four, that for the last 18 years the satellite data and the 

weather balloon data both demonstrate no significant warming 

whatsoever. That fact in particular not a single Democratic Senator 

had an effective response to. 

Number five, that the satellite data and the weather balloon data 

are the best evidence we have of whether warming is occurring, 

and that evidence, the actual data, demonstrate that it is not. 

Number six, that the seas were rising more in the first half of 

the 20th century prior to the significant increase in carbon dioxide 

emissions than they are now. 

And number eight, that the computer models, the apocalyptic 

computer models that are telling us we need to raise every hardworking American’s electric bills, gas bills, cost of living, we need 

to make it harder for single moms, for immigrants, for African 

Americans, for Hispanics, for hard-working men and women, we 

166 

need to make it harder for them to make a living and make ends 

meet, the computer models are profoundly wrong. Not a little bit 

wrong, but profoundly inconsistent with the data and the evidence. 

None of these eight facts tend to make it through the media gatekeepers that instead enforce, like the Inquisition, a discipline on 

the heretics that would dare stand in the way of their political ideology of imposing trillions of dollars of cost on people who are 

struggling. 

Policy should be driven by facts, and as John Adams said, ‘‘Facts 

are stubborn things.’’ 

In addition to the number of things entered in the record, I have 

got a series of newspaper articles describing the persecution of socalled climate deniers that without objection are going to be entered into the record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

SHOULD CLIMATE CHANGE DENIERS BE PROSECUTED? 

By Walter Olson On 10/1/15 at 5:17PM 

Around 400 demonstrators participated in a protest over climate change denialby burying 

their heads in the sand at Sydney’s Bondi Beach November 13, 2014, ahead of a G20 summit 

in Brisbane. Half-truths and the selective use of data are the common currency of political debate over climate change, the author writes. 

David Gray/Reuters 

In June, I took note of Senator Sheldon Whitehouse’s (D–R.I.) op-ed ’’urg[ing] the 

U.S. Department of Justice to consider filing a racketeering suit against the oil and 

coal industries for having promoted wrongful thinking on climate change, with the 

activities of ’conservative policy’ groups an apparent target of the investigation as 

well.’’ 

I pointed out that this was a significant step toward criminalizing policy differences and using litigation and government enforcement to punish opponents in 

public debate, and meshed with an existing fishing-expedition investigation of climate-skeptic scholarship by Whitehouse and other Democrats on Capitol Hill. 

Others had already gone farther than the senator himself, calling for making ‘‘climate denial’’ a ‘‘crime against humanity,’’ holding public trials of fossil fuel execuVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:09 Oct 04, 2016 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00170 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\21644.TXT JACKIE

1208NEWS1.eps
167 

tives for having resisted the truth and so forth. (Gawker: ‘‘arrest climate change 

deniers.’’) 

And I noted a recurring argument-’’we did it to the tobacco companies, so there’s 

no reason we can’t do it here too’’-that tended to confirm my fears that the Federal 

government set a dangerous precedent back then when it ’’took the stance that protobacco advocacy could amount to a legal offense.’’ 

Now there are further signs that a concerted campaign is under way. ‘‘Letter to 

President Obama: Investigate Deniers Under RICO’’ is the headline over a letter 

from 20 scientists, most at respected institutions, endorsing the Whitehouse idea 

and calling for the Federal government to launch a probe under the racketeering 

(RICO) law. The letter was soon being widely promoted around the Web, even at 

BoingBoing, often regarded as a pro-free-speech outlet. 

It is not clear that all the scientists who signed the letter have thought carefully 

about the tension between what they are asking and the continuing freedom to pursue lines of inquiry in public debate that the government may find unwelcome or 

unreasonable. ’’I have no idea how it affects the First Amendment,’’ says one 

Vermont scientist who backs the probe, quoted by Bruce Parker of Vermont Watchdog. 

In a companion piece, Parker interviewed me about the constitutional implications 

of this extremely bad idea. (I should note that when I discuss RICO in the interview 

transcript, I’m referring to the civil-litigation side of the law, so-called civilRICO, 

which seems to be the part of the law the advocates hope to use.) 

It is remarkable how many advocates of this scheme seem to imagine that the 

First Amendment protects only truthful speech and thus (they think) has no application here because climate skepticism is false. 

That’s not the way it works. As Cato and many others (compare ACLU of Ohio) 

argued at various stages in the case of Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, which 

reached the Supreme Court on a different issue last year, controversial speech need 

not be true to be protected. In practice an ’’only truth has rights’’ approach chills 

advocacy generally and gives the state (or sometimes private litigants and complainants) a dangerous power to stifle advocacy in debates that it considers settled. 

It is certainly strange to see many supporters of the Whitehouse approach suggest 

that the speech they dislike is actionable because they find in it half-truths, selectively marshaled data, scientific studies that spring from agendas, arguments whose 

ultimate sincerity is open to question, evasion of telling points made by the other 

side and so forth. Those are the common currency of everyday debate in Washington 

(and not just in Washington). 

Nothing could be more common than to find both sides in an argument using 

these argumentative techniques. Hawks and doves do it; so do protectionists and 

free traders, and labor interests and business interests. The same techniques are 

also accepted as standard currency within the adversary process itself, in which the 

law takes such pride, which makes it particularly absurd to propose defining it as 

unlawful racketeering to (quoting one paraphrase) ’’use dubious information to advance a cause.’’ The interview, again, is here. 

Walter Olson is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute’s Center for Constitutional Studies. 

The Climate Fix 

VARIOUS MUSINGS ON CLIMATE SCIENCE AND POLICY

by Roger Pielke Jr 

I AM UNDER ‘‘INVESTIGATION’’ 

FEBRUARY 25, 2015—ROGERPIELKEJR 

As some of you will already know, I am one of 7 U.S. academics being investigated 

by U.S. Representative Rau ́l Grijalva (D–AZ) who is the ranking member of the 

House of Representatives Committee on Environment and Natural Resources. Rep. 

Grijalva has sent a letter to the president of my university requesting a range of 

information, including my correspondence, the letter is here in PDF (http://democrats.naturalresources.house.gov/sites/democrats.naturalresources.house.gov/files/ 

Roger percent20Pielke percent2C percent20Colorado.pdf). 

Before continuing, let me make one point abundantly clear: I have no funding, declared or undeclared, with any fossil fuel company or interest. I never have. Representative Grijalva knows this too, because when I have testified before the U.S. 

168 

Congress, I have disclosed my funding and possible conflicts of interest. So I know 

with complete certainty that this investigation is a politically-motivated ‘‘witch 

hunt’’ designed to intimidate me (and others) and to smear my name. 

For instance, the Congressman and his staff, along with compliant journalists, are 

busy characterizing me in public as a ‘‘climate skeptic’’ opposed to action on climate 

change. This of course is a lie. I have written a book calling for a carbon tax (http:// 

rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/04/climate-fix.html), I have publicly supported 

President Obama’s proposed EPA carbon regulations (http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot 

.com/2014/06/some-perspective-on-us-epa-carbon.html), and I have just published 

another book strongly defending the scientific assessment of the IPCC with respect 

to disasters and climate change (http://www.amazon.com/The-Rightful-PlaceScience-Disasters/dp/0692297510/ref=srl1l11?ie=UTF8&qid=1412174550&sr=8– 

11&keywords=pielke). All of this is public record, so the smears against me must 

be an intentional effort to delegitimize my academic research. 

What am I accused of that prompts being investigated? Here is my crime: 

Prof. Roger Pielke, Jr., at CU’s Center for Science and Technology Policy Research has testified numerous times before the U.S. Congress on climate change 

and its economic impacts. His 2013 Senate testimony featured the claim, often 

repeated, that it is ‘‘incorrect to associate the increasing costs of disasters with 

the emission of greenhouse gases.’’ 

The letter goes on to note that John Holdren, President Obama’s science advisor, 

‘‘has highlighted what he believes were serious misstatements by Prof. Pielke.’’ (For 

background on this see here (http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116887/does-climate-change-cause-extreme-weather-i-said-no-and-was-attacked) and her (http://rog 

erpielkejr.blogspot.de/2014/03/john-holdrens-epic-fail.html)e.) My 2013 testimony to 

the Senate is here (http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/publications/special/senate ltestimony2013.html) and House is here in pdf (http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/ 

admin/publicationlfiles/2013.38.pdf) (Q&A following hearing here (http:// 

rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2014/01/questions-from-congress-part-1.html) and here 

(http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2014/01/questions-from-congress-part-2.html)). 

The testimony was the basis for my recent book on Disasters & Climate Change 

(http://www.amazon.com/The-Rightful-Place-Science-Disasters/dp/0692297510/). 

Congressman Grijalva doesn’t have any evidence of any wrongdoing on my part, 

either ethical or legal, because there is none. He simply disagrees with the substance of my testimony—which is based on peer-reviewed research funded by the 

U.S. taxpayer, and which also happens to be the consensus of the IPCC (despite 

Holdren’s incorrect views). 

Adam Sarvana, communications director for Natural Resources Committee’s 

Democratic delegation, reinforced the politically-motivated nature of the investigation in an interview (http://www.al.com/news/huntsville/index.ssf/2015/02/arizonalcongressmanlaskinglque.html): 

‘‘The way we chose the list of recipients is who has published widely, who has 

testified in Congress before, who seems to have the most impact on policy in 

the scientific community’’ 

Let’s see—widely published, engaged with Congress, policy impact—these are supposed to be virtues of the modern academic researcher, right? (Here in PDF (http:// 

sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publicationlfiles/2013.32.pdf) is my view on the 

importance of testifying before Congress when asked. I still think it is important.) 

I am pleased that some colleagues with whom I have had professional disagreements with in the past have condemned the investigation via Twitter, among them 

Eric Steig (of Real Climate), Bob Ward (LSE) and Simon Donner (UBC). This shows 

some real class. In contrast, Michael E. Mann, who I defended when a Virginia politician came after him (http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/07/cuccinellis-fishing-expedition.html), used the ‘‘investigation’’ as a chance to lob childish insults my 

way via Twitter. Some things you can always count on in the climate arena! 

So far, I have been contacted by only 2 reporters at relatively small media outlets. 

I’d say that the lack of interest in a politician coming after academics is surprising, 

but to be honest, pretty much nothing surprises me in the climate debate anymore. 

Even so, there is simply no excuse for any reporter to repeat incorrect claims made 

about me, given how easy I am to find and just ask. 

The incessant attacks and smears are effective, no doubt, I have already shifted 

all of my academic work away from climate issues. I am simply not initiating any 

new research or papers on the topic and I have ring-fenced my slowly diminishing 

blogging on the subject. I am a full professor with tenure, so no one need worry 

about me—I’ll be just fine as there are plenty of interesting, research-able policy 

issues to occupy my time. But I can’t imagine the message being sent to younger 

169 

scientists. Actually, I can: ‘‘when people are producing work in line with the scientific 

consensus there’s no reason to go on a witch hunt (http://www.wired.com/2015/02/ 

anti-gmo-activist-seeks-expose-e-mails-food-scientists/).’’ 

When ‘‘witch hunts’’ are deemed legitimate in the context of popular causes, we 

will have fully turned science into just another arena for the exercise of power politics. The result is a big loss for both science and politics. 


1208CLIM1.eps
170 


1208CLIM2.eps
171 

Watchdog.org 

DEMOCRAT-LED WITCH HUNT INTO ‘CLIMATE CHANGE DENIERS’ PICKS UP FORCE

Posted By M.D. Kittle On February 27, 2015 

In the left’s latest assault on the First Amendment, three Democrats on the Senate’s Committee on Environment and Public Works [1] have sent out 100 letters to 

free-market think tanks and energy companies asking them to turn over funding 

records related to any research they’ve conducted on climate change. 

In short, U.S. Sens. Ed Markey [2], D-Massachusetts, Barbara Boxer,[3] D-California, and Sheldon Whitehouse,[4] D-Rhode Island, apostles in President Barack 

Obama’s climate change war, are on another political witch hunt demanding donor 

information and other records that are protected under the Constitution. 

First Amendment defenders rallied to the side of the targeted groups, asserting 

the Democrats had overreached in setting up their enemies list, another thinly 

veiled quest in taxpayer-funded political opposition research. 

[5]GIVE IT TO ME: Skeptical of climate change? U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-California, wants to know why. She’s asking free-market think tanks to turn over donor 

information. 

‘‘These folks have been trying to open the vaults of donor lists from all of our organizations over time. They have not been successful,and they are not going to be 

successful,’’ said Kory Swanson, president of the John Locke Foundation [6], a North 

Carolina-based free-market think tank. 

The organization received a letter [7] from the senators requesting information 

about ‘‘payments made . . . in support of scientific research and scientists, as well 

as support for other efforts related to climate change, if such payments have been 

made.’’ 

As members of the Senate committee, the lawmakers claim they are interested 

in understanding how the organizations have ’’undertaken such efforts and the degree to which these efforts have been publicly disclosed . . .’’ 

Their sudden interest arises following a piece in the New York Times that attacks, 

or by some accounts, ‘‘smears,’’ Wei-Hock ‘‘Willie’’ Soon, an outspoken critic of manmade climate change. 

The piece, headlined ‘‘Deeper Ties to Corporate cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher,’’[8] uses documents obtained by Greenpeace showing that Soon received 

more than $1 million from ExxonMobil, Southern Company and others in his work 

tracking the flaws in climate change research. 


1208WITC1.eps
172 

The story was picked up by the ’’growing mega industry of climate-alarmist blogs 

and organizations that receive billions of dollars from government agencies, tax-exempt foundations, and major corporations,’’ according to the New American.[9]

‘‘Following the typical smear pattern, many of the stories attempt to tar Dr. Soon 

with the ’denier’ label a vicious assault aimed at equating (man-made climate 

change) skepticism with Nazi Holocaust denial,’’ the publication states. 

Soon did not disclose his fundi.ng in his peer-reviewed study. 

The senators are going after anyone who would dare contest the science behind 

the climate change narrative. 

They want it all, and they want it now. 

In their letter,[7] the senators demand the past 10 years of information from the 

organizations, including: 

‘‘Lists of funded research efforts (including but not limited to grants, fellowships, scholarships, consulting contracts, contracts, honoraria, and speaking 

events) on or related to climate, climate change, global warming, environmental 

issues, air quality, atmospheric or oceanic topics, greenhouse gas emissions, associated impacts of greenhouse gas in missions, carbon dioxide . . .’’ 

For each payment made to individuals or organizations associated with the funded research efforts, the senators seek: 

• Name of the recipient 

• Institutional affiliation 

• Payment and duration of the term of the funded research effort 

• Reason for the payment 

Majority members of the Senate committee reportedly were sending out letters 

Friday advising the target groups that they do not have to comply with the senators’ 

unconstitutional requests. Anonymous donations still are protected under the First 

Amendment. 

First Amendment expert Hans von Spakovsky called the senators1 actions ‘‘outrageous.’’ 

‘‘This is clearly an attempt to intimidate anyone who has a different opinion on 

the issue than theirs,’’ said von Spakovsky, a former commissioner on the Federal 

Election Commission and senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s [10] Edwin 

Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. ‘‘This is an abuse of power. Maybe 

these senators don’t understand or don’t care about the fundamental First Amendment rights of Americans and their membership organizations.’’ 

The demand for donor information von Spakovsky said, is no different than what 

the state of Alabama did to the NAACP in the 19sos. n this case, the result could 

be freezing out political speech by shutting down potential donor contributions. 

‘‘What these 100 organizations need to do is to get together and what they ought 

to do is send one letter signed onto by every single organization that says, ‘We’re 

not providing you with this information and your attempt to get it is unconscionable,’ ’’ he said. ‘‘There is strength in numbers and they ought to stand for and push 

forward the principle that the government is not entitled to this information because it is a violation of their First Amendment rights.’’ 

Swanson said he is not overly concerned by the senators’ political grandstanding 

now that he has been informed he does not have to turn over the targeted information. The think tank president said many donors do not want their identities released because of government-led reprisals for their beliefs. 

‘‘We will proceed on with our work and not get distracted by this,’’ Swanson said. 

Article printed from Watchdog.org: http://watchdog.org 

URL to article: http://watchdog.org/203041/climate-change-senate-first-amend 

ment/ 

URLs in this post: 

[1] Committee on Environment and Public Works: http://www.epw.senate.gov/pu 

blic/?CFlD=130001363&CFTOKEN=17633631 

[2] Ed Markey: http://www.markey.senate.gov/ 

[3] Barbara Boxer,: http://www.boxer.senate.gov/ 

[4] Sheldon Whitehouse,: http://www.whitehou se.senate.gov/contact/ 

[5] Image: http://watchdog.org/wp-content/blogs.dir/l/files/2015/02/Barbara 

Boxer.jpg 

[6] John Locke Foundation: http://www.john locke.org/about/ 

[7] letter: http://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/markey-boxer 

whitehouse-query-fossil-fuel-companies-climate-denial-organizations-on-science funding 

173 

[8] ‘‘Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher,’’: http:// 

www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climatechangeresearcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html?lr=O 

[9] New American.: http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/ 

20191-nytimes-greenpeace-smear-warming-skeptic-dr-soon 

[10] The Heritage Foundation’s: http://www.heritage.org/about/staff/v/hansvonspakovsky 


1208MEGA1.eps
174 


1208MEGA2.eps
175 


1208MEGA3.eps
176 

The Daily Caller http://dailycaller.com 

SCIENTISTS ASK OBAMA TO PROSECUTE GLOBAL WARMING SKEPTICS

Posted By Michael Bastasch On 4:39 PM 09/17/2015 In/No Comments 

The science on global warming is settled, so settled that 20 climate scientists are 

asking President Barack Obama to prosecute people who disagree with them on the 

science behind manmade global warming. 

Scientists from several universities and research centers even asked Obama to use 

the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) to prosecute groups 

that ‘‘have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate 

change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change.’’ 

RICO was a law designed to take down organized crime syndicates, but scientists 

now want it to be used against scientists, activists and organizations that voice their 

disagreement with the so called ‘‘consensus’’ on global warming. The scientists repeated claims made by environmentalists that groups, especially those with ties to 

fossil fuels, have engaged in a misinformation campaign to confuse the public on 

global warming. 

‘‘The actions of these organizations have been extensively documented in peer reviewed academic research and in recent books,’’ the scientists wrote. 

But these riled up academics aren’t the first to suggest using RICO to go after 

global warming skeptics. The idea was first put forward by Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, who argued using RICO was effective at taking down the tobacco 

industry. 

‘‘In 1999, the Justice Department filed a civil RICO lawsuit against the major tobacco companies . . . alleging that the companies ‘engaged in and executed—and 

continue to engage in and execute—a massive 50year scheme to defraud the public, 

including consumers of cigarettes, in violation of RICO,’ ’’ Whitehouse wrote in the 

Washington Post in May. 

‘‘We strongly endorse Senator Whitehouse’s call for a RICO investigation,’’ the scientists wrote to Obama. ‘‘The methods of these organizations are quite similar to 

those used earlier by the tobacco industry. A RICO investigation (1999 to 2006) 

played an important role in stopping the tobacco industry from continuing to deceive 

the American people about the dangers of smoking.’’ 

‘‘If corporations in the fossil fuel industry and their supporters are guilty of the 

misdeeds that have been documented in books and journal articles, it is imperative 

that these misdeeds be stopped as soon as possible so that America and the world 

can get on with the critically important business of finding effective ways to restabilize the Earth’s climate, before even more lasting damage is done,’’ the scientists 

added. 

This year has been a trying one for global warming skeptics. Earlier this year, 

Democratic lawmakers began an investigation into scientists who disagreed with the 

White House’s stance on global warming. Many of these skeptical scientists were 

often cited by those critical of regulations to curb greenhouse gas emissions. 

Arizona Democratic Rep. Raul Grijalva went after universities employing these researchers, which resulted in one expert being forced to get out of the field of climate 

research altogether. 

‘‘I am simply not initiating any new research or papers on the topic and I have 

ringfenced my slowly diminishing blogging on the subject,’’ Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. of 

the University of Colorado wrote on his blog. 

‘‘Congressman Grijalva doesn’t have any evidence of any wrongdoing on my part, 

either ethical or legal, because there is none,’’ Pielke wrote. ‘‘He simply disagrees 

with the substance of my testimony—which is based on peerreviewed research funded by the U.S. taxpayer, and which also happens to be the consensus of the IPCC 

(despite Holdren’s incorrect views).’’ 

177 

Washington Examiner 

EPA CHIEF SAYS CLIMATE CHANGE DENIERS NOT ‘NORMAL’ 

By John Siciliano • 6/23/15 7:26 PM 

The head of the Environmental Protection Agency appeared to hurl barbs at Congress on Tuesday, referring to an unnamed group of climate change ‘‘deniers’’ who 

aren’t ‘‘normal’’ and who won’t ‘‘carry the day’’ in a democracy. 

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy made the comments while addressing a climate change summit at the White House Tuesday to frame the effects of global 

warming on public health. 

McCarthy said a report her agency released Monday makes the case for taking 

action against climate change by calculating the price Americans will pay for not 

taking action, including the thousands of lives lost due to global warming and the 

impact felt on the economy. 

She said the EPA put out the report ‘‘not to push back against climate deniers,’’ 

but to help ‘‘normal people’’ make a decision about the kind of world they and their 

children want to live in. 

‘‘I’ve batted my head against the wall too many times’’ trying to convince climate 

change deniers that global warming is occurring, she said. ‘‘You can have fun doing 

that if you want,’’ but ‘‘if the science hasn’t already changed their mind then it 

never will.’’ 

She said she is convinced that the climate deniers will not win in the campaign 

to address global warming. ‘‘In a normal democracy, it is not them that carries the 

day,’’ McCarthy said. ‘‘It is normal human beings that haven’t put their stake into 

politics above science.’’ 

‘‘It’s normal human beings that want us to do the right thing,’’ she added. ‘‘And 

we will.’’ 

Her comments were being made around the same time Republican Sen. Shelley 

Moore Capito of West Virginia was holding a hearing on the harm the EPA’s Clean 

Power Plan poses to energy producer states and small businesses. The EPA plan 

is the centerpiece of President Obama’s plan to address climate change by curbing 

emissions from existing power plants. 

‘‘We are going to get our Clean Power Plan out. It is going to happen,’’ McCarthy 

told those attending the summit, which included a broad range of public health advocates and environmentalists. 

The climate summit follows another last week to announce $4 billion in private 

investment to develop renewable energy and other low mission technologies. Observers say the summits are being used to push the issue of climate change ahead of 

the Clean Power Plan being issued in August. 

Yet at the same time, the House is preparing to pass legislation as soon as 

Wednesday that would delay implementation of the plan. The House measure would 

give states the ability to opt out of the rules, while allowing them to forego compliance until judicial review has concluded. 

In the Senate, Capito said that companion legislation she introduced in May continues to gain strength. Capito said she is ‘‘proud to have more than 30 cosponsors,’’ 

including Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Energy and Public Works 

Committee Chairman James Inhofe, R-Okla. 

178 

The Daily Caller http://dailycaller.com 

ANOTHER GLOBAL WARMING SKEPTIC GETS SUSPENDED FROM TWITTER

Posted By Michael Bastasch On 2:14 PM 04/02/2015 In/No Comments 

For the second time within two weeks, another global warming skeptic blogger 

has had his Twitter account suspended, this time repeating profanity used by a 

NASA climate scientist—and no the scientist did not get his account suspended. 

On April 1st, Twitter locked the account of science blogger Tom Nelson, who runs 

the blog the ‘‘Hockey Schtick.’’ Twitter told Nelson to delete a tweet that contained 

the word—are you ready for it?—‘‘crap’’ or else his account would not be unlocked. 

Nelson then posted the ‘‘Delete Tweet’’ screen to his blog, after which Twitter 

promptly suspended his account. As of April 2nd, Nelson’s account was still suspended. 

Interestingly enough, Nelson was simply repeating a word used by NASA climate 

scientist Gavin Schmidt who tweeted at Nelson that [graph] is crap as I’ve frequently pointed out. The temperature is hand drawn. Not even you can take it seriously, surely?’’ 

Nelson tweeted back on March 22nd ‘‘is this graph crap too?’’ About a week and 

a half later, Twitter locked his account and the suspended it. But Gavin Schmidt’s 

account has not been suspended—which has raised the ire of other global warming 

skeptics and conservative pundits on Twitter. 

‘‘If calling a graph ‘crap’ is grounds for suspension, why isn’t @ClimateofGavin 

suspended?’’ Nelson asked on his blog. 

.@ClimateOfGavin You wouldn’t happen to know why @twitter ‘‘suspended’’ another climate dissident, Tom Nelson @tan123? #BigClimateEnforcers? 

—Mark Steyn (@MarkSteynOnline) April 1, 2015 

Nelson’s suspension comes within two weeks of Twitter suspending global warming skeptic Steven Goddard, a noted blogger who has been labelled as a ‘‘denier’’ 

by environmentalists. 

Goddard, a pseudonym he blogs under, was suspended for violating Twitter’s 

rules. goddard had been previously warned by Twitter of that other users had accused him of ‘‘nonviolent threats’’ and ‘‘abusive behavior.’’ Goddard denied these accusations. 

‘‘I have never violated any Twitter rules, and Twitter has failed to respond to my 

requests to provide any details,’’ Goddard said. 

Both Goddard and Nelson have been highly critical of views human activity is 

causing the planet to warm at an alarming rate. InsideClimate News even featured 

Goddard on its ‘‘Who’s Who List of Climate Denialists’’—list put together by environmentalists of global warming ‘‘deniers’’ targeted by e-mail hackers. 

But Twitter’s actions against the bloggers seem to come from complaints by other 

Twitter users. Indeed, Nelson’s account was locked about a week and a half after 

he used the word ‘‘crap’’ in a tweet. Some in the skeptic community have suggested 

climate scientists and environmental activists are complaining to get skeptic’s account suspended. 

Indeed, Penn State University climate scientist Michael Mann has threatened 

‘‘trolls’’ with being reported and blocked if they interrupted an #AskDrMann session 

on Twitter. 

But Twitter doesn’t disclose such information. So any accusations of who is behind 

getting skeptics’ account suspended is speculative at this moment. 

179 

Senator CRUZ. I am also going to enter into the record the oped that Senator Whitehouse wrote calling for RICO criminal prosecution of anyone who dares stand in the way of the political ideology that hurts working men and women. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

The Washington Post—Opinions 

‘‘THE FOSSIL-FUEL INDUSTRY’S CAMPAIGN TO MISLEAD THE AMERICAN PEOPLE’’ 

By Sheldon Whitehouse May 29, 2015 

Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat, represents Rhode Island in the Senate. 

Fossil fuel companies and their allies are funding a massive and sophisticated 

campaign to mislead the American people about the environmental harm caused by 

carbon pollution. 

Their activities are often compared to those of Big Tobacco denying the health 

dangers of smoking. Big Tobacco’s denial scheme was ultimately found by a Federal 

judge to have amounted to a racketeering enterprise. 

The Big Tobacco playbook looked something like this: (1) pay scientists to produce 

studies defending your product; (2) develop an intricate web of PR experts and front 

groups to spread doubt about the real science; (3) relentlessly attack your opponents. 

Thankfully, the government had a playbook, too: the Racketeer Influenced and 

Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO. In 1999, the Justice Department filed a civil 

RICO lawsuit against the major tobacco companies and their associated industry 

groups, alleging that the companies ‘‘engaged in and executed—and continue to engage in and execute—a massive 50-year scheme to defraud the public, including consumers of cigarettes, in violation of RICO.’’ 

Tobacco spent millions of dollars and years of litigation fighting the government. 

But finally, through the discovery process, government lawyers were able to peel 

back the layers of deceit and denial and see what the tobacco companies really knew 

all along about cigarettes. 

In 2006, Judge Gladys Kessler of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia decided that the tobacco companies’ fraudulent campaign amounted to a racketeering enterprise. According to the court: ‘‘Defendants coordinated significant aspects of their public relations, scientific, legal, and marketing activity in furtherance 

of a shared objective—to . . . maximize industry profits by preserving and expanding the market for cigarettes through a scheme to deceive the public.’’ 

The parallels between what the tobacco industry did and what the fossil fuel industry is doing now are striking. 

In the case of fossil fuels, just as with tobacco, the industry joined together in a 

common enterprise and coordinated strategy. In 1998, the Clinton administration 

was building support for international climate action under the Kyoto Protocol. The 

fossil fuel industry, its trade associations and the conservative policy institutes that 

often do the industry’s dirty work met at the Washington office of the American Petroleum Institute. A memo from that meeting that was leaked to the New York 

Times documented their plans for a multimillion-dollar public relations campaign to 

undermine climate science and to raise ‘‘questions among those (e.g., Congress) who 

chart the future U.S. course on global climate change.’’ 

The shape of the fossil fuel industry’s denial operation has been documented by, 

among others, Drexel University professor Robert Brulle. In a 2013 paper published 

in the journal Climatic Change, Brulle described a complex network of organizations 

and funding that appears designed to obscure the fossil fuel industry’s fingerprints. 

To quote directly from Brulle’s report, it was ‘‘a deliberate and organized effort to 

misdirect the public discussion and distort the public’s understanding of climate.’’ 

That sounds a lot like Kessler’s findings in the tobacco racketeering case. 

The coordinated tactics of the climate denial network, Brulle’s report states, ‘‘span 

a wide range of activities, including political lobbying, contributions to political candidates, and a large number of communication and media efforts that aim at undermining climate science.’’ Compare that again to the findings in the tobacco case. 

The tobacco industry was proved to have conducted research that showed the direct opposite of what the industry stated publicly—namely, that tobacco use had serious health effects. Civil discovery would reveal whether and to what extent the 

fossil fuel industry has crossed this same line. We do know that it has funded research that—to its benefit—directly contradicts the vast majority of peer-reviewed 

climate science. One scientist who consistently published papers downplaying the 

180 

role of carbon emissions in climate change, Willie Soon, reportedly received more 

than half of his funding from oil and electric utility interests: more than $1.2 million. 

To be clear: I don’t know whether the fossil fuel industry and its allies engaged 

in the same kind of racketeering activity as the tobacco industry. We don’t have 

enough information to make that conclusion. Perhaps it’s all smoke and no fire. But 

there’s an awful lot of smoke. 

Senator CRUZ. The hearing record is going to remain open for 2 

weeks. During this time, Senators are asked to submit any questions for the record, and upon receipt, the witnesses are requested 

to submit their written answers to the Committee as soon as possible. 

I want to thank the witnesses for being here. I want to thank 

you for the time in preparing your testimony. 

And with that, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 5:52 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(181) 

A P P E N D I X 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL TO

ADMIRAL DAVID TITLEY

Issue: Climate Change and Refugees 

Question 1. The globe is currently facing a refugee crisis as innocent civilians are 

being forced to flee war-torn areas like Syria in an attempt to find safety. There 

are now 4.2 million registered refugees spread across Turkey, Lebanon, Egypt, Iraq, 

and Jordan. 

Climate scientists hold that as climate change worsens, global crises of mass population displacements can increase. As droughts become more severe or as the sea 

level continues to rise and puts at risk coastal communities and settlements, millions of people can end up displaced because of drinking water shortages, crop shortages, and retreating land. 

Not only will there the issue of resettling millions of displaced people, but as resources grow more scarce, conflict becomes more likely. 

Thirty governors have declined to accept refugees as people are now fleeing the 

violence of ISIS. Yet, many of the same people who argue against opening our borders to refugees refuse to take action to mitigate and reverse climate change. 

Can you speak to how significant of an issue displacement may become if we do 

not take steps to address climate change? 

Answer. Climate refugees, although not a formally recognized term, will become 

an increasingly urgent problem for the world to deal with. Whether people are 

forced from their land due to rising seas and storm surges, salt-water contamination 

of fresh water supplies, or are no longer able to grow food for their families and 

communities due to a combination of increased heat or drought, they will move. 

They will then be either ‘‘internally displaced’’ refugees within their own country or 

international refugees. These problems will almost certainly be worse and most severe in regions where there is already poor governance, endemic corruption, and existing ethnic strife. Syria today is a tragic example, and ominously a window to a 

future where this challenge is ignored. 

Question 2. How serious are the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security 

taking this potential future risk as a result of climate change? 

Answer. This administration has taken the risk of climate change seriously as 

part of its duties. The risks of climate change are prominently acknowledged in the 

highest strategy documents of these departments. In addition, in January 2016 the 

Department of Defense issued a ‘‘Department of Defense Directive’’ http://www 

.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/471521p.pdf that gives very specific guidance to 

the Under and Assistant Secretaries of Defense, the Services, Combatant Commanders and the Joint Staff as to their duties and responsibilities with respect to 

addressing climate risk and security. For more details, see: https://climate 

andsecurity.org/2016/01/20/new-dept-of-defense-directive-on-climate-security/ 

Question 3. I imagine that because of the grave responsibility of national security 

these two departments are charged with upholding, any official position they take 

has been well researched and reviewed. Can you speak to how well researched the 

DOD and DHS’s predictions as a result of climate change are and how reliable their 

science is? 

Answer. Both the DOD and DHS rely on the scientific enterprise’s collective 

knowledge, judgment and wisdom. This knowledge is best summarized in the U.S. 

National Academy of Science’s body of work on climate change (http://nas-sites.org/ 

americasclimatechoices/sample-page/panel-reports/), the National Climate Assessment (http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/), and the fifth assessment report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/). In 

addition, specific NASA, NOAA, Department of Energy, U.S. Geological Survey, academic, intelligence community and other technical assets are consulted as required. 

182 

Issue: Climate Change Considerations at DOD 

Question 4. In addition to the rise in regional instability across the globe and the 

potential to exacerbate the displacement of significant populations of people, climate 

change has the potential to pose other national security risks like threats to military 

installations. 

The Department of Defense has done extensive climate research and is also taking steps to increase its use of alternative fuels and further its research into alternate fuel resources to reduce its carbon foot print. 

The DOD has also taken several steps to incorporate climate mitigation into its 

planning. In a statement from this July, the department stated that ‘‘the ability of 

the United States and other countries to cope with the risks and implications of climate change requires monitoring, analysis and integration of those risks into existing overall risk management measures, as appropriate for each combatant command.’’ 

What are some other national security risks that the DOD warns of if climate 

change isn’t mitigated? 

Answer. Please refer to the CNA Military Advisory Board reports of 2007 https:// 

www.cna.org/CNAlfiles/pdf/National%20Security%20and%20the%20Threat%20of 

%20Climate%20Change.pdf and 2014 https://www.cna.org/CNAlfiles/pdf/MABl 5-8-14.pdf. 

In summary the risks are: 

• changes in the Arctic for which we are not prepared 

• climate threats to DOD and critical civilian infrastructure upon which our military and economic security reside. Climate threats include: 

» rising sea levels and attendant storm surges; 

» drought and excessive heat impacting a base’s operating capacity; 

» direct or indirect threat from wildfires 

• increase in the ‘‘demand signal’’ for world-wide Humanitarian Assistance and 

Disaster Relief (HA/DR) missions. While the U.S. military conducts HA/DR missions in a very capable and professional manner, a significant increase in these 

missions has the potential to disrupt training and capacity for higher-end warfighting missions that can only be accomplished by the U.S. military. 

• Increase in the geo-strategic threats, where climate is not the sole cause of instability, but, like a link in a chain, is one of the reasons a region or nation 

tips into chaos and extremism, with unpredictable and unknown security and 

stability consequences. 

Question 5. What has been the extent of its efforts to reduce its carbon footprint 

and transition to cleaner fuels? 

Answer. Please refer to Mr. John Conger’s 3 March 2015 written testimony before 

the House Appropriations Committee, pgs 11–13 and pgs 19–23. http://docs.house 

.gov/meetings/AP/AP18/20150303/103047/HHRG-114-AP18-Wstate-CongerJ-2015 

0303.pdf 

Question 6. In your testimony, you spoke to the risk management approach to addressing climate change recommended by the CNA Military Advisory Board, a panel 

of former three and four star generals. How concerned is the DOD with climate 

change and how much is it built into future planning? 

Answer. Please see my previous answer regarding the DOD’s concern for climate 

change. In my personal opinion, the leadership has done a good job of balancing and 

addressing this long-term, strategic risk with the shorter-term crises that the DOD 

must always handle. The issuance by Deputy Secretary Work of the DOD Directive 

on climate change in January 2016 is a good example of their commitment to addressing this risk. 

Issue: Negative Economic Impact of Climate Change as Indicated by 

Connecticut-originated Research 

Question 7. The NOAA Northeast Fisheries Research Lab in Milford, CT has demonstrated that ocean acidification is one of the greatest risks to the healthy development of shellfish like clams and oysters. I constantly hear from my state’s aquaculture and shellfish harvesting communities that they are catching smaller and 

more underdeveloped shellfish by the year as acidification hinders the calcification 

process necessary to produce a strong and robust shell. 

The University of Connecticut has also been pioneering a lot of sound and reliable 

climate science. One study, conducted by Dr. Baumann of UConn, investigates the 

impact of climate change on coastal marine fishes. His most recent NSF and NOAA 

funded study on the Atlantic silverside, a common fish in eastern North America 

183 

and a source of food for commercially important fish species like bluefish and 

striped bass, showed that high levels of carbon dioxide are likely to severely impact 

the larvae of this species in years to come. This will likely have a cascading effect 

to the fish that rely on them as a food source, which in turn will have a negative 

impact on the commercial fishing industry. 

As climate deniers continue to do the bidding of the fossil fuel industry, protecting 

the profits of big oil and gas interests, what will the impact be on other industries 

that will be harmed by climate change, like the aquaculture and commercial fishing 

industries? 

Answer. While some select industries may temporarily benefit from delaying action on climate change, particularly those connected with extracting, transporting 

or burning fossil fuel assets, many industries and communities will be negatively 

impacted from the changes in climate. The impacts may be direct, as your constituents in the aquaculture industry have relayed to you, or indirect, in that taxpayers 

will ultimately shoulder the cost of combatting sea-level rise, higher food prices, and 

increased health risks, to name a few. 

Question 8. Won’t most of the economy be negatively impacted by climate change? 

Won’t the short-sighted denial of climate change really only benefit one industry at 

the detriment of everyone else? 

Answer. Yes sir. The number of industries that benefit directly from delaying action are small in number compared to those who are seeing adverse effects. 

Issue: Sea Level Rise in the Long Island Sound 

Question 9. The Long Island Sound Study (LISS), a federal, state partnership between the EPA, Connecticut, and New York that monitors water quality and 

changes in the climate in the Long Island Sound, has been recording changes in sea 

level rise in the Sound for decades—since 1932 in Kings Point, NY and since 1967 

in Bridgeport, CT. 

What LISS has found is that the sea level in the Sound has been steadily increasing due to warming temperatures causing the water molecules in the Sound to expand, consistent with global findings. However, what scientists monitoring the Long 

Island Sound have also discovered is that sea level rise is over 50 percent higher 

than the global average over the same timeframe. This seems to indicate that as 

warming continues, the regions surrounding the Sound are especially vulnerable to 

flooding, storm surges, and other consequences of rising ocean levels. 

Additionally, research by Dr. Lisa Park Boush of UConn shows that although hurricane frequency is tied to El Nino, it is also influenced by global climate change. 

Hurricane Sandy devastated the coast of Connecticut. These storms are only becoming more extreme. If we do not take action to curb climate change, what type 

of damage are areas like the Connecticut coast in for, where they are especially sensitive to rising sea levels? 

Answer. I think your local experts are best qualified to talk about the specifics 

of damage to the Connecticut coastline. We do understand though, that hurricanes 

in the northeast U.S. are likely to become stronger, and that those storm-surges will 

come in on top of an ever-rising sea level. Please see the recent article published 

in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science by my colleagues Andra Reed 

and Michael Mann and others: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC 

4611656/ for details on the increased threat to the coastline. 

Question 10. Communities along the coast are still rebuilding. Small businesses 

are implementing resiliency plans, efforts are underway to restore historic structures damaged in the storm, and aquaculture beds are recovering. The economic impact of the storm was nothing short of devastating. What are the economic risks associated with rising sea levels? 

Answer. They will of course be very significant. I often use as a point of reference 

how much more money the Netherlands believes they need to invest in their sealevel defenses, already seen as the best in the world, will need to invest an additional $150B by 2100. http://www.wired.com/2008/12/ff-dutch-delta/ For scale, 

the length of Dutch coastline is roughly equivalent to the coasts of Massachusetts 

and Connecticut, combined. One way or another, we are all going to pay this carbon 

tax, either in preparations and fortifications of our coast—or in economic disruption 

and devastation if we do not. 

Question 11. Some in the climate denial camp point to deviations in temperature 

in the atmosphere’s tropospheric level—the lowest level of the atmosphere—as indication that the verdict is still out on climate change. Can you explain why measurements like sea level rise give a better indication of climate change than variations 

in tropospheric temperatures? 

Answer. Please see my response to Sen. Markey’s QFR on this same topic. 

184 

Issue: The Importance of Funding Geo and Climate Science 

Question 12. As a member of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, I have had the opportunity to meet with and hear issues of importance from 

climate and geo-scientists from Connecticut. These scientists specialize in researching how our climate works, how the Earth responds to different climate patterns, 

and how our climate is currently changing. 

One recurring theme that I continue to hear from scientists from around Connecticut, whether it is from climatologists at UConn or researchers at Wesleyan and 

Yale, is that they are worried about the threatened Federal funding for geosciences. 

Funding proposals that have come from the House or supported by the other side 

of the aisle undervalue the significance of this important science field. 

Geoscience and climate science is how we understand what is happening to the 

Earth’s climate systems, and if this field is undermined, we cannot adequately prepare for changes we might encounter. 

What are some of the consequences we can expect if we do not adequately fund 

these science disciplines? 

Answer. This letter, signed by many Universities, including Penn State, and scientific organizations, explains both the benefits to funding and consequences of not 

funding very well: https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/about-ams/ams-formal-letters-of-support/joint-letter-supporting-nsf-geosciences/ 

Question 13. Do you believe there is a multiplier effect for investing in geo and 

climate science? As we develop new technologies or ways to fend off the costs of climate change, don’t our investments pay off in greater returns? 

Answer. Yes sir. 

Question 14. Given the importance of these science disciplines, what possible explanation is there for cutting funding in this area? 

Answer. I do not believe that credible arguments can be made to dis-invest in this 

area of science. We only have one Earth on which to live and base our economy. 

It’s in everyone’s interest to have the greatest possible understanding of, and predictions about, our home planet for the benefit of all. 

Issue: Climate Sensitivity to CO2 and Time Scales 

Question 15. There seems to be a broad consensus on the correlation between CO2

in the atmosphere and the average temperature of the planet. Climate scientists at 

Wesleyan produced a research paper in which they studied past states of the climate and found strong correlations between low CO2 levels and lower temperatures 

and higher CO2 levels and higher temperatures. 

This research was backed up by findings that researchers at Yale contributed to, 

which studied climate sensitivity to CO2 and also determined that the best indicators were revealed over long time periods on the scale of centuries or millennia. 

How well do we understand the correlation between CO2 and temperature? How 

confident is the scientific community in idea that high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere contribute to a warming climate? Isn’t this concept very well understood and 

widely acknowledged? 

Answer. Yes, sir, there is extremely high confidence in this relationship. The following article from the ‘‘American Institute of Physics’’ https://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm describes our scientific understanding of Greenhouse Gases, 

beginning with Joseph Fourier’s work in the 1820s. I know of no credible climate 

scientist who disputes this fundamental relationship. 

Question 16. Can you speak to the importance of taking measurements over long 

periods of time when attempting to understand climatic changes? Why might shorter time periods that many climate skeptics use be misleading when compared to 

long-term studies? 

Answer. Please see my response to Sen. Markey’s QFR where I describe ‘‘internal 

variability’’, ‘‘external forcing’’ and ‘‘manmade forcing’’ on the climate system. Over 

short time periods, internal and external forcing can counteract the manmade increase in greenhouse gases, but over the long term the interval variability just becomes ‘‘noise’’ and any changes in the sun and greenhouse gasses become the ‘‘signal’’. NASA and many others have measured the sun’s energy reaching the earth 

to see if it is the reason for our warming temperatures—it is not. In fact, the sun’s 

energy has decreased slightly over the past several decades, leaving greenhouse 

gases (and supported by over 150 years of theory) as the reason for our warming 

climate. 

185 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. EDWARD MARKEY TO

ADMIRAL DAVID TITLEY

Question 1. Does the natural variability of the climate system in the past, like 

the episodic cool periods that occurred in the northern hemisphere during the socalled ‘‘Little Ice Age’’ and may have impacted the Pilgrim colony at Plymouth Rock, 

affect in any way our understanding of how greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide released from the burning of fossil fuels, are affecting the climate system now? 

Please explain. 

Answer. Climate change can be forced by multiple different external factors: reduced sunlight, either because of changes in the sun’s orbit or intensity, or an increase in volcanic eruptions can cool the planet. Conversely, increases in the sun’s 

intensity, a relative minimum in volcanic activity, or an increase in greenhouse gas 

(GHG) concentration can warm the planet. Through research, we understand the socalled ‘Little Ice Age’ reflected a decrease in the sun’s energy reaching Earth and 

also relatively high volcanic activity. Today we also understand with extremely high 

confidence why our climate is warming: the overwhelming driver for sustained 

warming is the increase in GHG concentration in the atmosphere. Scientists began 

to understand this effect as early as the middle of the 19th Century, and by the 

1950s the theory was well established and well accepted. With the advent of 

Keeling’s CO2 measurements atop Mauna Loa in Hawaii, we have a continual record 

of the increase in GHG that correlates with the increase in global surface temperatures. {See Fig. 3, page 8, in my written testimony submitted for this hearing). 

While correlation per se does not equate to causation, the theory is well understood 

and science has systematically ruled out other reasons (primarily an increase in incoming energy from the sun) that would cause the Earth to warm so rapidly in such 

a short period of time. 

Question 2. In the attached peer-review article by Richard Muller and his Berkeley Earth group’s independent assessment of temperatures found temperature to 

have increased 2.7 °F in the last 250 years, with 1.6 °F of that rise occurring in 

the last 50 years. They find that the temperature changes can be explained by 

human greenhouse gas emissions and volcanoes, but not solar forcing. They also disclose their funding sources, one of which is the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. Are the findings of this paper comparable to the scientific consensus that global temperatures are rising and that human are causing it? 

Answer. Yes, the paper by Muller et. al. is broadly consistent with the scientific 

consensus that human-induced GHG increases are responsible for the overwhelming 

increase in 20th Century surface temperature increase. Although partially funded 

by the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, Muller et. al. appear to have processed the data correctly, and have obtained basically the same answer as NASA, 

NOAA, the UK Met Office, the Japanese Meteorological Agency, and other reputable 

organizations who have studied this issue. Interestingly, Exxon-Mobil (then Esso) 

also reached this same conclusion back in the late 1970s and early 1980s. See Fig. 

4, page 9 of my written testimony submitted for this hearing. 

Question 3. During the hearing Dr. Curry claimed that the IPCC and the scientific 

consensus have no explanation for the increase of ice in the Antarctic. Can you comment on the scientific community’s current understanding of changes in Antarctic 

land and sea ice and how they relate to anthropogenic climate change? 

Answer. While the expansion of Antarctic Sea ice is still a topic of active research, 

it would be incorrect to that that science has ‘‘no explanation’’ for this phenomenon. 

A good summary of our state of knowledge can be found at: https://www 

.skepticalscience.com/increasing-Antarctic-Southern-sea-ice-intermediate.htm 

‘‘If the Southern Ocean is warming, why is sea ice increasing? There are several 

contributing factors. One is the drop in ozone levels over Antarctica. The hole 

in the ozone layer above the South Pole has caused cooling in the stratosphere 

(Gillet 2003). A side-effect is a strengthening of the cyclonic winds that circle 

the Antarctic continent (Thompson 2002). The wind pushes sea ice around, creating areas of open water known as polynyas. More polynyas leads to increased 

sea ice production (Turner 2009). 

Another contributor is changes in ocean circulation. The Southern Ocean consists of a layer of cold water near the surface and a layer of warmer water 

below. Water from the warmer layer rises up to the surface, melting sea ice. 

However, as air temperatures warm, the amount of rain and snowfall also increases. This freshens the surface waters, leading to a surface layer less dense 

than the saltier, warmer water below. The layers become more stratified and 

mix less. Less heat is transported upwards from the deeper, warmer layer. 

Hence less sea ice is melted (Zhang 2007). 

186 

Antarctic sea ice is complex and counter-intuitive. Despite warming waters, 

complicated factors unique to the Antarctic region have combined to increase 

sea ice production. The simplistic interpretation that it’s caused by cooling is 

false.’’ 

Question 4. During the hearing Dr. Curry claimed that the IPCC report has no 

explanation for the fact that the rate of sea level rise from 1920 to 1950 was large. 

Please describe the trends in sea level rise from 1920 to today and what is known 

about how they relate to anthropogenic climate change. 

Answer. Dr. Curry’s question ignores the broader implications of an ever-rising 

sea level. Although this reference http://www.skepticalscience.com/Sea-level-risethe-broader-picture.html is nearly six years old, it provides a good overview and 

shows that sea level rise in the period from 1920–1950 was not anomalous. 

‘‘Sea level rises as ice on land melts and as warming ocean waters expand. Sea 

level rise mutually corroborates other evidence of global warming as well as 

being a threat to coastal habitation and environments. 

The blue line in the graph below clearly shows sea level as rising, while the 

upward curve suggests sea level is rising faster as time goes on. The upward 

curve agrees with global temperature trends and with the accelerating melting 

of ice in Greenland and other places. 

Because the behavior of sea level is such an important diagnostic aid for tracking climate change, skeptics seize on the sea level record in an effort to cast 

doubt on this evidence. Sea level bounces up and down slightly from year to 

year so it’s possible to cherry-pick data falsely suggesting the overall trend is 

flat, falling or linear. You can try this yourself. Starting with two closely spaced 

data points on the graph below, lay a straight-edge between them and notice 

how for a short period of time you may create almost any slope you prefer, simply by being selective about what data points you use. Now choose data points 

farther apart. Notice that as your selected data points cover more time, the 

more your mini-graph reflects the big picture. The lesson? Always look at all 

the data, don’t be fooled by selective presentations. 

(graph from Church 2008) 

Other skeptic arguments about sea level concern the validity of observations, 

obtained via tide gauges and more recently satellite altimeter observations. 

Tide gauges must take into account changes in the height of land itself caused 

by local geologic processes, a favorite distraction for skeptics to highlight. Not 

surprisingly, scientists measuring sea level with tide gauges are aware of and 

compensate for these factors. Confounding influences are accounted for in measurements and while they leave some noise in the record they cannot account 

for the observed upward trend. 

Various technical criticisms are mounted against satellite altimeter measurements by skeptics. Indeed, deriving millimeter-level accuracy from orbit is a 

stunning technical feat so it’s not hard to understand why some people find 

such an accomplishment unbelievable. In point of fact, researchers demonstrate 

this height measurement technique’s accuracy to be within 1mm/year. Most importantly there is no form of residual error that could falsely produce the upward trend in observations. 

As can be seen in an inset of the graph above, tide gauge and satellite altimeter 

measurements track each other with remarkable similarity. These two indeVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:09 Oct 04, 2016 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00190 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\21644.TXT JACKIE

1208MARQ1.eps
187 

pendent systems mutually support the observed trend in sea level. If an argument depends on skipping certain observations or emphasizes uncertainty while 

ignoring an obvious trend, that’s a clue you’re being steered as opposed to informed. Don’t be mislead by only a carefully-selected portion of the available 

evidence being disclosed. 

Current sea level rise is after all not exaggerated, in fact the opposite case is 

more plausible. Observational data and changing conditions in such places as 

Greenland suggest if there’s a real problem here it’s underestimation of future 

sea level rise. The IPCC synthesis reports offer conservative projections of sea 

level increase based on assumptions about future behavior of ice sheets and glaciers, leading to estimates of sea level roughly following a linear upward trend 

mimicking that of recent decades. In point of fact, observed sea level rise is already above IPCC projections and strongly hints at acceleration while at the 

same time it appears the mass balance of continental ice envisioned by the 

IPCC is overly optimistic (Rahmstorf 2010).’’ 

More to the point, the rate of sea level rise is accelerating, as shown in recent 

papers summarized by Climate Central http://www.climatecentral.org/news/studyreveals-acceleration-of-sea-level-rise-20055 and researchers at Penn State http:// 

news.psu.edu/story/400758/2016/03/30/research/sea-level-rise-antarctic-ice-sheetcould-double?utmlsource=newswire&utmlmedium=e-mail&utmlterm=401922l 

HTML&utmlcontent=04-04-2016-16-55&utmlcampaign=daily%20newswire These 

are the real risks to our society—not dissecting the noise in the sea level record 

from over half a century in the past. 

Question 5. Climate change deniers have often pointed to a hiatus or pause in 

warming since 2000. However, the attached peer-reviewed study by Thomas Karl et. 

al. shows that newly corrected and updated global surface temperatures from 

NOAA’s NCEI do not support a global warming ‘‘hiatus’’ and that there is no 

discernable decrease in the rate of warming between the second half of the 20th century and the first 15 years of the 21st century. From your review of the latest scientific evidence, do you agree that the global temperatures have continued to rise 

over the past 15 years? Also, please address the scientific problem with making conclusions about climate change based on short-term trends. 

Observed climate change is the net result of ‘internal variability’ (analogous to 

changes in water level that’s sloshing about in a shallow pan; no water is added 

or lost, but the height of the water (or temperature in case of the earth) bounces 

up and down—but the average does not change over time), external forcing (e.g., 

changes in the sun’s energy reaching the earth, changes in the number and intensity of volcanic eruptions), and man-made forcing (primarily addition of greenhouse 

gasses but also by the addition of very small particles (aerosols) that tend to have 

a net cooling on the planet). Sometimes these forces all act in the same direction 

at the same time—at other times they can oppose one another. Michael Mann and 

colleagues have published convincing peer-reviewed research (summarized here: 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/02/climate-oscillations-andthe-global-warming-faux-pause/) that shows the ‘internal variability’ of the climate 

system has been counter-acting much but not all of the continuing warming caused 

by the man-made addition of GHG to the atmosphere. Despite such temporary cooling factors, overall temperatures have continued to rise. You can see this in Figure 

3 (page 8) of my written testimony submitted for this hearing. In addition the World 

Meteorological Organization (WMO) has a chart of temperatures averaged over 

every decade starting from 1890 (here’s the source: http://library.wmo.int/pmb 

lged/wmol1119len.pdf) 

188 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. GARY PETERS TO

ADMIRAL DAVID TITLEY

Question. Dr. Titley, there were a number of claims made in the hearing that run 

counter to scientific findings and conclusions. Some examples include claims about 

carbon dioxide and its effect on plant life and agriculture, the historical abundance 

of CO2 in the atmosphere, the so called warming ‘‘hiatus’’ and the relative value of 

satellite and balloon data versus direct measurements, sea level rise, and inconsistency of model predictions and measured observations. 

Could you please briefly address any false or misleading claim not already covered 

in your testimony, and also please provide references to quality, peer-reviewed scientific publications that dispute these false or misleading claims? 

Answer. Senator, I addressed the recent temperature record and sea-level rise 

issues in my QFR’s in response to Senator Markey. The single most comprehensive 

source to the issues you raise is in the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). http://www.ipcc.ch/ This report 

summarizes and synthesizes the body of peer-reviewed research and addresses what 

we do—and do not know—about our changing climate, and the degree of confidence 

to which we understand specific aspects of climate change. If there is a fault of the 

IPCC process, it’s a consensus body of the world’s nations, so its conclusions are that 

of a ‘least common denominator’ agreed to by all. If the IPCC reports are wrong, 

it’s because the climate is changing faster than the consensus body of literature 

would indicate, and that the ‘fat tail’ risks are underestimated. 

For a detailed accounting of how drastically over-simplified and false the argument that ‘‘more CO2 is better for plants’’ is, please see https://www.skeptical 

science.com/co2-plant-food-advanced.htm The article contains multiple references to 

respected, peer-reviewed articles. 

An advanced and technical description of the challenges of re-creating surface 

temperature record proxies from satellite-derived measurements can be found here: 

https://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere-advanced.htm, again with embedded peer-reviewed references. 

Æ 


1208MARQ2.eps
189 

This page intentionally left blank. 

190 

This page intentionally left blank. 

191 

This page intentionally left blank.