U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

38–918 PDF 2008

S. HRG. 109–1003

THE ROLE OF SCIENCE IN ENVIRONMENTAL

POLICY MAKING

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

SEPTEMBER 28, 2005

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress.senate
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman 

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JAMES M. JEFFORDS, Vermont 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BARACK OBAMA, Illinois 

ANDREW WHEELER, Majority Staff Director 

KEN CONNOLLY, Minority Staff Director

(II) 
(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

SEPTEMBER 28, 2005

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Bond, Hon. Christopher S., U.S. Senator from the State of Missouri ................. 10

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California ........................ 14

Clinton, Hon. Hillary Rodham, U.S. Senator from the State of New York ........ 7

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 1

Isakson, Hon. Johnny, U.S. Senator from the State of Georgia .......................... 6

Jeffords, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont .................... 4

Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey ........... 11

Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator from the State of Alaska ........................... 13

Voinovich, Hon. George V., U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio ........................ 16

WITNESSES 

Benedick, Hon. Richard E., president, National Council for Science and the 

Environment ......................................................................................................... 21

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 43

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 51

Senator Jeffords ......................................................................................... 52

Crichton, Michael, M.D., author, doctor ................................................................ 18

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 52

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Jeffords ......................................................................................... 55

Gray, William, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State

University ............................................................................................................. 24

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 56

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 66

Roberts, Donald R., Ph.D., professor, Division of Tropical Public Health,

Department of Preventive Medicine and Biometrics, Uniformed Services

University of the Health Sciences ...................................................................... 27

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

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Jeffords ......................................................................................... 78

Sandalow, David, director, Environment and Energy Project, the Brookings 

Institution ............................................................................................................. 28

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

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Articles: 

DDT: A Case Study in Scientific Fraud .......................................................... 144

Health risks and benefits of DDT ................................................................... 150

E-mail distributed on September 23, 2005 from Dr. Gerhard Hess of Bayer 

Environmental Sciences S.A.S ............................................................................ 161

Fact sheet, Union of Concerned Scientists ............................................................ 95

Letters from: 

Alberts, Bruce, president, National Acadamy of Sciences to Hon. Larry 

E. Craig .......................................................................................................... 93
Page

IV

—Continued

Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho to Bruce 

Alberts ............................................................................................................ 94

Mann, Michael E., Ph.D., associate professor and director of Earth System Science Center Department of Meteorology, The Pennsylvania 

State University to Chairman Barton and Chairman Whitfield .............. 109

Statements: 

Cicerone, Ralph J., Ph.D., president, National Academy of Sciences, The 

National Academies ...................................................................................... 85

Hansen, James, director, Columbia University Earth Institute and Goddard Institute for Space Studies .................................................................. 83

Testimony of Roger Bate and Richard Tren .......................................................... 120
(1)

THE ROLE OF SCIENCE IN ENVIRONMENTAL 

POLICY MAKING 

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2005

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON SUPERFUND AND WASTE MANAGEMENT, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Thune (chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Inhofe, Bond, Voinovich, Murkowski, Thune, 

DeMint, Isakson, Jeffords, Boxer, Clinton, and Lautenberg. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Our hearing will come to order. First of all, this 

is a real heavy group we have got here today, and I really appreciate all of your being here. You have come a long way to be here. 

We are so appreciative. We, I am sure, are going to have more 

members coming in, but the staffs are here, and we have been talking about how to handle this, because we want to make sure that 

everyone has ample time to make presentations. 

So it is my suggestion—and if it is all right with you, Senator 

Jeffords—that we will go ahead and start with, say, 5-minute opening statements up here, and then as we recognize our panel, each 

one can have 10 minutes. You don’t have to take that long, or even 

go a little bit over that would be fine, depending on how many people show up. 

I think probably what we will do is confine our opening statement to 4 minutes, see who comes up, how many we have, then we 

will turn it over to the panel. Then, of course, that will give us time 

for several rounds of questioning. We will be stopping promptly, 

though, at 11:50. 

I am excited about this hearing because, when I first became the 

chairman of this committee back in, oh, it is two and a half years 

ago, I guess, now, the three objectives I had was to make our decisions on sound science. Too often there is a policy that is involved 

in that. You see this type of research that gets funded by the discretionary grants that get awarded. It is pushing people’s political 

agenda many times, as opposed to really concentrating on sound 

science. 

I am particularly interested in hearing the testimony of Dr. Michael Crichton. I think I have read most of his books. In fact, I 

have read them all. Everyone knows Dr. Crichton as a best selling 
2

author and an Emmy award winning producer, but what most people don’t know is that Dr. Crichton’s background includes degrees 

from Harvard College and Harvard Medical School. 

He was also a visiting lecturer in physical anthropology at Cambridge University and a post-doctoral fellow at Salk Institute for biological studies, where he worked on media and science policy with 

Jacob Bronowski, author of Common Sense of Science, Science and 

Human Values, and The Identity of Man. Dr. Crichton’s science 

background has served him well in providing material for his 

books. 

And, of course, of all of his books that I have read, I enjoyed the 

most ‘‘State of Fear’’. I have tried to say that is required reading 

for this committee, but you just can’t get by with that when you 

are dealing with Senators. While ‘‘State of Fear’’ is a novel, it is 

fiction, the footnotes are incontrovertibly scientific. So I have enjoyed that. 

We will also hear from Dr. Bill Gray. Dr. Gray is known as the 

pioneer of hurricane prediction. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, 

German Environmental Minister Juergen Trittin alleged, ‘‘the increasing frequency of these natural events can only be explained 

through global warming which is caused by people.’’

Now, this is totally absurd. If you look at the chart behind us 

here, you can see that the data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration demonstrates clearly that 100 years ago, 

even 50 years ago, we had just as many intense hurricanes as we 

do today. So we look forward to your thoughts on that, Dr. Gray. 

We will also hear from Dr. Don Roberts, an epidemiologist in the 

field of science regarding DDT. The EPA banned DDT in the 1970’s 

despite a finding by its own experts that DDT did not cause cancer 

in human beings, nor did it have an adverse effect on wildlife. 

Since then, DDT has become the most studied chemical in the 

world, and the only thing that has been proven is that there is no 

other substance, method or treatment as effective in eradicating 

malaria. 

You know, most of the members of this committee—and I know 

Dr. Crichton and I have talked about this—know that I have been 

very active, for about 10 years, in Africa, and when you take Uganda—if you look at this up here—I would like my colleagues to see 

this. That is the effects of malaria. Just in Uganda alone—which 

I will be there in about 3 days, or at the end of this next week—

it kills about 70,000 people a year. The interesting thing is we are 

all so concerned and the public attention is on HIV/AIDS. The 

same number of people who died in Uganda from AIDS are dying 

from malaria. So we will be looking forward to that testimony. 

I would also like to welcome David Sandalow of The Brookings 

Institute, who is here to provide the committee with his beliefs on 

global warming and its perceived effects. 

Finally, we have Richard Benedick, President of the National 

Council for Science and the Environment. He was one of the authors of the 1987 Montreal Protocol, which is a precursor for the 

international framework for dealing with emissions reductions. 

So we look forward to meeting and hearing from all of you. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]
3

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Today’s hearing will focus on one of the three objectives I set out when I assumed 

the Chairmanship of the committee—to ensure that regulatory decisions are based 

on sound science. 

Too often the environmental policy decisions made by EPA and other sciencebased agencies are driven by political or personal agendas. You see this in types of 

research that gets funded or the types of grants that get awarded. It is my hope 

this hearing will help shed some light on how science is used by policy-makers and 

that we can arrive at some concrete suggestions for making the process better. 

I am particularly interested in hearing the testimony of Dr. Michael Crichton. Everyone knows that Dr. Crichton is a best-selling author and Emmy award-winning 

producer. But what most people do not know is that Dr. Crichton’s background includes degrees from Harvard College and Harvard Medical School. He was also a 

visiting lecturer in Physical Anthropology at Cambridge University; and a post-doctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, where he worked on media 

and science policy with Jacob Bronowski, the author of Common Sense of Science, 

Science and Human Values, and The Identity of Man. Dr. Crichton’s science background has served him well in providing material for his books, many of which explore scientific issues, my favorite of which is ‘‘State of Fear’’. I urge you all to read 

this book. It’s fiction, but it contains an enormous number of footnotes to real studies backing up the scientific points made in the book. Dr. Crichton, thank you for 

agreeing to testify today on your observations and recommendations about the use 

of science in public policy-making. 

We also will hear today from Dr. Bill Gray, known as the pioneer of hurricane 

prediction. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, German Environmental Minister 

Juergen Trittin (Yer-gan Trit-in) alleged, ‘‘the increasing frequency of these natural 

events can only be explained through global warming which is caused by people.’’ 

This is absolutely absurd. This chart behind me, based on data from the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, demonstrates clearly that 100 years ago, 

even 50 years ago, we had just as many intense hurricanes as we have today. I look 

forward to your thoughts on this, Dr. Gray. 

We will also hear today from Dr. Don Roberts, an epidemiologist and a leader in 

the field of science regarding DDT. EPA banned DDT in the 1970s despite a finding 

by its own experts that DDT did not cause cancer in humans nor did it have an 

adverse effect on wildlife. Since then, DDT has become the most studied chemical 

in the world and the only thing that has been proven is that there is no other substance, method or treatment as effective in eradicating malaria. 

As many of my colleagues are aware, I travel throughout Africa several times a 

year. In fact, next week, I plan to make my third visit to Uganda this year. Malaria 

is devastating that country and the entire continent of Africa. It kills almost the 

same number of people as AIDS. Yet we focus little attention on this enormous 

human tragedy. Malaria kills 70,000 Ugandans every year, most under the age of 

five. It enlarges their spleen such as in the picture behind me, causing acute suffering and eventually death. In all of Africa, a child dies from malaria every 30 seconds. 

Yet, developed counties continue to stand on their environmental agenda in the 

face of this human rights tragedy. Earlier this year, the European Union strongly 

warned Uganda that its exports to Europe would be in jeopardy if it goes ahead 

with current plans to use DDT to fight malaria. I look forward to your thoughts on 

the matter, Dr. Roberts. 

I would also like to welcome David Sandalow, of the Brookings Institution, who 

is here to provide the committee with his beliefs on global warming and its perceived effects. 

Finally, we have Richard Benedick, the President of the National Council for 

Science and the Environment. He was one of the authors of the 1987 Montreal Protocol, which was a precursor international framework for dealing with emissions reductions. 

I look forward to hearing the testimony from our witnesses today.

Senator INHOFE. With that, I will turn it over to Senator Jeffords. 
4

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. JEFFORDS, U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Senator JEFFORDS. Mr. Chairman, I know that today’s hearing is 

the one you had hoped to conduct for some time, and certainly 

since the ‘‘State of Fear’’ was published. I want to be clear that my 

support for you in the work we have done together should not be 

diminished by my concern about the timing and the content of today’s hearing. 

I fear I must publicly express my concern on my behalf and the 

minority members of the committee. Chairman, given the profound 

human suffering and ecological damage along the Gulf Coast, why 

are we having a hearing that features a fiction writer as a key witness? Some may accuse me, as a policymaker, of falling into the 

exact policy trap that Mr. Crichton’s book critiques, being too focused on the consequences of the recent large-scale natural disasters and our Nation’s policy response to them. If Mr. Crichton’s 

book, ‘‘State of Fear’’, a terrorist ring is developed to cause environmental destruction and bring attention to environmental issues. 

I assure you, Mr. Chairman, that unlike these characters in 

‘‘State of Fear’’, I did not cause the two Gulf hurricanes in order 

to prompt this committee and this Government into action. The 

damage caused by the two Gulf storms is not fiction. As far as I 

am aware, no one on the minority side of this committee has advocated that the storms should be used as justification for the adoption of wild-eyed drastic new policy initiatives. Instead, the destruction we have witnessed in recent weeks raises serious scientific questions that need to be answered in very near term. 

We should be looking into the role of the science in making critical response and recovery decisions. We need to incorporate scientific information as we develop programs to help prevent future 

flood damage. How will we determine the appropriate health and 

environmental standards for rehabilitation in inundated areas? 

What does science tell us about the best ways to reconstruct in the 

Gulf region? Should we be engaging in enhanced wetland protection and reconstruction to possibly protect against the severity of 

future storms? 

We should be asking these questions and getting answers expeditiously, as much as we may want to be focusing our attention on 

the longer term interaction between science and the decisionmaking process. I would also say in my 30 years in the Congress, 

that I have been proud of some of the decisions we have made, 

even in the absence of perfect scientific information. We authorized 

a Brownfields program to help cleanup our cities and towns. We 

did so even though in the decade since we passed the Superfund, 

we have continued to learn about the nature of toxic substances 

and the best ways to remediate them. 

As one of our witnesses will testify, the Senate ratified the Montreal Protocol to address ozone-depleting substances, even though 

there was some scientific uncertainty as that agreement was negotiated. Sometimes we need to act to preserve or even improve 

human health and the environment, even though we don’t have the 

perfect information we wish we had. 

We certainly would not want to wait until there is substantial 

scientific evidence of human suffering or death. In my opinion, that 
5

is too long. We all recognize that one man’s credible science is another man’s baloney. 

Mr. Chairman, at the same time that this hearing is being held, 

there is also a Finance Committee hearing on Hurricane Katrina, 

where the Governors of each of the affected States will be testifying. As a member of that committee, I plan to attend that hearing and will not be able to stay for all of this hearing. I ask, Mr. 

Chairman, that I be able to submit written questions to the witnesses and that I am able to submit additional scientific information into the record of the topics raised by the witnesses. 

Senator INHOFE. Without objection, so ordered. 

Senator JEFFORDS. I am anxious to hear from these Governors 

who may help us to better understand how the Federal Agencies 

we oversee in this committee may have let them down and how our 

committee can act to improve the crucial functioning of these agencies. 

This week I will introduce legislation that the minority side of 

the committee believes is necessary to respond to the Gulf hurricanes. I think those affected by these disasters deserve nothing less 

than our full attention when they are most in need. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Jeffords follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. JEFFORDS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE

STATE OF VERMONT

Mr. Chairman, I know that today’s hearing is one you have hoped to conduct for 

some time, certainly since ‘‘State of Fear’’ was published. I want to be clear that 

my support for you, and the work we have done together, should not be diminished 

by my concern about the timing and content of today’s hearing. But, I feel I must 

publicly express that concern on my own behalf and that of the minority members 

of this committee. 

Mr. Chairman, given the profound human suffering and ecological damage along 

the Gulf Coast, why are we having a hearing that features a fiction writer as our 

key witness? Some may accuse me, as a policy maker, of falling into the exact policy 

trap that Mr. Crichton’s book critiques—being too focused on the consequences of 

the recent large scale natural disasters and our Nation’s policy response to them. 

In Mr. Crichton’s book, ‘‘State of Fear’’, a terrorist ring is deployed to cause environmental destruction and bring attention to environmental issues. I assure you, 

Mr. Chairman, that unlike these characters in ‘‘State of Fear’’, I did not cause the 

two Gulf hurricanes in order to prompt this committee and this government into action. 

The damage caused by these two Gulf storms is not fiction. As far as I am aware, 

no one on the minority side of this committee has advocated that these storms 

should be used as the justification for the adoption of wild-eyed, drastic new policy 

initiatives. Instead, the destruction we have witnessed in recent weeks raises serious scientific questions that need to be answered in the very near term. 

We should be looking into the role of science in making critical response and recovery decisions. We need to incorporate scientific information as we develop programs to help prevent future flood damage. How will we determine the appropriate 

health and environmental standards for re-habitation of inundated areas? What 

does science tell us about the best ways to reconstruct in the Gulf Region? Should 

we be engaging in enhanced wetland protection and reconstruction to possibly protect against the severity of future storms? 

We should be asking those questions and getting answers expeditiously, as much 

as we may want to be focusing our attention on the longer term interaction between 

science and decision making. 

I should also say, in my 30 years in Congress, that I have been proud of some 

of the decisions we’ve made, even in the absence of perfect scientific information. 

We authorized a Brownfields program to help clean up our cities and towns. We did 

so even though in the decades since we passed Superfund we have continued to 

learn about the nature of toxic substances and the best ways to remediate them. 
6

As one of our witnesses will testify, the Senate ratified the Montreal Protocol to 

address ozone-depleting substances, even though there was some scientific uncertainty as that agreement was negotiated. 

Sometimes we need to act to preserve or even improve human health and the environment even when we don’t have perfect information. We certainly would not 

want to wait until there is substantial scientific evidence of human suffering or 

death; in my opinion that is too long. We all recognize that one man’s credible 

science is another man’s boloney. 

Mr. Chairman, at the same time that this hearing is being held, there is also a 

Finance Committee hearing on Hurricane Katrina where the Governors of each of 

the affected States will be testifying. As a member of that committee, I plan to attend that hearing and will not be able to stay for all of this hearing. 

I ask Mr.Chairman that I be able to submit written questions to the witnesses, 

and that I am also able to submit additional scientific information into the record 

on the topics raised by the witnesses. 

I am anxious to hear from these Governors who may help us to better understand 

how the Federal Agencies we oversee in this committee may have let them down, 

and how, or if our committee can act to improve the crucial functioning of these 

agencies. 

This week, I will introduce legislation that the minority side of this committee believes is necessary to respond to the Gulf hurricanes. I think those affected by those 

disasters deserve nothing less than our full attention when they are most in need.

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Jeffords. Since, in your 

opening statement, you ask a question of me, I will take the Chairman’s prerogative and answer that question. Since Katrina we 

have had nearly 10 briefings for staff members, including two 

closed door member briefings from the Army Corps of Engineers, 

as well as the Environmental Protection Agency. I would say that 

we only had two people, you and Senator Boxer were the only two 

that showed up. As Chairman, I have been down there to the sites 

in all three States. We will be holding multiple hearings on 

Katrina beginning next week. 

That hearing is coming at the right time. I would remind you 

that following the attacks on 9/11, this committee did not hold its 

first oversight hearing on 9/11 until over a month after the attacks. 

From 9/11 until that hearing, the committee did not shut down; we 

held hearings unrelated to 9/11 and even a 2-day conference on 

Senator Jeffords P4 bill. That was the Climate bill that you had. 

So we have been asked by the Senators from the Gulf States, one 

of whom is here now, to not hold any immediate hearings that 

would divert recovery assets from the Gulf. Just as Chairman Jeffords waited an appropriate time following the attacks of 9/11, I 

have done the same thing. So I don’t think this is at all inappropriate to hold this hearing at this time. 

Senator Isakson. 

Senator ISAKSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the interest of 

time and hearing from the distinguished panel, I have just two 

statements that I would like to make. 

Senator INHOFE. I appreciate that. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHNNY ISAKSON, U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA 

Senator ISAKSON. My two statements are, one, I appreciate the 

Chair conducting this hearing and getting such a distinguished 

panel.+

Second, at the risk of seeming to pander, I would like to tell Dr. 

Crichton and thank him for the countless hours of entertainment 

he has given me on Delta Airlines back and forth to Washington 
7

over many, many years. I have read ‘‘State of Fear’’ and I found 

it very educational, very knowledgeable, and very entertaining. 

Thank you, Dr. Crichton. 

Senator INHOFE. All right. Senator Clinton. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Senator CLINTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to certainly support Senator Jeffords’ efforts to come up 

with legislation. I look forward to the hearings you will be holding 

next week. 

I have to say, Mr. Chairman, I think that the topic of this hearing is a very important one. Unfortunately, I think the hearing is 

organized in a way that will muddy the issues around sound 

science, rather than helping us clarify them. 

First, with all respect to the extraordinary entertainment value 

and success of Dr. Crichton’s works, his views on climate change 

are at odds with the vast majority of climate scientists. More importantly, his critique of climate change science appears in a work 

of fiction. It is a work of fiction even if it has footnotes, Mr. Chairman. His views have not been peer reviewed; they do not appear 

in any scientific journal. 

I won’t go into an assessment of Mr. Crichton’s critique point by 

point, because we don’t have time. However, I do want to submit 

for the record a document prepared by the Union of Concerned Scientists that rebuts Mr. Crichton’s primary arguments. 

[The referenced document can be found on page 95.] 

In addition, I want to submit a document prepared by James 

Hanson, Director of the Columbia University Earth Institute and 

Goddard Institute for Space Studies. In this document, Mr. Hanson 

details the distortions of his climate change predictions made by 

Mr. Crichton in his best selling novel. 

[The referenced document can be found on page 83.] 

Rather than focusing on Mr. Crichton’s testimony, however, I 

would like to focus on several broader points about environmental 

policymaking and the record of this Administration, because I 

think this Administration has taken the politicization of science to 

new levels. That is not just my opinion; it is the opinion of hundreds of prominent scientists, 49 Nobel laureates, 63 National 

Medal of Science recipients, 154 members of the National Academies, and thousands of other scientists who have signed a statement criticizing the Administration’s misuse and politicization of 

science. I want to read just a brief excerpt from that statement. 

‘‘When scientific knowledge has been found to be in conflict with 

its political goals, the administration has often manipulated the 

process through which science enters into its decisions. This has 

been done by placing people who are professionally unqualified or 

who have clear conflicts of interest in official posts and on scientific 

advisory committees, by disbanding existing advisory committees, 

by censoring and suppressing reports by the Government’s own scientists, and by simply not seeking independent scientific advice. 

Other administrations have, on occasion, engaged in such practices, 

but not so systematically nor on so wide a front. 
8

Furthermore, in advocating policies that are not scientifically 

sound, the administration has sometimes misrepresented scientific 

knowledge and misled the public about the implications of its policies. For example, in support of the President’s decision to avoid 

regulating emissions that cause climate change, the administration 

has consistently misrepresented the findings of the National Academy of Sciences, government scientists, and the expert community 

at large. 

Thus, in June 2003, the White House demanded extensive 

changes in the treatment of climate change in a major report by 

the Environmental Protection Agency. To avoid issuing a scientifically indefensible report, EPA officials eviscerated the discussion 

of climate change and its consequences.’’

Mr. Chairman, I ask that the full statement be included in the 

record. 

Senator INHOFE. Without objection. 

[The referenced report can be found on page 85.] 

Senator CLINTON. Now, unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, the Administration has not only misused scientific data, they have also 

underfunded basic science. Funding for scientific research has flatlined over the past few years. This year the Administration’s proposed budget actually calls for a decrease in real dollars for federally funded research. Most of the R&D budget increases that did 

occur in the President’s budget were for new defense weapons systems, not for basic research in electronics, nanotechnology, computing, energy, physics, and all of the other sciences. 

I believe the U.S. is in real danger of losing its lead in science 

and advanced technology. Federal R&D plays a critical role in the 

education and training of future scientists and engineers, technological innovation, advancing health, increasing economic growth 

and competitiveness. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, I am not, unfortunately, going to be able to 

stay for the entire panel, but I want to just make a few additional 

brief comments. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Clinton, I am very, very sorry. We are 

all adhering to the time limit. 

Senator CLINTON. Mr. Chairman, if I could just get 1-minute. I 

just want to make a comment about a few of the witnesses——

Senator INHOFE. Senator Boxer, would you like to yield her one 

of your minutes? 

Senator CLINTON. I wouldn’t ask that. But I think actually I may 

say something you agree with, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. I would ask unanimous consent that the Senator 

from New York have an additional 60 seconds. 

Senator INHOFE. Without objection, so ordered. 

Senator CLINTON. Thank you. 

I want to thank the panelists. Although I think that the point 

of the hearing is misleading, I think that some of the testimony 

from the panelists is very important. I want to thank Dr. Roberts 

for making it clear that there are questions that need to be raised 

about DDT. I think that is an essential issue that we need to look 

at. We can’t necessarily turn the clock back, but I think the threat 

of malaria is real. 
9

I also want to thank Mr. Sandalow. I agree with you about the 

National Academy of Sciences request that you put in your testimony. 

Finally, I want to thank Ambassador Benedick. Your testimony 

about what can happen if people act in good faith is absolutely inspiring. The Montreal Protocol did risk imposing substantial shortrun economic dislocations, even though the evidence was incomplete. But as your testimony demonstrates and as you conclude in 

your testimony, politics is the art of taking good decisions on insufficient evidence based on the best possible science. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Clinton follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON U.S. SENATOR FROM

THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by echoing the comments of our Ranking Member, 

Senator Jeffords, who observed that the committee’s time and energy would be better spent working on Katrina response. 

Having said that, I think we can all agree that science is an indispensable part 

of environmental policy making. 

Clearly, examining the proper role of science in policy making is a worthy subject 

for a hearing of this committee. 

Unfortunately, I think this hearing is organized in a way that will muddy this 

issue rather than clarifying it. 

First, the views of Mr. Crichton on climate change are at odds with the vast majority of climate scientists. More importantly, Mr. Crichton’s critiques of climate 

change science appear in a work of fiction. His views have not been peer reviewed. 

They do not appear in any scientific journal. 

I won’t go through an assessment of Mr. Crichton’s critique point-by-point. However, I do want to submit for the record a document prepared by the Union of Concerned Scientists that rebuts Mr. Crichton’s primary arguments. In addition, I want 

to submit a document prepared by James Hansen, director of the Columbia University Earth Institute and Goddard Institute for Space Studies. In this document, Mr. 

Hansen details distortions of his climate change predictions made by Mr. Crichton. 

Rather than focusing on Mr. Crichton’s testimony, however, I would like to make 

several broader points about environmental policy making and the record of this Administration. 

Because I think that this Administration has taken politicization of science to new 

levels. 

That’s not just my opinion, it’s the opinion of hundreds of prominent scientists. 

49 Nobel laureates, 63 National Medal of Science recipients, 154 members of the 

National Academies and thousands of other scientists have signed a statement criticizing the Administration’s misuse of science. 

I want to read a brief excerpt from that statement. ‘‘When scientific knowledge 

has been found to be in conflict with its political goals, the administration has often 

manipulated the process through which science enters into its decisions. This has 

been done by placing people who are professionally unqualified or who have clear 

conflicts of interest in official posts and on scientific advisory committees; by disbanding existing advisory committees; by censoring and suppressing reports by the 

Government’s own scientists; and by simply not seeking independent scientific advice. Other administrations have, on occasion, engaged in such practices, but not so 

systematically nor on so wide a front. Furthermore, in advocating policies that are 

not scientifically sound, the administration has sometimes misrepresented scientific 

knowledge and misled the public about the implications of its policies. 

For example, in support of the president’s decision to avoid regulating emissions 

that cause climate change, the administration has consistently misrepresented the 

findings of the National Academy of Sciences, government scientists, and the expert 

community at large. Thus in June 2003, the White House demanded extensive 

changes in the treatment of climate change in a major report by the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA). To avoid issuing a scientifically indefensible report, EPA 

officials eviscerated the discussion of climate change and its consequences.’’

Mr. Chairman, I ask that the full statement be included in the record. 

Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, the Administration has not only misused scientific 

data; they have underfunded basic science. 
10

Funding for scientific research has flat-lined over the past few years. This year, 

the Administration’s proposed budget actually called for a decrease in real dollars 

for federally funded research [from $55.2 billion to $54.8 billion, a 0.6 percent reduction] 

Most of the R&D budget increases that did occur in the President’s budget were 

for new defense weapons systems, not for basic research in electronics, 

nanotechnology computing, energy and physics 

The U.S. is in real danger of losing its lead in science and advanced technology. 

Federal R&D plays a critical role in the education and training of future scientists 

and engineers, technological innovation, advancing health, increasing economic 

growth and competitiveness, and increasing national and homeland security. We 

need to do better. 

I hope that at a later date, we can have a more rounded discussion of this issue 

that includes an opportunity to ask Administration witnesses to answer for the way 

that they have used science in environmental policy making.

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Clinton. 

Senator BOND. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI 

Senator BOND. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Obviously, 

this is going to be an exciting hearing. Unfortunately, I have to go 

to a fiscal responsibility budget meeting on Katrina. We will let the 

discussion continue on what caused Katrina as we try to figure out 

what to pay for and how to pay for it. I do want to say that I believe it is time that we had a thorough airing of how scientific evidence either does or does not influence the policymakers and legislation and Administration. 

I might just point out—and maybe Dr. Sandalow would want to 

expand upon it—in the previous Administration there were complaints directed against the EPA and the State Department, which 

apparently once urged Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change to alter a chapter in a scientific report specifically to delete 

phrases that cast scientific doubts on human influences on climate. 

In fact, one scientist admitted doing so to satisfy the State Department, and that may be an interesting area for further discussion. 

I have seen too many areas where science has been misused, 

causing policy decisions that are not warranted or justified, and examples over the years where there have been harsh and sweeping 

policy decisions, either outdated, grossly exaggerated, or highly 

misleading. In some decisions, existing relevant information seems 

to have been ignored. We see, in my State, places where faulty 

science has had far-reaching policy decisions affecting the livelihoods and the lives of thousands of individuals, families, and businesses. 

We have heard on the DDT, where excessive concern over DDT 

may have been causing tremendous deaths from malaria. In my 

State, unsound scientific guesses have led to the possibility of flooding and risking lives, man-made flooding as a result of mandated 

spring rises when the rivers are already high, and potential devastation of agricultural livelihood of many areas of our State where 

our most bountiful crops are grown in the flood plane. 

I am reading, and will continue to read, the opening statements 

of our distinguished panel. Dr. Gray, I was most interested to see 

how you have been dismayed by science and media hype over nuclear winter and human endorsed global warming hypothesis. I 
11

think that will be an interesting subject to pursue in light of 

Katrina. 

I too have read ‘‘State of Fear’’. Even though it was not assigned 

by our Chairman, I read it because, No. 1, it was interesting fiction. Also I found the scientific footnotes to be of great interest. We 

met with representatives of a leading environmental organization 

who had a whole list of rebuttals to this. 

So I asked my staff to pursue the thesis that you put forth in 

your footnotes and the rebuttals, and an interesting thing came 

back. They said, well, the rebuttals set up straw men; they attributed to Dr. Crichton things that he did not say. He merely stated 

the great deal of uncertainty. I said, well, what was wrong with Dr. 

Crichton’s thesis, his scientific footnotes? They said nothing that 

we can find. 

The people attacking them chose to misstate his conclusions. If 

you set up a straw man, it is easy to knock him down. 

I know all of you will have an opportunity to respond to straw 

men, legitimate questions and others, and I look forward to reading 

the record. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Bond. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman, and 

thank you for inviting the members of this distinguished panel to 

testify here today. We are, among the group, honored to have Dr. 

Crichton here, a physician by training, best known, however, as a 

writer of fiction and movies. The book Jurassic Park was made into 

a film that ranks among the 10 highest grossing movies of all 

times. I have 10 grandchildren; they reported back to me and they 

liked it, so I will use them as the yardstick and say that nobody 

can dispute Dr. Crichton’s talent as a writer of science fiction. 

But our community needs science facts. In his latest book, ‘‘State 

of Fear’’, Dr. Crichton expresses his doubt that global warming 

poses a real threat to our planet. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, I have a full statement that I am going to 

ask to be included in the record. 

Senator INHOFE. Without objection, that will be the case. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I will use the balance of my time to relate 

a personal experience. I went down to the South Pole a couple 

years ago because I wanted to see what was happening with the 

National Science Foundation. I found there alarming conclusions 

that the supply of fresh water that was stored in the ice was disappearing at a rapid rate, that there was a huge ice melt. We know 

that Ward’s Island and other significant chunks of the Antarctica 

were afloat in the ocean, disappearing into the salt water. 

You have to say, without having the scientific discussion that we 

would like to have here one day, Mr. Chairman, this one, but I 

would like to see us have another one and maybe have representation from the Union of Concerned Scientists, National Academy of 

Sciences, because I think that we are getting into an area of subjective thinking that represents a great danger for us currently and 

in the future, and you see so much evidence of it. 
12

Now, I learned in my trip to the Antarctica and the South Pole 

that, if one goes to Australia, that the hole in the ozone layer and, 

thereby, the global warming that exists, is a threat to child health. 

If children go to the beaches there, they are compelled to wear full 

bathing suits, hats, etc. and the rate of melanoma in Australia almost exceeds that of other countries around the world by a substantial margin. 

So as we look at the challenge that is raised here today, the 

thing that perplexes me is—and if I am able to stay, I will; otherwise, I am going to submit questions in writing, Mr. Chairman, 

and hope that I will be able to get an answer back—is there any 

agreement at all that the earth is getting warmer? 

The Defense Department commissioned a report in 2003 that 

presented an ominous picture of what the last half of the twentyfirst century might look like, with flooding in all kinds of places, 

including The Netherlands and Bangladesh, and suggesting that 

the military be prepared to fight off those seeking higher ground, 

those seeking survival, and attempting the worst dangers that nature can offer on oceans and mountains and you name it to get to 

safer ground. So we can dismiss these things by challenges that 

don’t necessarily bear the scientific approvals that make it more 

valid. 

I hope, Mr. Chairman, before we finish these studies of ours, that 

we will have gone to all sides of the issue. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Lautenberg follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, U.S. SENATOR FROM

THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

Mr. Chairman, thank you for convening this hearing. 

We’re honored to have with us today Michael Crichton, a medical doctor by training who is best known as a writer of fiction and movies. 

His book ‘‘Jurassic Park’’ was made into a film that ranks among the 10 highest 

grossing movies of all time. I have 10 grandchildren so I know it well. 

In ‘‘Jurassic Park’’, Dr. Crichton concocted a fascinating tale about scientists who 

clone dinosaurs using DNA from fossils. 

Nobody can dispute Dr. Crichton’s talent as a writer of science fiction. 

But this committee needs scientific facts, not science fiction. 

His latest book, ‘‘State of Fear’’ expresses doubt that global warming poses a real 

threat to our planet. 

If we learned tomorrow that scientists had cloned dinosaurs from DNA in fossils, 

Mr. Crichton would be hailed for his astute prediction. 

But most scientists who have devoted their whole lives to studying such issues 

do not dismiss the threat of global warming. 

Everyone agrees that the Earth is getting warmer. The last 4 years have been 

among the five hottest years on record. 

And the projections for the future are not comforting. 

It’s a fact that hurricanes draw their power from warm waters in the ocean. For 

years, climate scientists have warned that higher ocean temperatures would spawn 

more powerful storms. 

And in fact, we do have more powerful storms today than we did just a few decades ago. 

Just this month, the Journal Science reported that the proportion of storms that 

achieve Category four or five status has almost doubled since the 1970s. 

Yet even when the warnings of climate scientists are borne out, some people cling 

to denial. 

It might make a good story to imagine that the threat of global warming is a concoction of groups with a political agenda. 

But we need scientific facts not science fiction. 

Here’s another fact: once greenhouse gases enter our atmosphere, they remain 

there for a long time. There is nothing we can do to remove them. 
13

So every day that we fail to act, the potential consequences grow worse. 

By refusing to act, we are gambling on the outside chance that most of the scientists are wrong. 

Let’s not take that gamble with the future of our children and grandchildren. 

Let’s enjoy science fiction like Jurassic Park but let’s base our decisions on scientific facts. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Lautenberg. 

Senator Murkowski. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too want to 

thank you for scheduling this very important hearing, and look forward to hearing from the witnesses. It is unfortunate that we have 

so much going on this morning and that so many of us won’t be 

able to stay. I intend to stay for as long as I possibly can, so I will 

be sitting here with you to listen to the comments. 

Our job in the Senate here is to understand the issues, to make 

the decisions based on our understanding and to form public policy 

based on those decisions. Very often our subjects come from areas 

in which we have very little personal involvement or expertise, so 

we have to depend on expert witnesses. They educate us on the 

range of viewpoints, present us with the relevant factors, and, if we 

are lucky, they can cut through the ticket of contradicting claims. 

Unfortunately, sometimes we are not always lucky. Sometimes 

we see eminent scientists who provide us with only part of the 

story, the part of the story that might suit them. That is unfortunate, because when we only have half of the story, half of the story 

can result in bad decisions, and bad decisions lead to bad policy, 

and bad policy leads to a loss of trust. That, Mr. Chairman, is 

something that we simply can’t afford, not as individuals, and certainly not as a Country. 

Now, as an Alaskan, I have watched how several episodes of poor 

decisionmaking based on poor or perhaps incomplete information 

results in what we consider to be poor policies and negative impacts, whether they be impacts to our fishing industry or our mining industry or our forest products industry and others. Real people 

are affected by these decisions that are made. 

Now, many of these decisions have been based on an approach 

often called the precautionary principle. This term is generally interpreted to mean that one should take action to prevent harm, 

even if the harm has not yet been determined to exist or there is 

still uncertainty about its cause. While the sentiment for that is 

laudable, it may not always be justifiable. From a scientific or 

science perspective, the first and most important precautionary 

principle may be to refrain from any action unless both the harm 

and the efficacy of the proposed action are both understood and understood well enough to avoid unintended adverse consequences. 

Mr. Chairman, I think that this discussion is long overdue. Speculation on consequences or remedies can be a dangerous path, particularly when the proposed solutions themselves can be damaging 

to our interests. So I look forward to the comments this morning 

from this very distinguished panel, and hopefully an ongoing dialog 

in this vein. Thank you. 
14

[The prepared statement of Senator Murkowski follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR FROM

THE STATE OF ALASKA

Mr. Chairman, thank you for scheduling this important hearing. I look forward 

to hearing from all our distinguished witnesses. 

Our job is to understand issues, to make decisions based on our understanding, 

and to form public policy from those decisions. 

Very often our subjects come from areas in which we have little personal involvement or expertise, so we necessarily depend on expert witnesses. They educate us 

on the range of viewpoints, present us with relevant facts, and if we are lucky, they 

cut through thickets of contradicting claims. 

Unfortunately, we aren’t often that lucky. We’ve all watched eminent scientists 

provide only the parts of the story that suit them. We all know it’s human nature 

for them to do so, no matter how illustrious their reputations. Most of us, I think, 

have learned that blowing smoke doesn’t always mean there is a fire. Sometimes 

it’s only smoke and mirrors. 

The result of smoke and mirrors is bad decisions, whether they are made by Congress or by an executive branch agency. Bad decisions lead to bad policy, and bad 

policy leads to the loss of trust. That, Mr. Chairman, is something we simply cannot 

afford. Not as individuals and not as a country. 

As an Alaskan I’ve watched several episodes of poor decision-making based on 

poor information and resulting in poor policies and negative impacts to our fishing 

industry, or mining industry, our forest products industry and others. Real people 

are affected by those decisions. 

Many of those decisions have been based on an approach often called the ‘‘precautionary principle.’’ This term is generally interpreted to mean one should take 

action to prevent harm even if ‘‘harm’’ has not yet been determined to exist, or there 

is still uncertainty about its cause. 

The sentiment for that is laudable, but not always justifiable. From a science perspective, the first and most important ‘‘precautionary principle’’ may be to refrain 

from action unless both the harm and the efficacy of the proposed action are understood well enough to avoid unintended adverse consequences. 

I think this discussion is long overdue. Speculation on consequences or remedies 

can create a dangerous path, particularly when the proposed solutions themselves 

can be damaging to our interests. I look forward to the witnesses’ comments on the 

matter.

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Murkowski. 

Senator Boxer. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to the 

entire panel. 

In this committee it is our job to talk about sound science. It is 

not in our committee rules to discuss novels or plays or TV shows 

or movies, although, as a Senator from California, I appreciate my 

chairman’s focus on the arts, because it is very important to me. 

I think we all agree that higher ocean temperatures result in 

stronger storms. I don’t think that is a debate. The supposed disagreement is over the cause of the higher ocean temperatures. But, 

in truth, if you look at who lines up on each side of this, I don’t 

really think there is a disagreement among the real experts that 

a key contributor to rising ocean temperatures is global warming. 

The leading scientists around the world have overwhelmingly accepted this proposition. I have a chart here I would like to show 

you. 

You see here the organizations that support the existence of climate change: National Academy of Sciences, American Geophysical 

Union, American Association for the Advancement of Science, 
15

American Meteorological Society representing 48,000 members 

now, National Sciences Academies of France, Germany, Italy, Canada, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, Brazil, India, and China. 

Now, on the other side you have individuals. I won’t go through 

their names. They are from different institutes: the George Marshall Institute, American Enterprise Institute, Competitive Enterprise, American Enterprises, again Competitive Enterprise—so 

these are duplicates here of some reason—Frazier Institute, Cato 

Institute, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global 

Change, a gentleman who is here today from Colorado State University, American Council for Capital Formation, and a gentleman 

from the Science and Environmental Policy Project. Every one of 

these except two are supported by a huge oil company. So let us 

get it straight in terms of who fits on what side. 

So, yes, there are a few dissenters on the issue, but they receive 

major support from the industries that would have to pay a price 

if in fact we move forward on global warming and doing something 

about it. 

So given what we know about the devastating effects of hurricanes and the threats caused by global warming—which could include flooding of our coastal cities, loss of agriculture, irreparable 

damage to ecosystems—I think we have to focus on fact, not fiction. 

How do we resolve it? 

So I think we must set aside all of our disagreements—and we 

will have disagreements, Mr. Chairman—on DDT and what alternatives there may be and our disagreements on other things. However I think we agree that—and I hope we would agree, and I know 

the Corps agrees—protection of wetlands would be a positive step 

in helping protect us against hurricanes. 

So for the remainder of my time, I want to show you a chart, a 

picture of a situation where you see how the wetlands act as a buffer. Here you have the ocean. Here you have a very healthy wetland 

and here you have the land. When we were briefed—and Mr. 

Chairman, I do appreciate the meetings that you called—I learned 

so much. 

When the Corps spoke to us, they basically said that the wetlands act as a cooling down element so that by the time the hurricane reaches where people are, it is not as fierce. It is also a buffer; 

it is also a sponge. So these wetlands are a gift from God. We are 

all beginning to understand better just how valuable they are. 

In my home State of California, I am so sad to tell you that we 

have lost 91 percent of our wetlands. It is disastrous. We are suffering more flooding than ever. Now, in the lower 48, we have lost 

53 percent of our wetlands. Louisiana loses the equivalent of one 

football field of wetlands every 38 minutes. So with our increased 

understanding of the importance of wetlands, I think we can work 

together in this committee, setting aside how we feel about why the 

oceans are warming up. Let us set it aside. Let us do something 

for our Country. 

So thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Boxer. 

Before you speak, I want to make sure everyone here is aware 

that probably Senator Voinovich is the most knowledgeable person 

on air issues. When he was Governor of Ohio, he was chairman of 
16

that committee of the Governors Conference, and it is always an 

honor to have him appear when we are talking about air issues. 

Senator Voinovich. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OHIO 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this 

hearing. 

This is an area of great interest to me and of great concern. I 

have introduced legislation in past Congresses to improve the role 

of science in policy decisions at the Environmental Protection Agency. I believe that by improving science at the Agency we can improve the framework of our regulatory decisions. It is important 

that these regulations be effective, not onerous and inefficient. 

They must be based on a solid foundation of solid understanding 

and data. 

In 2000, the National Research Council recommended changes to 

improve science within the EPA in their report ‘‘Strengthening 

Science at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research 

Management and Peer Review Practices.’’ My legislation, the Environmental Research Enhancement Act, would have implemented 

several of the Council’s recommendations. 

Mr. Chairman, I understand that you are also working on legislation, and I look forward to working with you on it. 

EPA was created in 1970 by President Nixon with the mission 

to protect human health and safeguard the environment. EPA was 

part of President Nixon’s reorganization efforts to effectively ensure 

the protection, development, and enhancement of the total environment. This mission requires the EPA have a fundamental understanding of the science behind the real and potential threats to 

public health and the environment. Unfortunately, many institutions, citizens, and groups believe that science has not always 

played a significant role in EPA’s decisionmaking process. 

The National Research Council’s 2000 report concluded: ‘‘While 

the use of sound science is one of EPA’s goals, the Agency needs 

to change its current structure to allow science to play a more significant role in its decisions made by the administrator.’’

I want to quickly explain how my legislation was designed to improve policymaking at EPA. First, the new Deputy Administrator 

for Science and Technology would be established at EPA. The individual would oversee the Office of Research and Development, Environmental Information Agency, Science Advisory Board, Science 

Policy Council, and scientific and technical activities in the Agency’s regulatory programs. 

This new position would be equal in rank to the current deputy 

administrator and would report directly to the administrator. The 

new deputy would be responsible for coordinating science research 

and application between the scientific and regulatory arms of the 

Agency to ensure that sound science is the basis for decisions. 

Second, EPA’s current top science job, Assistant Administrator 

for Research and Development, would be appointed for 6 years, instead of the current 4-year political appointment. According to the 

Council, this position is one of EPA’s weakest and most transient 

administrative positions, even though this position addresses some 
17

of the Agency’s more important topics. By lengthening the term of 

this position, I had hoped to remove it from the realm of politics, 

allowing the Assistant Administrator to focus on science and providing more continuity in the Agency’s scientific work across administrations. 

I have long believed that sound science, not politics, should drive 

our Nation’s environmental policy. In fact, I believe that in harmonizing our Nation’s economic, environmental, and energy policies, 

that sound science should be the uniting factor. Unfortunately, this 

has not been the case, and we are paying for it in thousands of lost 

jobs and with the highest natural gas prices in the world. And unless we start to harmonize our needs to become more energy independent, we are not going to be able to compete in the global marketplace, and our national economy and our national security will 

continue to be in jeopardy. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Voinovich follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, U.S. SENATOR FROM

THE STATE OF OHIO

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing on the important subject of the 

role of science in environmental policymaking. This is an area of great interest and 

concern for me. 

I have introduced legislation in past Congresses to improve the role of science in 

policy decisions at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). I believe that by improving science at the Agency, we can improve the framework of our regulatory decisions. It is important that these regulations be effective, not onerous and inefficient. 

They must be based on a solid foundation of scientific understanding and data. 

In 2000, the National Research Council recommended changes to improve science 

within the EPA in their report, ‘‘Strengthening Science at the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency: Research Management and Peer Review Practices.’’ My legislation, the Environmental Research Enhancement Act, would have implemented several of the Council’s recommendations. Mr. Chairman, I understand that you are 

also working on legislation, and I look forward to working with you. 

EPA was created in 1970 by President Nixon with a mission to protect human 

health and safeguard the environment. EPA was part of President Nixon’s reorganization efforts to effectively ensure the protection, development, and enhancement 

of the total environment. 

This mission requires that EPA have a fundamental understanding of the science 

behind the real and potential threats to public health and the environment. Unfortunately, many institutions, citizens, and groups believe that science has not always 

played a significant role in EPA’s decision-making process. The National Research 

Council’s 2000 report concluded that, while the use of sound science is one of EPA’s 

goals, the Agency needs to change its current structure to allow science to play a 

more significant role in decisions made by the Administrator. 

I want to quickly explain how my legislation was designed to improve policymaking at EPA. First, a new Deputy Administrator for Science and Technology 

would be established at EPA. This individual would oversee the Office of Research 

and Development; Environmental Information Agency; Science Advisory Board; 

Science Policy Council; and scientific and technical activities in the Agency’s regulatory programs. This new position would be equal in rank to the current Deputy 

Administrator and would report directly to the Administrator. The new Deputy 

would also be responsible for coordinating scientific research and application between the scientific and regulatory arms of the Agency to ensure that sound science 

is the basis for regulatory decisions. 

Second, EPA’s current top science job, Assistant Administrator for Research and 

Development, would be appointed for 6 years instead of the current 4-year political 

appointment. According to the Council, this position is one of EPA’s weakest and 

most transient administrative positions even though this position addresses some of 

the Agency’s more important topics. By lengthening the term of this position, I 

hoped to remove it from the realm of politics allowing the Assistant Administrator 
18

to focus on science and providing more continuity in the Agency’s scientific work 

across administrations. 

I have long believed that sound science, not politics should drive our Nation’s environmental policies. In fact, I believe that in harmonizing our Nation’s economic, 

environmental and energy policies, sound science should be the uniting factor. 

Unfortunately, this has not been the case, and we are paying for it in thousands 

of lost jobs and the highest natural gas prices in the world. Unless we start harmonizing our needs to become more energy independent, we will not be able to compete 

in the global marketplace and our national economy and national security will be 

in jeopardy. 

Mr. Chairman, I again thank you for holding this hearing today.

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Voinovich. 

If any other members come in, we will not recognize them for 

opening statements, because we are going to try to stay on our time 

line. 

Since several statements have been made about the National 

Academy of Sciences, I would like to enter into the record a letter 

from the former president of the National Academy of Sciences to 

the president of the Royal Society. It refutes the charge the Bush 

Administration has ignored the NAS’ recommendations. 

The letter says: ‘‘By appending your own phrase by reducing 

emissions of greenhouse gases to an actual quote from our report, 

you have considerably changed our report’s meaning and intent. As 

you must appreciate, having your own misinterpretation of the U.S. 

Academy work widely quoted in our press has caused considerable 

confusion both at my Academy and in our Government.’’

This entire letter will be entered as part of the record. 

[The referenced letter can be found on page 93.] 

Senator INHOFE. All right, we have already introduced our distinguished panel, and we will start with Dr. Crichton. I would like to 

ask the members of this panel to try to confine your comments to 

a maximum of 10 minutes. We will do our best to accommodate 

you. Don’t feel like you have to take a full 10 minutes, but we will 

try to do that. 

I would like to ask any member who has family with him to introduce that family. 

Dr. Crichton, we are delighted to have you here. Thank you for 

your appearance. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL CRICHTON, M.D., AUTHOR, DOCTOR 

Dr. CRICHTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

committee. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the important 

subject of politicization of——

Senator INHOFE. Aren’t you going to introduce Sherri? 

Dr. CRICHTON. Oh, yes. I am sorry. I am going to pay for that. 

This is my wife, Sherri Alexander, behind me. Sorry, honey. 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. CRICHTON. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the important subject of politicization of research. In that regard, what I 

would like to emphasize to the committee today is the importance 

of independent verification to science. 

In essence, science is nothing more than a method of inquiry. 

The method says an assertion is valid and merits universal acceptance only if it can be independently verified. The impersonal rigor 

of the method means that it is utterly apolitical. 
19

A truth in science is verifiable whether you are black or white, 

male or female, old or young. It’s verifiable whether you like the 

results of the study or whether you don’t. 

Thus, when adhered to, the scientific method can transcend politics. The converse may also be true. When politics take precedent 

over content, it is often because the primacy of independent 

verification has been overwhelmed by competing interests. 

Verification may take several forms. I come from medicine, 

where the gold standard is the randomized double-blind study, 

which has been the paradigm of medical research since the 1940’s. 

In that vein, let me tell you a story. It is 1991 and I am flying 

home from Germany, sitting next to a man who is almost in tears, 

he is so upset. He is a physician involved in an FDA study of a new 

drug. It is a double-blind study involving four separate teams: one 

plans the study, another administers the drug to patients, a third 

assesses the effect on patients, and a fourth analyzes the results. 

The teams do not know each other and are prohibited from personal contact of any sort on peril of contaminating the results. 

This man has been sitting in the Frankfort Airport innocently 

chatting with another man when they discover to their mutual horror they are on two different teams studying the same drug. They 

were required to report their encounter to the FDA, and my companion was now waiting to see if the FDA would declare their 

multi-year, multimillion dollar study invalid because of this chance 

contact. 

For a person with a medical background accustomed to this degree of rigor in research, the protocols of climate science appear 

considerably more relaxed. In climate science, it is permissible for 

raw data to be touched or modified by many hands. Gaps in temperature and proxy records are filled in. Suspect values are deleted 

because a scientist deems them erroneous. A researcher may elect 

to use parts of existing records, ignoring other parts. But the fact 

that the data has been modified in so many ways inevitably raises 

the question of whether the results of a given study are wholly or 

partially caused by the modifications themselves. 

In saying this, I am not casting aspersions on the motives or fairmindedness of climate scientists. Rather, what is at issue is whether the methodology of climate science is sufficiently rigorous to 

yield a reliable result. At the very least, we should want the reassurance of an independent verification by another lab in which they 

would make their own decisions about how to handle the data and 

yet arrive at a similar result. 

Because the fact is that any study where a single team plans the 

research, carries it out, supervises the analysis, and writes their 

own final report carries a very high risk of undetected bias. That 

risk, for example, would automatically preclude the validity of the 

results of a similarly structured study that tested the efficacy of a 

drug. No one would believe it. 

By the same token, any verification of the study by investigators 

with whom the researcher had a professional relationship—people 

with whom, for example, he had published papers in the past—

would not be accepted. That is peer review by pals and is unavoidably biased. Yet, these issues are central to the now familiar story 

of the ‘‘Hockey stick graph’’ and the debate surrounding it. 
20

To summarize it briefly, in 1998–1999, the American climate researcher Michael Mann and his coworkers published an estimate of 

global temperatures from the year 1000 to 1980. Mann’s results appeared to show a spike in recent temperatures that was unprecedented in the last 1,000 years. His alarming report formed the centerpiece of the U.N.’s Third Assessment Report in 2001. 

Mann’s work was criticized from the start, but the real fireworks 

began when two Canadian researchers, McIntyre and McKitrick, 

attempted to replicate Mann’s study. They found grave errors in 

the work, which they detailed in 2003: calculation errors, data used 

twice, data filled in, and a computer program that generated a 

hockey stick out of any data fed to it, even random data. 

Mann’s work has since been dismissed by scientists around the 

world who subscribe to global warming. Why did the U.N. accept 

Mann’s report so uncritically? Why didn’t they catch the errors? 

Because the IPCC doesn’t do independent verification. Perhaps also 

because Mann himself was in charge of that section of the report 

that included his own work. 

The hockey stick controversy drags on. But I would direct the 

committee’s attention to three aspects of this story. First, 6 years 

passed between Mann’s publication and the first detailed account 

of errors in his work. This is simply too long for policymakers to 

wait for validated results. 

Second, the flaws in Mann’s work were not caught by climate scientists but, rather, by outsiders, in this case, an economist and a 

mathematician. They had to go to great lengths to obtain their data 

from Mann’s team, which obstructed them at every turn. When the 

Canadians sought help from the NSA, which was the funding 

Agency, they were told that Mann was under no obligation to provide his data to other researchers for independent verification. 

Third, this kind of stonewalling is not unique. The Canadians are 

now attempting to replicate other climate studies and are getting 

the same runaround from other researchers. One prominent scientist told them: ‘‘Why should I make the data available to you, 

when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.’’

Even further, some scientists complain the task of archiving is 

so time-consuming as to prevent them from getting any work done. 

This is nonsense. Today we can burn data to a CD or post it at an 

FTP site for downloading. Archiving data is so easy it should have 

become standard practice a decade ago. Government grants should 

require a ‘‘replication package’’ as part of funding. Posting the 

package online should be a prerequisite to journal publication. 

There is really no reason to exclude anyone from reviewing the 

data. 

Of course, replication takes time. Policy makers need sound answers to the questions they ask. A faster way to get them might 

be to give research grants for important projects to three independent teams simultaneously. A provision of the grant would be 

that at the end of the study period, all three papers would be published together, with each group commenting on the findings of the 

others. I believe this would be the fastest way to get verified answers to important questions. 

But if independent verification is the heart of science, what 

should policymakers do with research that is unverifiable? For ex-
21

ample, the U.N. Third Assessment Report defines general circulation climate models as unverifiable. If that is true, are their predictions of any use to policymakers? 

I would argue they are not. Senator Boxer says that we need 

science fact, and I completely agree. But the unavoidable truth is 

that a prediction is never a fact. 

In any case, if policymakers decide to weight their decisions in 

favor of verified research, that will provoke an effort by climate scientists to demonstrate their concerns using objectively verifiable 

data. I think we will all be better for it. 

In closing, I want to state emphatically that nothing in my remarks should be taken to imply that we can ignore our environment or that we should not take climate change seriously. On the 

contrary, we must dramatically improve our record on environmental management. That is why a focused effort on climate 

science aimed at securing a sound, independently verified answers 

to policy questions is so important now. 

I would remind the committee that in the end it is the proper 

function of government to set standards for the integrity of information it uses to make policy. Those who argue that government 

should refrain from mandating quality standards for scientific research—and that includes some professional organizations—are 

merely self-serving. In an information society, public safety depends on the integrity of public information. Only Government can 

perform that task. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Dr. Crichton, for an excellent statement. 

Mr. Benedick. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RICHARD E. BENEDICK, 

PRESIDENT, NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE AND THE 

ENVIRONMENT 

Mr. BENEDICK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Without a reminder, 

I would like to introduce my fiancee, Irene Federwisch, who has 

come here from Berlin, and who is not a fan of Environment Minister Trittin. 

This is actually the first time that I have appeared not as a government witness, so it is kind of a new feeling. 

Since 1994 I have been President of the National Council for 

Science and the Environment, which is an organization dedicated 

to improving the scientific basis for environmental decisionmaking, 

and in this context I would like to express appreciation to Senator 

Voinovich for his initiatives to improve science at the Environmental Protection Agency. 

During the 1980’s, I served under President Reagan as Deputy 

Assistant Secretary of State for Environment. In 1985 I was designated by Secretary of State George Schultz and then Assistant 

Secretary John Negroponte to be the chief U.S. negotiator for a 

treaty to regulate certain chemicals suspected of depleting the 

stratospheric ozone layer. 

I have submitted more extensive written testimony, which I will 

summarize today. It tells the story of a remarkable collaboration 
22

between scientists and government in the development of public 

policy under conditions of risk and uncertainty. 

CFCs and related halons seemed to be ideal manmade chemicals. 

Invented in the 1930’s, they found more uses in thousands of products and processes: in pharmaceuticals, in agriculture, in electronics, in defense and agriculture and telecommunications, just to 

name a few. CFCs became virtually synonymous with modern 

standards of living. 

Billions of dollars of international investment and hundreds of 

thousands of jobs were involved in their production and consumption. Powerful governments in Europe aligned with global economic 

interests in adamant opposition to controls, maintaining that alternatives were nonexistent or too costly or unfeasible. 

Most other governments and peoples were unaware or indifferent 

to an arcane threat occurring 30 miles above earth’s surface. As an 

Indian diplomat admonished me: ‘‘Rich man’s problem—rich man’s 

solution.’’

Perhaps most significant, during the negotiations the arguments 

for controlling CFCs rested on unproved scientific theories that 

these useful chemicals could damage the stratospheric ozone layer 

that protects life on earth from harmful solar radiation. The 

science was based on projections from still-evolving computer models of imperfectly understood atmospheric processes, models that 

yielded varying, and even sometimes contradictory predictions, 

each time they were refined. 

Nevertheless, after contentious international negotiations, a 

strong control treaty was signed in Montreal in September 1987, 

just 18 years ago. The treaty was hailed in the U.S. Senate as ‘‘the 

most significant international environmental agreement in history.’’ 

President Reagan became the first head of state to endorse the 

Montreal Protocol, pronouncing it, ‘‘a monumental achievement of 

science and diplomacy,’’ and the treaty was unanimously ratified by 

the Senate. 

The most extraordinary aspect of the Protocol was that it imposed significant short-term costs in order to protect human health 

and the environment against future dangers that rested on scientific theories rather than on proven facts. Unlike past environmental agreements, this was not a response to harmful events but, 

rather, preventive action on a global scale. 

Even so, it was a near thing. For decades no one had suspected 

that these wonder-chemicals could cause any harm. They had been 

thoroughly tested by customary industrial standards and declared 

completely safe. Possible effects 30 miles above the earth had simply never been considered. 

Unquestionably, the indispensable element in the success of the 

Montreal Protocol was the role of science and scientists. Without 

the curiosity and courage of a handful of researchers in the mid–

1970’s, the world might have learned too late of the hidden dangers. 

Ozone’s existence was unknown until 1839, and it has been characterized by NOAA scientists as ‘‘the single most important chemically active trace gas in the earth’s atmosphere.’’ The ozone layer, 

at its historic natural concentrations and diffusion, is simply essential for life as it currently exists on earth. 
23

Astonishingly, the research paths leading to the suspicion that 

the ozone layer was in jeopardy had been serendipitous. Scientists 

had not set out intentionally to condemn chlorofluorocarbons. The 

serious theoretical dangers prompted a wave of new scientific research over the following years, led by our own NASA, NOAA, and 

the National Academy of Sciences. 

Even as negotiators were hammering out the final compromises 

in Montreal, an unprecedented international scientific expedition 

was underway in Antarctica. Using specially designed equipment 

placed in balloons, satellites, a DC–8 flying laboratory, and a converted high-altitude U–2 spy aircraft, scientists were tracking 

stratospheric chemical reactions and measuring minute concentrations of gases. 

Six months later the results came out and were stunning. No 

longer a theory, ozone layer depletion had at last been substantiated by hard evidence. CFCs and halons were now implicated beyond dispute, including responsibility for the ‘‘ozone hole’’ over Antarctica. Without modern science, the world would simply have remained unaware of an ozone problem until it was too late. 

A major lesson from the ozone history is that nature does not always provide policymakers with convenient early warning signals 

of impending disaster. For example, chlorine concentrations in the 

stratosphere tripled over the decades from their natural level with 

no effect on the ozone layer. But when they reached two parts per 

billion—not a very large amount—the ozone layer over Antarctica 

collapsed. This nonlinear—what the scientists call a nonlinear—or 

threshold response has obvious implications for the potential dangers of other types of anthropogenic interference with the planet’s 

natural cycles. 

The history of the Montreal Protocol also underscored the importance of having sufficient funding for all levels of science, from curiosity-driven basic research to applied engineering solutions. 

The Montreal Protocol was not, as some opponents charged, a 

‘‘radical’’ treaty. On the contrary, it was an expression of faith in 

the market system. The treaty effectively signaled to the marketplace that research into solutions would now be profitable. 

The protocol stimulated a virtual technological revolution in the 

international chemical, telecommunications, and numerous other 

industries. By providing producers and users of CFCs with the certainty that the CFC market was destined to decline, the Montreal 

Protocol unleashed the creative energies and financial resources of 

the private sector to find alternatives. 

Another lesson from the Montreal Treaty was the importance of 

education. Here the role of the U.S. Congress was particularly critical in organizing many public hearings on ozone and in commissioning several important studies by the National Academy of 

Science. 

Some European Governments allowed commercial self-interest to 

influence their interpretations of the science. Uncertainty was used 

by these governments as an excuse for delaying decisions. In contrast, the U.S. Clean Air Act opted for a low threshold to justify 

intervention. Our Government was not obligated to prove conclusively that a suspected substance would endanger health and envi-
24

ronment. All that was required was a standard of reasonable expectation. 

As Governor Russell Peterson, who was a senior advisor to President Nixon, had declared in reference to other potentially harmful 

chemicals, CFCs, unlike U.S. citizens, would not be considered innocent until proven guilty. 

By the time the evidence on such issues as ozone layer depletion 

and climate change is beyond dispute, the damage could be irreversible and it may be too late to avoid serious harm to human life 

and draconian future costs to society. Political leaders must resist 

the tendency to assign excessive credibility to self-serving economic 

interests that demand scientific certainty and who insist that simply because dangers are remote, they are therefore inconsequential. 

In conclusion, there will always be resistance to change and 

there will always be uncertainties. But faced with plausible environmental threats, governments may need to act while some major 

questions remain unresolved. 

As Britain’s Lord Kennet stated during ozone debates in the 

House of Lords, ‘‘Politics is the art of taking good decisions on insufficient evidence.’’ The ozone history demonstrates that in the 

real world of ambiguity and imperfect knowledge, the international 

community, with the assistance of science, is capable of undertaking difficult actions for the common good. 

I thank you for the opportunity to share this experience. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Benedick. 

Dr. GRAY. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM GRAY, Ph.D., PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE, COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY 

Dr. GRAY. Well, I appreciate very much being asked to come to 

this hearing. I have been simmering for 20 years at what I consider 

the hype on these subjects like nuclear winter and global warming. 

I must say I have been a lifelong Democrat until Al Gore ran for 

president. I don’t listen to Rush Limbaugh; I don’t go to church. I 

come at this from having spent 52 years of my life working very 

hard down in the trenches looking at data, working. I have been 

around the world. I have done forecasting. I have done all these 

things. I am appalled at what has come forth. 

We state that there’s all these bodies. Senator Boxer showed us 

all the bodies that agree that human-induced global warming is 

such an important topic. Well, the problem is the people that sit 

on these boards don’t know much about how the atmosphere ocean 

ticks. That is the problem. You know, just because two curves go 

up, because we have seen some modest warming in the globe the 

last three decades, and the human-induced greenhouse gases have 

gone up does not mean these are necessarily related, that one 

causes the other. 

There is a very nice curve I could show that if you look at sunspots on a number of Republicans in the Senate, they go up on 

about a 10- or 12-year cycle. Now, would you accept that we could 

predict the number of Republicans that are going to be in the Senate 10 or 20 years down the line? I doubt it. 
25

Now, what is wrong with the human-induced global warming scenarios? What is wrong is they have basic physics wrong in them. 

I don’t think many people understand this. If you just take the 

greenhouse gases, they have gone up about a third since the industrial revolution started. They are supposed to double by the late 

twenty-first century. If you just take those gases and keep everything else constant, there is very little global warming. Even the 

scientists will tell you doing this, .2 or .3 or so degrees Centigrade, 

versus a 2 to 5 degrees warming that all the models show. 

Now, there are basic problems in these models. One is the water 

vapor feedback loop. This is a technical subject. You take the 

greenhouse gases, by themselves they should warm the surface a 

little bit. You get a little more evaporation and a little more rain. 

Now, what the models do is take that extra rain and assume the 

middle and upper troposphere will slightly increase its vapor. That 

upper level vapor, perhaps a little cloudiness, will block additional 

long-wave radiation to space, and that is where most of the warming comes from. It is eight, nine times as much as the greenhouse 

gases themselves. 

Another basic problem is the oceans are not modeled well. You 

have to model the ocean and the salinity variations and things, and 

that just is not possible. 

Now, I brought a couple of graphs I would like to show. One is 

the complex nature of the earth atmosphere system. Here is what 

it is. It is impossible to write code, numerical code for all these 

processes and integrate this hundreds of thousands of time steps 

in the future. 

Now, here is my last one. Let us look at how forecasting is done. 

I and my group make hurricane seasonal forecasts and so on. How 

do we do it? We admit that the atmosphere is too damn complex 

to understand, but there is memory signals in it. So we look at past 

data. We go to past years, look 3, 6, 9 months in the past and say, 

gee, before active hurricane seasons there seems to be a difference 

than before inactive ones; and we use that and make a forecast. We 

don’t understand all the complex physics. You can use associations 

that work. 

Now, with numerical prediction, I followed it for over 50 years. 

It is a great advance. The prediction out to 5 to 10 days in the future has gotten better. There is remarkable improvements here. 

See, as this thing goes. However, after 10 days, 15 days or so, you 

can’t do it well. The way it can be done for 5 or 10 days in the future is the momentum fields can be extrapolated. They carry information that can be used, and this has been a great thing. When 

you try to go further than that, when you try to go 15, 20 days 

over, you bring in all these energy differences—radiation, air-sea 

interaction. It is a can of worms. You can’t go further. 

Now, what I ask, there is almost a cottage industry out there. 

Around the globe there are 30 numerical models that are trying to 

predict climate. None of them gives you a forecast. I say, look, if 

these climate models are OK, why don’t they tell us next season, 

next year whether the global temperature is going to rise or not? 

They don’t do that. The reason they don’t, they know they have no 

damn skill in doing so. So should we believe them 50, 100 years 
26

down the line, when they can’t forecast 6 months or a year in the 

future? It is ridiculous. 

I predict that in 15 or 20 years we are going to look back on this 

whole business as the Eugenics movement. You know, there used 

to be, 400 years ago, the majority of the scientific opinion felt the 

sun went around the earth. Now, damn it, don’t tell me the sun 

rises, goes around. 

Now, I think I know as much as anybody. I will take on any scientist in this field to talk about this. I predict, in the next 5 or 8 

years or so, the globe is going to begin to cool as it did in the middle 1940’s. You know, I was around as a little boy growing up in 

Washington here in the 1940’s. The war was on; I was delivering 

newspapers. Despite the war being on, there was talk of global 

warming because the globe had warmed so much between 1900 and 

1940. What was going to happen? Nobody knew. So about the middle 1940’s the globe gradually started a cooling trend, and it went 

on for about 30 years and the ice age people then started coming 

out of the closet. Now it has changed. Now I think we are going 

to sort of follow that pattern the next decade or two down the line. 

Now, hurricanes, my last topic. I spent my career in this. I have 

been all over the world. I think I know something about these 

storms. The globe has warmed a little bit the last two or three decades, yes, 2, 3 degrees or so Centigrade. But I have looked at intense hurricanes, and they really haven’t changed. We have no 

basic theory, despite what others might say, as to if the globe 

doesn’t warm much. Now, if it warmed 10, 20 degrees, yes, or 

cooled that amount, global tropical cyclone activity will probably 

change, but we don’t know how, whether we would get more or 

less. For the small amounts of change we have seen, the statistics 

don’t show any difference. 

Now, the Atlantic is different. That is a special basin that has 

this thermohaleon circulation or moldy decadal cycle in it. We had 

a lot of storms in the 1930’s through the 1950’s. That is when I got 

started, in the 1950’s. This looked like a promising field. Then in 

the late 1960’s through the middle 1990’s the number of major Atlantic basin hurricanes went down. Now it has come back the last 

10 years. These are natural ocean driven features. 

Senator INHOFE. Dr. Gray, your time has expired. Could you 

wrap up real quickly, please? 

Dr. GRAY. Yes. OK. 

There was a past year when a category 4 storm went just west 

of Houston, and 6 weeks later a category 4 storm went almost over 

New Orleans. That year was 1915. These things happen. Nature 

plays these games and these tricks. Humans are not involved, or 

if they are, it is so small. We just have to adapt to nature as best 

we can. 

Thank you. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Dr. Gray. 

Dr. ROBERTS. 
27

STATEMENT OF DONALD R. ROBERTS, Ph.D., PROFESSOR, DIVISION OF TROPICAL PUBLIC HEALTH, DEPARTMENT OF 

PREVENTIVE MEDICINE AND BIOMETRICS, UNIFORMED 

SERVICES UNIVERSITY OF THE HEALTH SCIENCES 

Dr. ROBERTS. I want to thank the members of the committee for 

the opportunity to present testimony this morning. I need to inform 

you that I am a faculty member of the Uniform Services University 

of the Health Sciences, and as such my comments should not be 

construed to represent the opinions of the University, the Department of the Defense, or U.S. Government. 

As you are aware, we are making great strides against chronic 

diseases, and we are living longer and longer as a result. Yet, 

today, in much of the developing world there are greater problems 

of malaria and other infectious diseases than in 1960. I estimate 

that in just 12 countries of the Americas there were as many as 

21 million more malaria cases in 1993 than in any year in the 

1970’s. 

We should be concerned about these huge reversals in the 

public’s health. Even if those impacted are not U.S. citizens, a failure to control diseases in other countries eventually translates into 

increased risk for our citizens. 

These reversals in health result in part from the environmental 

campaign against DDT. Many charges about environmental harm 

of DDT are simply not true. One of the most common claims 

against the use of DDT is that it is a human carcinogen. Vast sums 

of money have been spent in attempts to prove DDT is a cause of 

cancer. The results argue persuasively that it is not. 

In 1971, amid the growing pressure from environmentalist 

groups, the newly formed Environmental Protection Agency held 

scientific hearings into DDT. The hearings were held over 8 

months, involved 125 witnesses, 365 exhibits, and produced 9,312 

pages of transcript. The presiding judge, Edmund Sweeney, noted 

‘‘the pros and cons of DDT have been well aired.’’ He then ruled 

that DDT should not be banned, saying that ‘‘DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man.’’

In other words, it was concluded that DDT was not a cancer risk 

to humans, and the allegations made against the chemical did not 

stand up to scrutiny. Despite this evidence, then Administrator of 

the EPA William Ruckelshaus banned DDT. 

The decision to ban DDT was essentially a political one, without 

any grounding in good science. This ruling was not a tragedy, because it took DDT away from agriculture. History has shown that 

agriculture productivity continued apace. This ruling was a tragedy 

for what it did to public health. 

Even before the EPA hearing, the Director of Malaria Control in 

the Pan-American Health Organization stated that without DDT, 

the endemic countries would revert to conditions that existed before the advent of DDT. That is precisely what has occurred. 

I hope none of you have experienced malaria. I have. I had shaking chills, a raging fever, enormous headache, and fatigue. I 

thought I was going to die and I only had the mild form. The dangerous form, falciparum malaria, can quickly enter a cerebral 

phase and kill even with good medical care. 
28

With chronic malaria, the bodies of children become distended 

with enlarged livers and spleens. Malaria patients can be severely 

anemic. Acute cases can experience renal failure and slip into a 

coma and die. Latest estimates put the number of deaths over one 

million a year, mostly in children and pregnant women. Beyond 

this, there are as many as 500 million cases of malaria each year. 

Malaria is a re-emerging disease, and it is a re-emerging disease 

because of environmental pressures against the use of insecticides. 

Poor countries need the freedom to use DDT for disease control if 

they choose to do so. Yet, they do not have that freedom. DDT continues to be portrayed negatively in the press and elsewhere. It is 

taken as a given that DDT is a toxic chemical with disastrous 

human health effects. It is not. DDT is a simple compound with 

unique actions to prevent transmission of malaria. 

The pressure against DDT is sometimes subtle and appears in 

the foreign aid programs to malaria-stricken countries. Multilateral 

donors like The World Bank and bilateral donors like USAID pressure countries to not use DDT in malaria programs. The World 

Health Organization promotes use of insecticide-treated bed nets to 

the practical exclusion of spraying with DDT. 

Bed nets are indeed a tool, but they are not nearly as effective 

for one simple reason: the Governments of poor African and South 

American Nations cannot force their citizens to sleep under bed 

nets every single night. On the other hand, inside walls of houses 

can be sprayed and DDT will be effective night after night for 

months on end. 

Another tool for combating malaria is the use of antimalarial 

drugs. However, the number of malaria cases has grown to such an 

extent that some countries cannot even afford to treat the number 

of cases that they have. In 2003, Colombia had first-line treatments 

for only 86 percent of its cases, and Colombia is a relatively 

wealthy country. I have no idea how incomplete such treatments 

are for the poorer countries of Africa. 

The only solution to this growing public health disaster is to prevent the disease. As explained in my written testimony, DDT is 90 

to 95 percent effective against malaria vectors through its spatial 

repellant actions alone. This simply means that it stops mosquitoes 

from entering houses and transmitting disease. DDT exerts other 

protective actions as well. 

In summation, the re-emergence of malaria is a colossal human 

health disaster. It is made more so because the decision to remove 

DDT was based on a political agenda and not on science. Of the 

three big killer diseases—malaria, TB, and AIDS—malaria should 

be the easiest to control. We simply need the moral clarity and political willpower to do what is necessary. 

Thank you. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Dr. Roberts. 

Mr. Sandalow. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID SANDALOW, DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENT 

AND ENERGY PROJECT, THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION 

Mr. SANDALOW. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. None of 

my family is here today—my three children are in school, my wife 
29

is at work. In a very real sense they are always with me, so I appreciate the opportunity to acknowledge them, Mr. Chairman. 

Hurricane Katrina has already been raised this morning, and it 

casts a shadow over both this hearing and over much of our national life. In fact, tomorrow it will be one month since Hurricane 

Katrina made landfall on the Gulf Coast. The suffering caused by 

this storm is well known, but no less tragic for being so. Today, 

countless thousands of Americans grieve relatives lost in that 

storm, and many more search for ways to restore shattered lives 

and livelihoods. As we join together as a Nation to rebuild the Gulf 

Coast region, our thoughts and prayers are with all of them. 

Many observers have characterized Katrina as a defining moment in our Nation’s history. Former Speaker Newt Gingrich said 

the impact of Katrina will be 30 to 100 times bigger than 9/11. 

Then this past weekend our Gulf Coast was struck by another 

storm. Hurricane Rita was smaller and less powerful than Katrina, 

but only by comparison to its predecessor could Rita be considered 

a minor event. More than 3 million people were evacuated from 

their homes, causing traffic jams that lasted for more than 100 

miles. The full death toll is not yet known, but exceeds several dozens. The Governor of Texas estimates the damage that occurred in 

his State alone exceeds $8 billion. 

Mr. Chairman, the two hurricanes that struck our Nation in the 

past month raise important questions about science policy, environmental policy, and the intersection between the two. How can we 

better predict natural disasters of this kind? Will our response to 

Katrina be shaped by the best available science? What forces of 

global change shaped these two disasters and what impact will 

these forces have in the years to come? 

Because these questions are so important, today I am recommending that the Senate ask the U.S. National Academy of 

Sciences to examine them. Specifically, I recommend the Senate 

ask the U.S. National Academy of Sciences to conduct a major new 

study on extreme weather events. 

The report would assess the state of scientific knowledge in several areas, including: one, our ability to predict extreme weather 

events and how that ability might be improved; two, the causes of 

extreme weather events, both natural and human; three, land restoration in the Mississippi Delta both as part of the response to 

Katrina and to protect against future storms; and, four, human 

health and other risks related to the cleanup of toxic chemicals released as a result of Katrina. 

This study should be done in phases, with an early product intended to help guide immediate recovery efforts in the Gulf Coast 

region and then an ongoing and more comprehensive program. 

The first area that I believe the National Academy should look 

at, just to expand a bit, is improving our ability to predict extreme 

weather events. More than 100 years ago, on September 8, 1900, 

a category 4 hurricane blasted into Galveston, TX. In an era before 

satellites, airplanes, or modern communications, the population 

had scant information about the fury arriving over warm Gulf waters, and 8,000 people lost their lives. 

Well, today we take for granted our ability to watch storm clouds 

gather from satellite photos beamed to our living rooms. We expect 
30

government agencies, well functioning government agencies, to provide advanced warning of impending danger. We shouldn’t be satisfied with our current predictive powers. Rapidly improving information and communication technologies can steadily improve these 

powers, preventing property damage and saving lives. 

Nor, I believe, should our quest be limited to hurricanes. This 

summer, new heat records were set in more than 200 U.S. cities. 

Drought has been a chronic problem for several years in the American West, and in 2004 more than 1,700 tornadoes struck the U.S., 

by far the most recorded ever in a single year. I recommend the 

National Academy study encompass all these issues. 

I also recommend the National Academy, as I said, look at land 

restoration and wetlands issues—critically important topics—as 

well as toxic cleanup issues. In the interest of time, I will not expand on those, but I would be happy to answer any questions on 

them. 

A fourth area that I believe the National Academy should look 

at is responsibly addressing global warming. Today, there is ample 

evidence that heat-trapping gases from human activities may 

produce more powerful hurricanes. We should proceed responsibly 

with respect to this risk, steadily improving our knowledge and 

shaping smart policies in response. Much is already known on this 

topic. Heat-trapping gases from human activities, mainly the burning of fossil fuels, are warming both the atmosphere and the 

oceans. 

Now, Dr. Gray says he disagrees with this and that he has been 

simmering on this topic for 20 years. I would respectfully request 

that Dr. Gray simmer his way right into the peer reviewed scientific literature on this topic. It is critically important that we 

know whether Dr. Gray’s passion on this topic, which is considerable, is matched by the rigor of his analysis in the judgment of his 

scientific peers. 

Dr. Crichton suggests that we use randomized double-blind studies. To make an obvious point, we have only one subject when it 

comes to planet Earth. We cannot use a randomized double-blind 

study with respect to our planet. 

Now, that fact cannot and should not cripple either science or 

policymaking when it comes to atmospheric science. Mr. Benedick’s 

testimony provides a compelling example of a way forward, one embraced by President Ronald Reagan, as Ambassador Benedick explains, on the basis of theories that were found to be the basis for 

policymaking. 

As sea surface temperatures rise, average hurricane strength is 

predicted to increase as well. These predictions are consistent with 

observations from the historical record. During the past 30 years, 

as the total number of hurricanes globally has remained roughly 

constant, the percentage of category 4 and 5 storms has nearly doubled. In our hemisphere during this period, peak wind speeds of 

hurricanes have increased by roughly 50 percent. 

Now, as many people have commented, there is no way to determine whether any single hurricane is or is not the result of global 

warming. When it comes to the strength of hurricanes, we are 

starting to play with loaded dice. As heat-trapping gases build in 

our atmosphere, the average hurricane will become more intense. 
31

Now, these observations are especially troubling because, according to many experts, Atlantic hurricanes will likely be more frequent in the years ahead as a result of natural cycles. Thus, in the 

years ahead the United States faces a double threat: more frequent 

hurricanes due to natural cycles and more intense hurricanes due 

to human activities. This is a risk that we ignore at our peril. 

Today there are no Federal controls on the major heat-trapping 

gases, although this Senate supported such controls in a bipartisan 

resolution passed this summer. As the Senate considers how best 

to translate this resolution into legislation, it should be informed 

by the best available scientific evidence concerning risks from extreme weather events and from global warming. 

Now, in my closing minutes, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to 

briefly turn to some recent developments in the role of science and 

Federal environmental policy. You have said previously that scientific inquiry cannot be censored. Scientific debate must be open, 

it must be unbiased, and it must stress facts rather than political 

agendas. 

Unfortunately, the past 2 years have not been a happy time for 

the role of science in Federal environmental policy. Last year, as 

Senator Clinton and Senator Boxer have said here, 48 Nobel laureates and 62 National Medal of Science recipients were among the 

more than 4,000 scientists who signed a statement expressing concern about ‘‘the manipulation of the process through which science 

enters into the Federal Government’s decisions.’’ Among the specific matters identified as concern were the suppression and distortion of scientific conclusions from Federal environmental agencies, 

specifically on the topic of climate change, and the political manipulation of expert advisory committees, specifically in some environmental areas including lead poisoning. 

These are issues of great consequence. Sound policymaking cannot proceed in the face of such concerns, and I believe that they 

require priority attention from this committee and the Senate as a 

whole. 

One approach as suggested by the Restore Scientific Integrity to 

Federal Research and Policy Making Act, introduced in the House 

as H.R. 839—and this may serve as a complement to your bill, Senator Voinovich, and one that might be considered together among 

other things. This act would help prevent the manipulation of data, 

strengthen the independence of Federal science advisory committees, and require an annual report to Congress by the Director of 

the Office of Science and Technology Policy on the state of Federal 

scientific integrity. This legislation would help address many of the 

most serious concerns that have arisen in recent years and is worthy of consideration by this body. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to address the 

committee. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Sandalow. 

Let me start with just a real brief question for you. You made 

several references in a respectful way to Dr. Crichton and Dr. 

Gray. I think you know Dr. Gray’s background in science, his credentials. 

In a way, I kind of regret that Michael Crichton was an author. 

Because if he had not been an author, he would still be here today 
32

because of his scientific credentials, having degrees from Harvard 

College and Harvard Medical School, visiting lecturer of Physical 

Anthropology at Cambridge University, post-doctoral fellow at the 

Salk Institute for Biological Studies. We would have him here anyway. I would ask you what your scientific background is, Mr. 

Sandalow, in terms of degrees and so forth. 

Mr. SANDALOW. Senator, I am an attorney, although I have tried 

to overcome that handicap and go on to a useful and productive career. I don’t claim scientific training and don’t speak on the basis 

of any independent scientific research. I am reporting the peer reviewed results of many scientists. 

Senator INHOFE. I appreciate that. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Crichton, would you explain why researchers might have a 

vested interest in obtaining particular results? Any thoughts on 

that? 

Dr. CRICHTON. Well, Mr. Chairman, having spent some time in 

the politicized environment of global warming, I am extremely reluctant to ascribe motive to people. I operate on the assumption 

that scientists I know are intelligent, hard working, and honest. 

But what I would say is that I was a believer of the study of Michael Mann. I looked at that graph, which is very striking and extraordinary. I thought, my goodness, we have a really serious problem. So to the extent that I accepted the paper, when I began to 

see page after page of errors that were listed, I had disappointment 

to the same degree. It was very difficult for me not to believe that 

the people who worked on this paper never thought it would be 

checked. That is bad. That is bad for all of climate science. 

Senator INHOFE. In your testimony, you describe the importance 

of being able to replicate studies. For some of us who don’t have 

your background, can you kind of tell us why it is such a problem 

if studies cannot be replicated? What is the significance of replicating studies? 

Dr. CRICHTON. I think we see a bit of it in the Mann study. The 

reason we are talking about the Mann study is that he attempted 

to address an extremely important question. In other words, we 

don’t know what the future holds. There is a temperature increase, 

and one way to think about it is to say is this unprecedented or 

not. His findings indicated that it was unprecedented, and it turns 

out that other people who attempted to replicate this have concluded differently. 

In fact, there is now some discussion about the extent to which 

proxy studies are even useful in this matter at all, because the 

proxies which have been studied from 1980—which was the end of 

Mann’s work—to the present time don’t show the kind of temperature increase that we know exists in the global record. 

Senator INHOFE. I would ask this question of you or have you 

comment on it, as well as Dr. Gray and any of the rest who want 

to. When I first saw the hockey stick, with no scientific background, I looked at it and I thought, well, that seems reasonable. 

But it seemed to me—and for some of us who don’t have that 

background—they completely overlooked both the medieval warming period, the little ice age, and these things, when in fact temperatures were actually higher during the medieval warming period. Any thoughts about that for any of the experts here? 
33

Dr. CRICHTON. That is true, sir. You know, to me, it creates the 

very odd thought that there may in fact be more constraints on 

what an American tabloid can publish than what the UNIPCC can 

publish. 

Senator INHOFE. Well——

Mr. SANDALOW. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes. 

Mr. SANDALOW. Could I comment on the Mann study, if you like? 

Senator INHOFE. Well, I would rather have someone who has referred to it in their remarks. I think you did, Dr. Gray, from a scientific standpoint. 

Dr. GRAY. I didn’t refer to the Mann study, but I would like to 

comment on it. We are studying the medieval warming period. My 

daughter is a professor of geology, and we are working on the medieval warming period and the little ice age. She is covering more 

of that. 

Sure there have been a lot of changes up and down. The atmosphere has always gone through these cycles. Just because the globe 

has warmed the last 100 years or last 30 years, we should not interpret that necessarily as human-induced, it is probably natural. 

The majority of scientists, it is impossible—you see, there is 

grant money, there is all these things out there that compensates 

people that can arrange the data in such a way as to stir up interest that humans are doing these things, but there is no research 

money the other way. 

Senator INHOFE. All right, thank you, Dr. Gray. I am going to 

have to cut you off here because we are going to try to stay within 

our time limits. It is not your fault, it is my fault. 

Senator BOXER. 

Senator BOXER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

A lot of people are being maligned here, and I take great offense 

at that. They are not here, but they are being maligned. One of 

them, Dr. Mann, who was the main subject of Dr. Crichton’s testimony. I would like to place in the record a letter from Dr. Mann 

that was sent to a congressional committee, in which he shows how 

in fact his data were reproduced and used and studied. If I may 

place that in the record. 

Senator INHOFE. Without objection. 

[The referenced letter can be found on page 109.] 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Dr. Gray, you have maligned a lot of people by a broad brush, 

just basically dismiss them. I want to know if your papers on global 

warming have been published. 

Dr. GRAY. Some of them have, yes. I am working on a long paper 

on this now. But what——

Senator BOXER. Wait. I just want to get the answer. I don’t have 

time to go into other subjects. So some have been published. Have 

they been peer reviewed? 

Dr. GRAY. A couple of them have been, yes. 

Senator BOXER. OK. Would you please submit those to the committee? 

Dr. GRAY. I have. 

Senator BOXER. Because we have tried to find peer reviewed——

Dr. GRAY. I did send a number of papers. 
34

Senator BOXER. OK, good. Because we have tried to find some 

peer reviewed studies of yours—not on hurricanes, but on global 

warming. You say there are some peer reviewed? 

Dr. GRAY. I have written some things on it, but I have been involved with——

Senator BOXER. Have they been peer reviewed? 

Dr. GRAY. I am working on that now. There will be—if they will 

accept it. There is also——

Senator BOXER. Dr. Gray? Dr. Gray? 

Dr. GRAY [continuing]. A slight bias about accepting papers that 

criticize peer review. 

Senator BOXER. OK. I get your point. I am asking you something, 

I still don’t have an answer. You have been peer reviewed for your 

articles on hurricanes. Have you been peer reviewed on your articles on global warming? 

Dr. GRAY. Some have appeared. One appeared in a forum journal. 

Senator BOXER. Well, Mr. Chairman, I am not getting an answer, 

so I am going to move on. 

Now, one of the things you said at the end of your testimony is 

nature plays its games and tricks. You reminded me, in a very nice 

way, actually, about my mother, who said everything was predictable until we landed on the moon. She was convinced that changed 

weather patterns and everything else. So it is very easy for us all 

to just say that and, you know, in some ways it is comforting; say 

no one can really predict it. The fact is would you not agree, Dr. 

Gray, that there are some very talented people who believe that 

global warming is a phenomenon and is occurring? 

Dr. GRAY. I would agree to that. The trouble with that is they 

don’t know how the atmosphere ticks. 

Senator BOXER. OK. 

Dr. GRAY. They are modelers. They are people that make assumptions that are not valid and they believe them. 

Senator BOXER. OK, good. 

Dr. GRAY. They are probably honest people, but——

Senator BOXER. Right. 

Dr. GRAY. And——

Senator BOXER. Dr. Gray, I would like to ask you this. You say 

people on the other side from you are wrong, and you say they 

don’t know what they are talking about. Your attitude is not really 

very humble, but let me just probe you here. 

Dr. James Hanson, he is one of those people. He is a chief at 

NASA Institute for Space Studies. He is best known for his testimony on climate control change to congressional committees in the 

1980’s that helped raise broad awareness of the global warming 

issue. He was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1995. 

He received the Hines Environment Award for his research on 

global warming. You think he doesn’t know what he is talking 

about on this? 

Dr. GRAY. I am glad you asked that question. James Hanson is 

a very bright, outstanding scientist, I have no doubt about that. He 

got his Ph.D., I believe, on the runaway greenhouse effect of Venus. 

I don’t know what he knows about the atmosphere. He is not 

trained as a meteorologist, and I don’t know why the press goes to 
35

him so much. I don’t know why he could come down here in the 

hot summer of 1988, before a congressional committee, and make 

these claims. They are ridiculous. And how——

Senator BOXER. Do you know what he was trained in? 

Dr. GRAY. What? 

Senator BOXER. Since you are now trying to shatter his reputation, what was he trained in? What was his area of expertise that 

he was trained in when he was in school? 

Dr. GRAY. Who? 

Senator BOXER. Dr. Hanson. 

Dr. GRAY. I believe Hanson was an astronomer, a very capable, 

good astronomer who I have been told that his Ph.D. thesis was on 

a runaway greenhouse effect of Venus. He knows Venus well, just 

like Sagan knew Mars well. 

Senator BOXER. Sir, you are making my point. He was trained 

in physics as well as astronomy, and he is well acclaimed. You just 

brush away everybody who doesn’t agree with you, which I think, 

going in, isn’t a very scientific thing to do. To prejudge——

Dr. GRAY. No. There are a lot of us out there that don’t agree 

with——

Senator BOXER. Dr. Gray? Dr. Gray? Dr. Gray? I understand. I 

understand. But I am just trying to say something in a friendly 

way to you. It doesn’t help your case to demonize everyone who 

doesn’t agree with you, because you wind up without very much 

credibility. 

Dr. GRAY. No, it is not everyone doesn’t agree with me. 

Senator BOXER. I would like to ask Dr. Crichton a question. 

Dr. GRAY. I represent a lot of meteorologists who think very 

much like I do. 

Senator BOXER. Dr. Gray, my time is running out. 

Dr. Crichton, you say predictions are not science. 

Dr. CRICHTON. Excuse me. I said they are not facts. 

Senator BOXER. They are not facts. 

Dr. CRICHTON. Right. 

Senator BOXER. Predictions are not facts. Do you think that there 

is room for prediction in weather science, for example? 

Dr. CRICHTON. Senator Boxer, yes, I think that climate modeling 

is excellent. I have had a lot of discussions with the climate modelers about that. I am making a single point only. It is a very interesting scientific undertaking. At the moment the models differ one 

from another by 400 percent, which is an enormous amount. All I 

am saying is you can’t use them for policy. 

Senator BOXER. OK. But you are saying there is room for predictions in weather science. 

Dr. CRICHTON. Yes. You have heard Dr. Gray. We can make excellent predictions for 4 days. 

Senator BOXER. Well, I have heard a lot of people other than Dr. 

Gray, but thank you very much. Also, I would like to put in the 

record something called ‘‘Distort Reform, A Review of the Distorted 

Science in Michael Crichton’s State of Fear,’’ by Gavin Schmidt. If 

I could put that in the record. 

Senator INHOFE. Without objection, so ordered. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

[The referenced document was not submitted at time of print.] 
36

Senator INHOFE. Senator Thune. 

Senator THUNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your 

holding what I believe is a crucial hearing on this subject and the 

importance of sound science and environmental policymaking. I am 

intrigued in listening to the discussion on climate change and atmospheric science, and appreciate very much this very distinguished panel being here today and sharing your thoughts and 

your insights and your expertise. 

I want to approach it from a slightly different angle, which you 

could argue, I suppose, is somewhat parochial, but it comes back 

to the basic premise that science does inform policy. This committee will be dealing in the very near future with reforms of the 

Endangered Species Act, and how do we approach making that Act 

more workable. Frankly, if you look at since its inception in 1973, 

there have been very few successes in terms of recovering species, 

and lots of hardships imposed on landowners and State and local 

governments and others. 

In specific I want to use one example here, and then maybe get 

the panel’s reaction to it or comment. We had an instance here a 

few years ago in South Dakota where the prairie dog was listed or 

proposed to be listed as a threatened species under the Endangered 

Species Act, and at the time, of course, it was suggested that the 

prairie dog is the diet for the black-footed ferret, which was on the 

list, and that in order to provide diet for the black-footed ferret, we 

needed to protect the prairie dog. 

Now, most of the ferrets—and I would argue a large number of 

the prairie dogs—are, of course, in the western part of the Country, 

many in South Dakota. It was feared that we didn’t have enough 

prairie dogs for the ferrets to eat. What happened was that fear 

was unjustified. 

In my view, and I think arguably they came to the same conclusion when they decided not to list it, but sound science was not 

used in that decision to list the prairie dog. In fact, if sound science 

had been used, it would have been proven that there are literally 

thousands, probably millions, I think, of prairie dogs living on 

South Dakota’s grasslands, certainly more than there are people in 

South Dakota. 

The Government was relying on bad science and, as a consequence, South Dakota’s landowners in that area suffered. If you 

look at the range—and I have in that area, visited numerous 

times—it looks like the face of the moon. That is the impact that 

not managing this population has imposed on landowners out 

there. Anybody who has been to that area of South Dakota knows 

the prairie dog is not endangered. 

Anyway, my question is this. I have talked to the experts about 

this and what is the criteria by which the standard that is used 

for whether or not a species goes on that list. The two questions 

that are asked: Is the species endangered today? Second: Will it be 

endangered in the foreseeable future? To answer those questions, 

I assume there has to be some data, some science that is used. 

There again, clearly in this case, that science was completely incorrect. 

I guess the question I would ask—and this is with respect to the 

Endangered Species Act and some of the changes that we are look-
37

ing at making—is what should be the scientific standard that applies to such policy pronouncements? Clearly, there were some extrapolations made about the numbers out there, but I think this is 

another example of where we rely and decisions are sometimes 

made in a political environment rather than a scientific one. I 

frankly hope that when we make some changes in this, that we will 

impose some scientific standards. 

I would welcome anybody’s thoughts or insights about that. Mr. 

Benedick? 

Mr. BENEDICK. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. It seems to me, 

in listening to the conversation up until now, that we all agree that 

there is a need for sound science. Where the disagreement comes 

is: what is sound science. I think what constitutes sound science—

is not as simple as some of us would like to have it. It is not black 

and white; there is not absolute certainty. 

We have to ask the right questions and then evaluate the answers. One issue is: to whom do you address the right questions? 

Is it to individual scientists, some of whom have been mentioned 

here, or is it to bodies of scientists? That is why we have a National Academy of Sciences, for example. That is why we also have, 

or had, the Office of Technology Assessment within the Congress, 

which was designed at that time to provide scientific information. 

One can’t wish a problem away just because one hopes it won’t 

happen. I honestly hope that climate change doesn’t happen. But 

when the National Academy of Sciences, when the other institutions of real experts come out with their conclusions, I find it hard 

to dispute it. If it was only one or two, or only a small number of 

dissenters, that may not be significant. If there are real questions, 

I think they should be addressed to institutions like the National 

Academy of Sciences. 

There is also some reference made about climate models varying 

in wide dimensions and, therefore, we can’t trust them. Well, perhaps they are models at the extremes, but there is also a certain 

convergence. For example, if I feel ill and consult 10 doctors, and 

2 of them say I am going to die right away, and 2 say no problem 

at all, you don’t need to do anything, and the other 6 say, wait a 

minute, there is something that you can take for it, I will listen to 

that convergence. I am not going to listen to the extremes. 

I would suggest that on many of the issues that we are talking 

about, there is a real convergence. There are going to be extremes 

on both sides, but we have to look for those convergences and then 

have the courage to act on them. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Benedick. In fairness to Senator 

Thune, who is going to have to be leaving, did anyone else want 

to comment on the question that he asked? 

[No response.] 

Senator INHOFE. All right, that is fine. 

Senator THUNE. Mr. Chairman, if I might, as a matter of closing, 

just say this. I think that if in fact scientific truth has to be 

verifiable, that is a key thing. I would argue that much of the 

science at least that was used in predicting the number of prairie 

dogs on the ranges of South Dakota wasn’t accurate and wasn’t 

verified, and, as a consequence, was bad science on which to make 

a decision like this. 
38

I would also argue that it ought to include, in addition to the 

science groups out there, the folks who do this sort of research, perhaps talking to local people. I think local input is a key. You know, 

you might have been able to get a lot more accurate count if you 

just asked a few ranchers in South Dakota about this subject. 

So I know my time has expired, and I appreciate your indulgence. Again, I thank you. It has been very informative. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Thune. 

Senator Murkowski. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to follow 

up on this issue of verification, because I really do think that this 

goes to the heart of what we are talking about here today. 

Mr. Sandalow, you have suggested numerous studies be conducted that would look into the aftermath of Katrina, or what happened or how we can calculate it. I am sitting up in Alaska, where 

I can see that we are experiencing climate change. I am not going 

so far as to say it is global warming, but we see climate change. 

Just in this morning’s press clips, I have got a clip on a major 

winter storm that is continuing the erosion from our coastal villages. Yesterday’s account in the clips indicated that we have seen 

the warmest summer up north that we have seen in 400 years. The 

stories are out there. 

So I look at not only what I am able to see and what we are able 

to verify as Alaskans on the ground looking at climate change, but 

I am also looking at the studies and at the reports. The problem 

is that the studies and the reports are less than conclusive. You 

have one that is saying one thing, another that is saying another 

thing. 

So I don’t know that I am necessarily with you in saying that the 

solution here is to conduct more studies. I think we need to make 

sure that the studies that are conducted do have some level of 

verification, do have some level of accountability, if you will. We 

are dealing in an area where the science is difficult. 

I appreciate your statement, Dr. Crichton, that prediction is not 

fact. It is exactly that, it is prediction. 

So I hear what you are saying, and you are saying let us get 

three independent studies going on. I don’t know whether that is 

the answer, but I think the key here is going to be verification. 

Now, Senator Boxer, in her statement, showed a list of individuals who were backed by certain institutes, and I think her suggestion was that, of all of these, only two institutes were not supported in some way by the oil industry or whatever. 

To what extent does funding influence the researcher, the analysis, and the conclusions? I throw that out to any one of you if you 

are willing to touch it. 

Dr. GRAY. I would very much like to take that. Yes, I notice myself. I have been a bit of a critic on this human-induced global 

warming, and I had NOAA money for 30 years to study tropical 

storms and stuff, and I wanted to keep on doing it. When the Clinton administration came in, I couldn’t get any money out of NOAA. 

I was turned down by something like 13 straight proposals. 

There is a lot of research support out there to find things, rearrange data, I might say, to support this human induced global 

warming hypothesis. I know of no way—if I go in and say I don’t 
39

believe in it, would you give me some resources so I could study 

and try to prove that the statements made are exaggerated. There 

is no funding there. 

There is even a question on publication. If you submit in something that doesn’t go with this general brainwashing that has occurred, I call it that, over the last 20 years in the press, the press 

has played a great part, government, it has been used as a political 

issue. The reality of it, I mean, with all the problems in the 

world——

Senator MURKOWSKI. Dr. Gray. 

Dr. GRAY [continuing]. This is one we humans are not much involved with. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Dr. Gray, if we can, I know that Mr. 

Benedick and Dr. Crichton also wanted to answer the question, and 

we are just about out of time. Thank you. 

Mr. BENEDICK. Thank you, Senator. Do I think that funding can 

influence scientific results? Yes, I do. Just look at the tobacco industry. On the question of funding for critics of the climate change 

theory, of the global warming theory, I would cite Dr. Richard 

Lindzen at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who is a 

very eminent critic of global warming. I don’t believe he has any 

problem getting funding. 

If we are talking about verification of data, I think that rather 

than cherry-picking which scientist or which particular statement 

or which particular footnote, that we go to the bodies that are constituted to do this: the National Center for Atmospheric Research, 

for example, in Boulder, CO; the National Academy of Sciences, 

which I mentioned earlier; the great research universities. There 

are plenty of resources out there if one wants to listen to them. If 

one doesn’t want to listen to them, one can always cherry-pick and 

find relatively isolated people who will say whatever they want to 

say. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Dr. Crichton. 

Mr. BENEDICK. I think that our society and our institutions are 

prepared, are set up to provide responsible science if we will give 

them a chance, if we don’t try to destroy their reputations or pick 

out one or another thing out of context. 

On the climate issue, I would like, respectfully, to suggest adding 

to the record the testimony of Dr. Ralph Cicerone, who is the President of the National Academy of Sciences, who testified on July 

20th before the subcommittee on Global Climate Change and Impacts, of the committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation 

of the U.S. Senate. I would suggest this might be some part of the 

record. It is his statement representing the National Academy of 

Science. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Mr. Chairman, I know we are out of time, 

but if Dr. Crichton can just——

Senator INHOFE. I am going to go ahead and give you a couple 

of my minutes on the second round right now, because I know you 

directed Dr. Crichton to please respond. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. CRICHTON. Senator Murkowski, I think in part my comments 

were intended to suggest a broader issue. I think in the twentyfirst century this body is going to be dealing increasingly with sci-
40

entific issues, and you are going to have to find some new strategies. 

One of them which I think would answer Senator Thune, is if 

there were four studies that were let out by totally different, independent entities—not people who knew each other, not people who 

published together—that asked the question how are the prairie 

dogs doing, you are going to get a more reliable answer. 

In the long run I think, yes, you are going to have to find funding. Scientists, like everyone else, know who they work for, and I 

think there is a perception that many government agencies now 

want to get back answers that confirm global warming. The notion 

that there are industries that don’t want that, of course, I think is 

straightforward. 

Whoever you work for, they are looking for a certain kind of answer. The solution is only to have scientists not know who they are 

working for in terms of where the funding is coming from. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Voinovich. 

Senator VOINOVICH. I think the most alarming thing I heard 

today was, Dr. Roberts, your testimony. Do other people share your 

opinion about DDT, or are you out there in the weeds somewhere 

on this one? 

Dr. ROBERTS. I am out there. Actually, if I could have just a couple of minutes to respond. In response, I would like to bring together a couple of things, Senator Thune’s comments and Senator 

Boxer’s list. 

Senator VOINOVICH. You are on my time now, OK? 

Dr. ROBERTS. OK. 

Senator VOINOVICH. I would like to ask you my questions. 

Dr. ROBERTS. OK. 

Senator VOINOVICH. You are saying that there are lots of scientists who disagree with you on DDT? The impression that you 

gave me was that my good friend, Bill Ruckelshaus, when all of the 

testimony came in about DDT and found that it wasn’t what people 

said it was, that he banned it anyhow and, as a result of that ban, 

we are seeing malaria come back all over the world, and that thousands of people are dying because of malaria; and that if we reviewed our interest in DDT, that might save thousands of lives. Is 

that what you are saying? 

Dr. ROBERTS. That is what I am saying. The answer as to whether or not the scientific community is in support of me, we initiated 

an effort in the 1990’s to prevent DDT from being banned through 

the POPs negotiations, and we circulated a letter to get scientists 

to sign on to that letter, and a very large number, hundreds of scientists, signed on in support of that effort. I would say that there 

is a very broad base of support for the continued use of DDT. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Mr. Chairman, that might be something that 

we look at. 

All of the witnesses have talked about the issue of scientists disagreeing, and the question I have to all of you is how can the Federal Government achieve good science-based decisions, making 

them when there are so many different opinions among the scientists with respect to a particular environmental concern? We get 

this all the time around here. 
41

In my statement I mentioned the creation of a position in the 

EPA called the Deputy Administrator for Science and Technology, 

and the second thing was to take EPA’s current top science job, the 

Assistant Administrator for Research and Development, and give 

them a 6-year term, which would insulate them to a certain extent 

from politics. Also, traditionally, it has been one of the weakest positions in the EPA. 

Mr. SANDALOW. Senator, I would like to applaud what is behind 

your legislation. Certainly the effort to insulate environmental 

science from political factors is a crucially important one. So I 

think your bill deserves very close consideration. 

I think, in answer to your question about ways to address the 

use of science, I would recommend a couple of things. First, it is 

important that we commit the most difficult questions to independent bodies, and that is one reason that I have recommended 

the National Academy take on various Katrina-related issues in my 

testimony. 

Second, it is important that science be adequately funded. That 

has been raised a little bit today, but not much. The pressures 

right now on budget for scientific research are very considerable, 

and it is very important that we adequately fund basic science research going forward. 

Third, it is critically important to have leadership from the top 

and from the Federal Government at all levels on this issue, and 

to make it clear that there will be no tolerance for political manipulation of scientific data. I think with those things we could take big 

steps forward. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Other comments in terms of do you think we 

need to improve the capacity at the Environmental Protection 

Agency? Would you support somebody over there that would have 

a 6-year term that would segue into another term and possibly insulate him more from ‘‘political pressure’’ than someone else? 

Mr. BENEDICK. Senator, I did mention at the beginning of my 

statement that, representing the National Council, I applaud your 

efforts to do this at EPA. I think that any measures that are taken 

to insulate scientific inquiry and the peer review process from political pressures, from wishful thinking, from ‘‘we wish it weren’t 

there and, therefore, we are going to pick out the scientists we 

want,’’ that our society will be better off if we can do this. 

As I suggested earlier, there are institutions in which you can 

find, not the extremes on either side, but where you can find a reasonable convergence. That is what we did in the ozone history. We 

didn’t listen to the ones who were saying the sky is falling, and we 

also didn’t listen to the ones who said that CFCs were no problem. 

I think that worked out right under a conservative administration, 

and I believe that is the way we should go, and really keep ideology 

out of science as much as we can. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you. 

Dr. GRAY. I would just like to make a statement, that in science 

a majority is often wrong, it is not a democracy. That is our problem. You can have these institutes and Nobel Prize people and all 

the credentials people you want, but that doesn’t mean they are 

able to render a proper judgment. That is the trouble. 
42

Senator VOINOVICH. You know, Dr. Gray, what you do is you try 

to get the best information that you can, and make a decision. 

Sometimes, I think some other witnesses mentioned, those decisions aren’t black and white, sometimes they are gray. You try to 

do the best that you can with the information that you have, because if you take a position that they may be wrong, nothing is 

done. 

Dr. CRICHTON. Senator, it is not exactly on the point of your 

question, but the confidence in the independent bodies like the 

NAS that some others have expressed I don’t necessarily share in 

this particular area. I think it has become so intensely politicized 

that even that may not be successful. 

For example, the NAS was asked at some time in the recent past 

to investigate the difference between satellite temperature measurements and ground temperature measurements, since those 

records in recent years haven’t agreed, and there has been dispute 

about which might be incorrect or both. The NAS came back and 

said they are both correct, which is, in my view, simply taking a 

pass on the whole subject. 

If in fact this is so hot among even academic communities that 

it can’t be examined closely, I think you are going to back yourself 

into something like the sort of blue ribbon commission that was 

used to investigate the Challenger disaster, in which you bring in 

all kinds of outside people and ask them to assess the state of the 

science, because internally it is just too difficult for people to do it. 

Mr. SANDALOW. Senator, in Mr. Crichton’s book he writes roughly—I won’t get the words exactly right—‘‘I am the only person who 

doesn’t have an agenda.’’ When I read that in his book, I thought 

it was tongue in cheek. Hearing him sit here and question the objectivity and bona fides of the National Academy of Science, while 

taking it upon himself to form judgments on this question, makes 

me wonder whether in fact he meant to write that sentence seriously. 

I think it is beyond controversy that the National Academy of 

Sciences of this Nation is well respected. Its product has been and 

is widely admired by many scientists, and I don’t think this statement should go unchallenged. 

Senator INHOFE. Let me make a comment about that. First of all, 

I hope you were listening when I entered into the record statements by the National Academy of Science. Actually, it was by the 

past President of the National Academy of Sciences. They have not 

been definite on this issue in terms of global warming, and I think 

we all understand that. 

Let me just make a comment too, since we only have 4 minutes 

left, and certainly, Senator Voinovich, it is down to you and me 

now. 

Senator VOINOVICH. I have to be excused. 

Senator INHOFE. Oh, all right. Well, thank you for your contribution. 

I would like to say that those of us on this side of the panel are 

not experts. We are not scientists, and I recognize that. But sometimes it might be healthy to sit back and kind of push back and 

look at it in an unscientific way, and look at it just on a logical 

way. You have to keep in mind that Washington, DC is the city of 
43

hysteria; everyone has to be hysterical about everything that happens up here. When I look at this and I read some of the stuff that 

came out of this committee and that was on the front page of almost every magazine in America, like Time Magazine, U.S. News 

and World Report back in the middle 1970’s, they talked about another ice age is coming. 

I went back and checked, and found that the same people that 

now are hysterical over global warming were the ones that were 

talking about the ice age. I look and see what happened in the 

1940’s. The largest increase in the use of CO2 increased by about 

80 percent during the middle and late 1940’s. Did that precipitate 

a warming? No, it didn’t, it precipitated a cooling at times. 

So I just think that we have to look at these things and try to 

get as much of the hysteria out of our minds. I could put it another 

way. I think in the case of global warming, it really has become a 

religion to a lot of people. A lot of people have so many years of 

their lives wrapped up in it that they don’t want to all of a sudden 

realize that most of the science since 1999 has refuted it. How 

could I have been wrong; and did I waste 10 or 15, 20 years of my 

life? I kind of think this is some of the things that are going on. 

We have come to the time here. We have several things that I 

am going to enter into the record on flawed science. Without objection, it will be a part of the record. 

Let me thank all of you for your time that you have spent here. 

It has been a long hearing. You have come a long way. I want you 

to know that I personally appreciate each one of the five of you 

very much. 

We are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RICHARD E. BENEDICK, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL

COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Since 1994, I have been President of the National Council for Science and the Environment (NCSE), an organization dedicated to improving the scientific basis for 

environmental decision making that is supported by over 500 universities, scientific 

societies, State and local Governments, corporations, chambers of commerce, foundations and civic organizations. 

During the 1980s, I served under President Reagan as Deputy Assistant Secretary 

of State for Environment, Health and Natural Resources. In 1985, I was designated 

by Secretary of State George Shultz and then-Assistant Secretary John Negroponte 

to be chief U.S. negotiator for a treaty to regulate certain chemical substances suspected of depleting the stratospheric ozone layer. I later wrote a book on the subject, 

Ozone Diplomacy, which was published by Harvard University Press (1991, revised 

ed. 1998) and Kyogo Chosakai (Japan, 1999), and was later selected by McGrawHill for an anthology of environmental classics of the twentieth century. 

INTRODUCTION: AN HISTORIC AGREEMENT

The ozone history illustrates the critical role that science and scientists can play 

in the development of public policy under conditions of risk and uncertainty. Yet, 

when the negotiations began on the treaty to control use of chlorofluorocarbons 

(CFCs), few gamblers would have wagered that they could succeed. 

CFCs and their related bromine halon compounds seemed to be ideal man-made 

chemicals. Invented in the 1930s, they are stable, nontoxic, nonflammable, non-corrosive, and relatively inexpensive to produce—all qualities that made them uniquely 

suited for a myriad of consumer and industrial applications. Over the years, they 

found more and more uses in thousands of products and processes—in pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, spray cans, agriculture, petroleum, microchips, electronics, 

automotive, defense, aircraft, insulation, plastic foam, aerospace, telecommuni-
44

1D. Albritton et al., Stratospheric Ozone: The State of the Science and NOAA’s Current and 

Future Research (Washington, DC: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1987), 

p.9; WMO, Atmospheric Ozone 1985: Assessment of Our Understanding of the Precesses Controlling Its Present Distribution and Change (Geneva, 1986), chapter 14. 2U.S. Senate, Committee on Foreign Relations, Ozone Protocol, Executive Report 100-14, Feb. 

19, 1998, p. 61. 3‘‘President Signs Protocol on Ozone-Depleting Substances,’’ Department of State Bulletin, 

June 1988, p. 30. 4R. Benedick, Ozone Diplomacy: New Directions in the Planet (Cambridge, MA and London: 

Harvard University Press, rev. ed. 1998), provides a history and analysis of the ozone issue and 

the Montreal Protocol negotiations. 

cations, refrigeration, and air conditioning, to name a few. CFCs became virtually 

synonymous with modern standards of living. 

The scientific, economic, technological and political issues involved in the negotiations were staggeringly complex. Billions of dollars of international investment and 

hundreds of thousands of jobs worldwide were involved in production and consumption of CFCs and halons. Powerful governments in Europe, Japan and the Soviet 

Union aligned with global economic interests in adamant opposition to controlling 

CFCs, maintaining that technological alternatives were nonexistent or too costly or 

unfeasible. 

The then twelve nation European Community (EC) was the primary opponent of 

action. Its ozone position was based largely on the self-serving data and contentions 

of a few major companies—including Britain’s Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI), 

France’s Atochem, and Germany’s Hoechst. European industry’s primary objective 

was to preserve their market dominance and to avoid the costs of switching to alternative products for as long as possible. Epitomizing the close EC industry-government linkages, company executives often served on official delegations. Indeed, during the protocol negotiations we actually came across an official EC instruction 

drafted on an Atochem corporate letterhead. 

Most other governments and peoples were unaware or indifferent to an arcane 

threat occurring 30 miles above the earth’s surface. As an Indian diplomat admonished me early in the negotiations: ‘‘Rich man’s problem—rich man’s solution.’’

Perhaps most significant of all, during the negotiations the arguments for controlling CFCs rested on unproven scientific theories. The science remained speculative, 

based on projections from still-evolving computer models of imperfectly understood 

atmospheric processes—models that yielded varying, sometimes contradictory predictions each time they were refined. 

Despite the significant growth in emissions of CFCs, thirty years of recorded 

measurements had not demonstrated any statistically meaningful ozone depletion 

over mid-latitudes. The models did not even predict global depletion, with existing 

levels of emissions, for at least the next twenty years. Moreover, not only was there 

no evidence of increased levels of UV-B radiation reaching earth’s surface, but such 

measurements as existed actually showed reduced radiation.1 During the negotiations, the seasonal ‘‘ozone hole’’ over Antarctica, while alarming, was considered by 

most scientists to be an anomaly, since it did not conform to the theoretical ozone 

depletion models and could possibly have had other than anthropogenic causes. 

Nevertheless, after contentious international negotiations, compounded by unexpected late controversy from within the U.S. Administration, a strong control treaty 

was signed in Montreal in September 1987. The treaty signing attracted worldwide 

media attention, and it was hailed in the United States Senate as ‘‘the most significant international environmental agreement in history.’’2 President Reagan became 

the first head of state to endorse the Montreal Protocol, characterizing it as ‘‘a monumental achievement of science and diplomacy,’’3 and the treaty was unanimously 

ratified by the Senate. 

Perhaps the most extraordinary aspect of the Montreal Protocol was that it imposed substantial short-term economic costs in order to protect human health and 

the environment against speculative future dangers—dangers that rested on scientific theories rather than on proven facts. Unlike environmental agreements of the 

past, this was not a response to harmful developments or events, but rather preventive action on a global scale. 

Within less than six years after the negotiations began in late 1986, the Montreal 

Protocol had been ratified by more than 100 (later over 180) nations. Gradually unfolding scientific evidence of damage to the ozone layer led to major revisions of the 

protocol, expanding the list of controlled chemicals from 8 to over 90 and considerably strengthening timetables for reduction and phase out of the dangerous chemicals.4 A veritable technological revolution was unleashed that within a few years 

transformed entire industries. The protocol also created the first-ever global environmental fund to assist poorer nations, and promoted an unprecedented North-
45

5G.O.P. Obasi and Elizabeth Dowdeswell, Foreword to R. Bojkov, The Changing Ozone Layer, 

Geneva: WMO/UNEP, 1995. 6D. Albritton et al., Stratospheric Ozone: The State of the Science and NOAA’s Current and 

Future Research (Washington, DC: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1987), 

p.1. 7R.S. Stolarski and R.J. Cicerone, ‘‘Stratospheric Chlorine: A Possible Sink Ozone,’’ Canadian 

Journal of Chemistry 52 (1974). 8M.J. Molina and F.S. Rowland, ‘‘Stratospheric Sink for Chloroflouromethanes: Chlorine 

Atomic Catalyzed Destruction of Ozone, Nature 249 (1974). 9L. Dotto and H. Schiff, The Ozone War (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1978). 

South collaboration in developing and diffusing new technologies that have now 

made most ozone-depleting substances obsolete. 

Even so, it was a near thing. For decades after their discovery, no one had suspected that these multifaceted wonder-chemicals could cause any harm. They had 

been thoroughly tested by customary industrial standards and declared completely 

safe. Possible effects thirty miles above the earth had simply never been considered. 

And, because the CFCs and halons have such long atmospheric lifetimes, their deleterious impacts will still be felt for decades, even after new emissions cease. 

The Montreal Protocol is generally considered to be the most successful environmental treaty in history. The heads of the World Meteorological Organization 

(WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme’’ (UNEP) stated that ‘‘the 

action to defend the ozone layer will rank as one of the great international achievements of the century.’’5 Given the threats to human life and the global economy that 

have been averted through this landmark treaty, few would challenge their statement as hyperbole. 

THE ROLE OF SCIENCE AND SCIENTISTS

Unquestionably the indispensable element in the success of the Montreal Protocol 

was the role of science and scientists. Without the curiosity and courage of a handful of researchers in the mid-1970s, the world might have learned too late of the 

hidden dangers linked with rapidly expanding use of CFCs. 

Ozone, whose existence was unknown until 1839, has been characterized as ‘‘the 

single most important chemically active trace gas in the earth’s atmosphere.’’6 Two 

singular characteristics of this remote, unstable, and toxic gas make it so critical 

to human society. First, certain wavelengths of ultraviolet radiation (UV-B) that can 

damage DNA and the immune system and can cause cancer in living cells are absorbed by the thin layer of ozone molecules scattered throughout the atmosphere; 

the harmful radiation is thus prevented from reaching the earth’s surface. And second, differing quantities of ozone at different altitudes have major implications for 

global climate. In sum, human health, agriculture and livestock, fisheries, biological 

diversity, and many materials would be significantly impacted by damage to the 

ozone shield. The ozone layer, at its historic natural concentrations and diffusion, 

is essential to life as it currently exists on earth. 

In 1973, two University of Michigan scientists, Richard Stolarski and Ralph Cicerone, in the course of examining possible effects of chemical emissions from National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) rockets, theorized that chlorine in 

the stratosphere could unleash a complex chain reaction that would continually destroy ozone over a period of decades. Fortunately, very little ‘‘free chlorine’’ was 

thought to exist at that altitude.7

However, a year later, Mario Molina and Sherwood Rowland at the University of 

California, Irvine, became intrigued with some peculiar properties of chlorofluorocarbons. They discovered that, unlike almost all other gases, CFCs were not chemically destroyed or rained out in the lower atmosphere, but rather migrated slowly 

up into the stratosphere. There they remained for many decades—some variants for 

more than a century. The two researchers concluded that the man-made CFCs, 

which are not naturally present at this altitude, are eventually broken down by radiation and thereby release large quantities of free chlorine.8

The combined implications of these two hypotheses were nothing less than sensational: the protective ozone shield would be seriously compromised. The enhanced 

levels of ultraviolet radiation that would then penetrate the atmosphere and reach 

earth’s surface could have potentially disastrous impacts. The Rowland-Molina 

hypotheses unleashed a firestorm of criticism and controversy in the scientific and 

business communities. They were later vindicated by the 1995 Nobel Prize in Chemistry (together with Paul Crutzen of the Max Planck Institute), but it is worth noting that the first popular book on this subject, published in 1978, was entitled The 

Ozone War.9
46

Astonishingly, the research paths leading to the suspicion that the stratospheric 

ozone layer was in jeopardy had been serendipitous. The scientists had not set out 

intentionally to condemn chlorofluorocarbons. Notwithstanding the initial controversy, the serious theoretical dangers prompted a wave of new scientific research 

over the following years. 

It would be difficult to exaggerate the complexity of the research effort. Ozone 

itself amounts to considerably less than one part per million of the total atmosphere, with 90 percent of it located above six miles in altitude. The intrinsically unstable ozone molecules are continually being created and destroyed by complex natural forces involving solar radiation and interactions with even more minute quantities of other gases. Moreover, stratospheric ozone concentrations can fluctuate on 

a daily, seasonal, and solar-cyclical basis, and there are significant geographical as 

well as altitudinal variations 

Amidst all these fluxes, scientists faced a formidable challenge in predicting, and 

then detecting, the minuscule ‘‘signal’’ of the beginning of a possible long-term 

downturn in stratospheric ozone as postulated by the theory. This necessitated the 

development of ever more sophisticated computer models to simulate the stratospheric interplay among radiative, chemical, and dynamic processes such as wind 

and temperature, for decades and centuries into the future. In addition, intricate observation and measuring devices had to be created and fitted onto aircraft, satellites, and rockets to monitor remote gases in quantities as minute as parts per 

trillion. 

To fully understand the implications of a diminishing ozone layer, scientists had 

to venture far beyond atmospheric chemistry: they had to examine our planet as a 

system of interrelated physical, chemical and biological processes on land, in water, 

and in the atmosphere—processes that are themselves influenced by economic, political, and social forces. The Montreal Protocol thus became a truly multi- and interdisciplinary effort. Over the years, researching the dangers and solutions involved 

not only chemists and physicists, but also meteorologists, oceanographers, biologists, 

oncologists, economists, epidemiologists, soil chemists, toxicologists, agronomists, 

pharmacologists, botanists, entomologists, and electrical, chemical, automotive and 

materials engineers. 

THE PROTOCOL IN TRANSITION

Even as the negotiators were hammering out the final compromises in Montreal 

in September 1987, an unprecedented international scientific expedition was under 

way in Antarctica. Using specially designed equipment placed in balloons, satellites, 

a DC-8 flying laboratory, and a converted high-altitude U-2 spy aircraft, scientists 

were tracking stratospheric chemical reactions and measuring minute concentrations of gases. Preliminary results, announced about two weeks after the protocol’s 

signing, indicated high stratospheric chlorine presence and the worst-ever seasonal 

drop in Antarctic ozone. 

Six months later, in March 1988, a joint NASA-NOAA press conference released 

the Ozone Trends Panel Report, a comprehensive international scientific assessment 

of all previous air- and ground-based stratospheric trace gas measurements, including those from the 1987 Antarctic expedition. The conclusions were stunning: no 

longer a theory, ozone layer depletion had at last been substantiated by hard evidence. The analysis established that between 1969 and 1986, stratospheric ozone 

over heavily populated regions of the northern hemisphere, including North America, Europe, and the Soviet Union, China, and Japan, had diminished by small but 

significant amounts. And CFCs and halons were now implicated beyond dispute—

including responsibility for the ozone collapse over Antarctica. 

The new scientific findings were profoundly disquieting. The most alarming implication was that the models on which the Montreal Protocol was based had proven 

incapable of predicting either the chlorine-induced Antarctic phenomenon or the extent of ozone depletion elsewhere. Most probably, therefore, they were underestimating future ozone losses. 

Scientific studies now indicated that if existing atmospheric concentrations of 

chlorine and bromine were merely stabilized, the Antarctic ozone loss would be permanent. In order for ozone levels over Antarctica gradually to recover, and to avoid 

possibly crossing similar unforeseen thresholds in the future, it would be necessary 

to restore atmospheric chlorine concentrations (then at three parts per billion and 

rising) to levels at least as low as those prevailing in the early 1970s, namely, two 

parts per billion. 

The original CFCs and halons would be phased out more rapidly than any of the 

negotiators at Montreal could have dreamed possible. 
47

10See footnote 1. 

Although the work of protecting the ozone layer is still not completely finished, 

the major challenges have been successfully addressed. The industrialized countries 

have either phased out, or are in process of phasing out, all of the major ozone-depleting substances as well as the less-damaging transitional chemicals. Developing 

countries have also accepted phase-out schedules as a great wave of new technologies is being diffused around the world. Now, the ozone layer is slowly beginning to recover. 

LESSONS FOR SCIENCE

Without modern science and technology, the world would have remained unaware 

of an ozone problem until it was too late. Science became the driving force behind 

ozone policy, but it was not sufficient for scientists merely to publish their findings. 

In order for the theories to be taken seriously and lead to concrete policies, scientists had to interact closely with government policy makers and diplomatic negotiators. This meant that they had to leave the familiar atmosphere of their laboratories and assume an unaccustomed shared responsibility for the policy implications 

of their research. The history of the Montreal Protocol is filled with instances of scientific panels being called upon to analyze and make informed judgments about the 

effectiveness and consequences of alternative remedial strategies and policy measures. International scientific consensus was also essential. In effect, a community of scientists from many nations, dedicated to scientific objectivity, experienced through 

their research a mutual concern for protecting the planet’s ozone layer that transcended divergent national allegiances. The development of an accepted common 

body of data and analysis was the prerequisite for a political solution among negotiating Governments whose initial positions seemed irreconcilable. 

In 1984, a remarkable international collaborative research effort was launched by 

the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), in cooperation with the WMO, 

UNEP, the Federal Aviation Administration, the German Ministry for Research and 

Technology, and the Commission of the European Communities. Approximately 150 

scientists of various nationalities worked under United States scientists’ leadership 

for more than a year. The resulting study, Atmospheric Ozone 1985, was the most 

ambitious analysis of the stratosphere ever undertaken: three volumes containing 

nearly 1,100 pages of text and eighty-six pages of references.10 This was followed 

by even more ambitions international studies. 

The Montreal Protocol later institutionalized this concept by establishing independent international expert panels to periodically assess scientific, technological, 

economic, and environmental developments and thereby guide the negotiators in the 

implementation and revision of the treaty. Over the years, thousands of scientific 

and industry experts from dozens of countries participated in the effort to learn 

more about both the dangers and the possible technological solutions. This proved 

to be a central element in the protocol’s success, facilitating agreement by negotiators on additional controls to protect the ozone layer. In effect, the protocol was 

deliberately designed to be a dynamic process of narrowing the ranges of uncertainties and adjusting the measures accordingly, rather than being a static one-time solution. 

A major lesson from the ozone history is that Nature does not always provide policy makers with convenient early-warning signals of disaster, as exemplified in the 

case of the Antarctic ‘‘ozone hole.’’ In 1985, British scientists published findings 

based on balloon measurements of ozone made at Halley Bay in Antarctica. It appeared that stratospheric ozone concentrations during the Antarctic early spring 

(September-October) were about 40 percent lower than during the 1960s. While the 

ozone layer recovered toward the end of each spring, the extent of the seasonal 

ozone collapse, or ‘‘ozone hole’’ (i.e., a portion of the stratosphere in which greatly 

diminished ozone levels were measured), had apparently accelerated beginning in 

1979. 

Total chlorine concentrations over Antarctica, at a natural level of 0.6 parts per 

billion, had been slowly increasing for decades. However, no effect on the ozone 

layer was evident until the concentration exceeded two parts per billion, which apparently triggered the totally unexpected collapse. In other words, chlorine concentrations had tripled with no impact whatsoever on ozone until they crossed an 

unanticipated threshold. This nonlinear response has obvious implications for the 

potential dangers of other types of anthropogenic interference with the planet’s natural cycles and resources. 
48

11J. Farman, B.G. Gardiner, and J.D. Shanklin. ‘‘Large Losses of Total Ozone in Antartica 

Reveal Seasonal Clx/NOx Interaction,’’ Nature, no. 315 (1985). 

The British group had actually initially hesitated to publish their findings because 

they were considered too fantastic.11 Ironically, it was later discovered that United 

States and Japanese space satellites had not signaled the ozone collapse because, 

in order not to deluge scientists with unmanageable masses of data, satellite computers were programmed to automatically reject as anomalies any measurements so 

far below the ‘‘error’’ range of existing predictive models! 

The role of scientists in the ozone history also provided some useful lessons for 

the climate change issue. During the 1980s, scientific assessments on climate 

change appeared regularly, under the aegis of WMO and UNEP, from a small group 

of largely self-selected scientists called the Advisory Group on Greenhouse Gases. 

In the summer of 1987, while preparing for the conclusive final negotiation in Montreal, I recommended that the U.S. propose establishing a formalized international 

assessment body on climate change, similar to what we were doing on the ozone 

issue. My belief was that findings would be more credible coming from a larger and 

more diverse group of scientists operating under intergovernmental auspices. 

This idea attracted unexpected allies and opponents. Some traditionally anti-environmental officials within the Reagan administration endorsed the concept, anticipating that it would provide governments with more control over the science. In contrast, environmental groups feared that the process would become distorted by politics. My own feeling, grounded in the ozone experience, was that the great majority 

of scientists were unlikely to allow themselves to be influenced by political, ideological or commercial interests, and that governments for their part would have greater 

respect for the results of a comprehensive international process of investigation and 

peer review. The subsequent experience of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change, founded in 1988, has largely confirmed this hope. 

LESSONS FOR THE PRIVATE SECTOR

The history of the Montreal Protocol also underscored the importance of having 

sufficient funding for all levels of science, from curiosity-driven basic research to applied engineering solutions. Initially, most research funding came from government 

sources, in particular NASA and NOAA in connection with their space-related research. 

But this was not always the case. In 1985, when the U.K. Government was still 

strongly opposed to meaningful controls over CFCs, it ceased financing, for obvious 

political motives, the British scientific mission in Antarctica that had uncovered the 

‘‘ozone hole.’’ Significantly, the financial gap was filled by the U.S. Chemical Manufacturers Association; the American chemical companies hoped that controls would 

not be necessary, but they wanted to resolve the uncertainties—one way or the 

other. 

In general, American industry throughout the ozone negotiations was more pragmatic than ideological. Recognizing the growing scientific consensus, the Alliance for 

Responsible CFC Policy, a coalition of about 500 producer and user companies, 

announced its acceptance of international controls in September 1986, three 

months before the formal negotiation process actually opened. Eight months later, 

American industry stayed conspicuously aloof from the campaign by anti-environmental elements within the administration to undermine a meaningful treaty, and 

subsequently fully endorsed President Reagan’s strong position for the climactic 

September 1987 negotiation in Montreal. 

The financial and intellectual resources of the private sector make its involvement 

and cooperation indispensable, since society ultimately depends primarily on industry to provide technological solutions. Technology is dynamic, and not, as often implied by those who resist change, a static element. If the market is left completely 

on its own, it may not necessarily bring forth the right technologies at the right 

time. Although the 1987 ozone protocol established targets that were initially beyond the reach of best-available technologies, the goals were in fact not unrealistic. 

The Montreal Protocol was not, as some opponents charged, a ‘‘radical’’ treaty. On 

the contrary, it was an expression of faith in the market system. The treaty employed realistic market incentives to encourage technological innovation. The negotiators effectively signaled to the marketplace that research into solutions would 

now be profitable. Competitive—and collaborative—forces then took over, and solutions were developed much sooner, and at considerably lower cost, than had earlier 

been predicted. 

The protocol in fact stimulated a virtual technological revolution in the international chemical, telecommunications, pharmaceutical, and numerous other indus-
49

12See ‘‘Heidelberg Appeal’’ at www.sepp.org. 

tries. By providing CFC producers and users with the certainty that the CFC market was destined to decline, the treaty unleashed the creative energies and financial 

resources of the private sector to find alternatives. Following the protocol’s signing, 

the chemical industry began the race for substitutes. Four months after Montreal, 

several hundred industry representatives participated in a CFC-substitutes trade 

fair in Washington. 

Some user industries did not wait for the chemical companies to come up with 

substitutes; such companies as Nortel, IBM and Motorola re-examined their manufacturing processes and found ways to eliminate CFCs. In cooperation with a small 

Florida company, AT&T announced a replacement for CFC 113 derived from citrus 

fruit, for cleaning electronic circuit boards. Japanese and American importers of 

electronics parts from Thailand, including AT&T, Ford, Honda, and Toshiba, teamed 

up with EPA and Japan’s Ministry of Trade and Industry to provide non-CFC technologies to their suppliers. More than 40 multinational companies from eight countries, including Asea Brown Boveri, British Petroleum, Hitachi, and Honeywell, 

joined to help Viet Nam phase out CFCs. 

LESSONS FOR CREDIBILITY

Another lesson from the Montreal Protocol’s success was the importance of education: interpreting the continuously evolving and sometimes confusing data and 

communicating it intelligibly to the public, the media, and political and legislative 

leaders. This information flow mobilized public support for addressing the potential 

dangers of a diminishing ozone layer, and thereby promoted political consensus for 

both funding research and for policy actions. The role of the U.S. Congress was particularly critical in organizing many public hearings on the ozone issue over the 

years, and in commissioning several important studies by the National Academy of 

Sciences. 

In the 1980s, environmental organizations that favored strong actions to protect 

the ozone layer generally avoided invoking apocalypse in order to capture media and 

public attention. As chief United States negotiator pressing the official American position for strong controls against the opposition of most of the other major producing 

and consuming countries, I insisted that our delegation in principle never exaggerate the scientific case: let the science speak for itself, even when it is not completely unambiguous. I wanted to preserve our integrity and not present the opposition with a gratuitous weapon against our position. 

When some opponents of controlling CFCs within the U.S. Administration tried 

late in the negotiations to reverse the strong American position (and, incidentally, 

to dismiss me as chief negotiator), they belittled the science and the dangers, claiming inter alia that the problem could be solved by wearing cowboy hats and sunglasses. The resultant ridicule and backlash from the Congress, scientists, media, 

public, and the White House itself eventually led to a personal decision by President 

Reagan reaffirming the United States position favoring strong controls. 

Unfortunately, the lesson of scientific integrity appears to have been lost in the 

debate over climate change that began in the late 1980s. Some environmental 

groups became overly alarmist in exaggerating the case for global warming following 

the hot summer of 1988, and, later, by crusading for the Kyoto Protocol as the only 

conceivable solution. This only engendered a strong counter-reaction from some affected industrial sectors. In addition, when the predicted dire consequences of climate change did not emerge soon, the American public—which in any case is accustomed to natural seasonal weather extremes—became generally apathetic toward 

possible long-term dangers. 

For their part, skeptics of climate change were also not immune to distortion. In 

an effort to discredit the climate science, opponents repeatedly cite the ‘‘Heidelberg 

Appeal,’’ released by a nongovernmental group at the United Nations Earth Summit 

in Johannesburg in 2002, as definitive evidence that most of the scientific community—more than 4000 eminent international scientist signatories, including over 70 

Nobel Laureates—rejects the idea that rising anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions could cause dangerous global climatic consequences. In actuality, the one-page 

document is a general treatise on the importance of science and contains not a single reference to the climate problem.12

LESSONS FOR GOVERNMENT

Some governments allowed commercial self-interest to influence their interpretations of the science: uncertainty was used as an excuse for delaying decisions. Some 

political leaders, particularly those in Europe with substantial chemical industries, 
50

13U.K. House of Lords, Hansard 500 (October 20, 1988): col. 1308. 

were initially prepared to accept speculative long-term environmental risks rather 

than to impose the tangible near-term costs entailed in limiting products seen as 

important contributors to a modern standard of living. Short-range political and economic concerns were, therefore, formidable obstacles to cooperative international action based upon the theory of ozone-depletion. 

Other political leaders, however, including President Reagan and the Governments of Australia, Austria, Canada, Finland, Denmark, New Zealand, Norway, 

Sweden and Switzerland, decided to act even while there were still scientific ambiguities, based on a balancing of the risks and costs of delay. 

As early as 1977, the U.S. Congress had authorized the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the Clean Air Act to regulate ‘‘any substance which in his judgment may reasonably be anticipated to affect the stratosphere, especially ozone in the stratosphere, if such effect may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare’’ (emphasis added). This law attempted 

to balance the scientific uncertainties with the risks of inaction. It opted for a low 

threshold to justify intervention: the Government was not obligated to prove conclusively that a suspected substance could modify the stratosphere or endanger health 

and environment. All that was required was a standard of reasonable expectation. 

As Governor Russell Peterson, a senior advisor to President Nixon, had declared in 

reference to other potentially harmful chemicals, CFCs would not, like United 

States citizens, be considered innocent until proven guilty. 

Unfortunately, current tools of economic analysis are not fully adequate for evaluating the costs and risks, and can be deceptive indicators; they are in urgent need 

of reform. The customary methods of measuring national income do not satisfactorily reflect societal and ecological costs—especially those far in the future. Politicians should nevertheless resist the tendency to assign excessive credibility to selfserving economic interests that demand scientific certainty, and who insist that, 

simply because dangers are remote, they are therefore unlikely. 

By the time the evidence on such issues as ozone layer depletion and climate 

change is beyond dispute, the damage could be irreversible and it may be too late 

to avoid serious harm to human life and draconian future costs to society. The signatories at Montreal risked imposing substantial short-run economic dislocations 

even though the evidence was incomplete. The prudence of their decision was vindicated when the scientific models turned out to have actually underestimated prospective ozone depletion. And, thanks to the ingenuity of private entrepreneurs, the 

costs of action turned out to be much lower than originally predicted. 

CONCLUSION: ACTING UNDER UNCERTAINTY

The Montreal Protocol was by no means inevitable. Knowledgeable observers had 

long believed it would be impossible to achieve. The ozone negotiators confronted 

formidable political, economic, and psychological obstacles. The dangers of ozone depletion could touch every nation and all life on earth over periods far beyond politicians’ normal time horizons. But although the potential consequences were grave, 

they could neither be measured nor predicted with certitude when the diplomats 

began their work. 

In the realm of international relations there will always be resistance to change, 

and there will always be uncertainties—scientific, political, economic, psychological. 

Faced with global environmental threats, governments may need to act while some 

major questions remain unresolved. In achieving the Montreal accord, consensus 

was forged and decisions were made on a balancing of probabilities—and the risks 

of waiting for more complete evidence were finally deemed to be too great. 

‘‘Politics,’’ stated Lord Kennet during early ozone debates in the House of Lords, 

‘‘is the art of taking good decisions on insufficient evidence.’’13 The success of the 

Montreal Protocol stands as a beacon of how science can help decision makers to 

overcome conflicting political and economic interests and reach solutions. The ozone 

history demonstrates that even in the real world of ambiguity and imperfect knowledge, the international community, with the assistance of science, is capable of undertaking difficult and far-reaching actions for the common good. 

SUPPLEMENTARY STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RICHARD E. BENEDICK, PRESIDENT, 

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Like Dr. Crichton, I am not a climate scientist and also like Dr. Crichton, I have 

followed the controversy surrounding Dr. Michael Mann and his associates. Given 
51

that Dr. Crichton has devoted considerable attention to this matter in his testimony, 

I would also like to add some observations for the record of the Hearing. 

First, contrary to Dr. Crichton’s assertion, it is a matter of record that the initial 

paper by Mann et al., which appeared in the highly respected scientific journal Nature in 1998, did undergo thorough peer review prior to its publication. 

Second, it is my understanding that all of the data and methodologies used by 

them is publicly accessible and has been accessible since 1998. The only controversy 

has been about access to the specific computer program used by Dr. Mann and his 

co-authors. While the data and methodologies are typically the only requisites for 

public access, Mann and colleagues have also made their computer program available. I note that the National Science Foundation has been consulted on this matter 

and its legal office has stated that Dr. Mann and his colleagues have behaved in 

an entirely appropriate manner. 

Third, Dr. Crichton is correct to assert that replication of results is a very important aspect of sound science. I understand that the work of Dr. Mann et. al has in 

fact been replicated by other climate scientists. 

I understand that the Committee has received through other channels the letter 

sent by Dr. Mann to the House Committee on Energy and Science on July 15th of 

this year. This letter addresses in detail each of the issues raised by Dr. Crichton 

and others. The letter also indicates where the data, methodologies and computer 

programs are publicly accessible. I believe it is important that no one reading the 

record of this Hearing should have the impression that the statements made by Dr. 

Crichton have not already been addressed. 

There appears, moreover, to be controversy about the type of peer review undertaken on the paper by McIntyre and McKitrick before its publication in the magazine Energy and Environment, as well as whether the alleged ‘‘errors’’ that they report are in fact real, and indeed whether the work of McIntyre and McKitrick is 

itself replicable. 

In conclusion, there will always be disputes and disagreements among reputable 

scientists of good will. This is a normal part of the process of developing generally 

respected sound science. I would like to emphasize that reputable, peer-reviewed 

journals, and trusted, apolitical institutions like the National Academy of Sciences, 

have earned a deserved reputation as the best places to resolve scientific disagreements, rather than politicized innuendos, conspiracy theories, or science fiction novels. I believe that those who would make sensationalized accusations about the integrity of scientists—accusations that could destroy professional careers—have an 

ethical obligation to check their facts before seeking publicity. Unless they do this, 

their insinuations merit no credibility. 

RESPONSES OF RICHARD E. BENEDICK TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM

SENATOR INHOFE

Question 1. After the Hearing, your Executive Director, Peter Saundry was quoted 

in the press saying: 

‘‘Outside the committee room, Peter Saundry, executive director of the National 

Council for Science and the Environment, said that he was bemused by Crichton’s 

apparent position. ‘‘If you read his book, you are left with the impression that environmentalists are only one step up from the sort of people who will cross the road 

to murder your children, but then you get the author’s note at the back and he 

makes this statement saying that he is not a climate change denier. It’s hard to 

know what his position is.’’

Were you in fact confused by Dr. Crichton’s testimony on the need for independent verification of scientific research? Does the National Council for Science 

and the Environment oppose independent verification of scientific research? 

Response. The comments of Dr. Saundry quoted above, appear to refer to a contradiction between the murderous exploits of a fictional environmental organization 

and the ‘‘debunking’’ of the issue of climate change that is the basis of Dr. Crichton’s 

novel, and Dr. Crichton’s statement in a postscript to the novel that he does not 

deny the possibility of human impacts on climate. Thus, if there is some confusion 

on Dr. Crichton’s testimony, it concerns his position on climate change rather than 

his position on independent verification of scientific research. 

The National Council for Science and the Environment emphatically supports the 

independent verification of scientific research. The National Council for Science and 

the Environment also supports independent peer review of scientific results prior to 

publication, and also supports making both the data and methodology of published 

scientific findings sufficiently accessible for independent verification of results to be 
52

carried out. On these principles, I believe that there is agreement between myself 

and Dr. Crichton. 

I confess that I was also confused by the substantial part of Dr. Crichton’s testimony that applied these principles to the work of Dr. Michael Mann and colleagues—especially since the initial paper by Mann et al., which appeared in the 

highly respected scientific journal Nature in 1998, did undergo thorough peer review 

prior to its publication. 

It is my understanding that all of the data and methodologies used by Mann et. 

al. are publicly accessible and have been accessible since 1998. The only controversy 

appears to be about access to the specific computer program used by Dr. Mann and 

his co-authors. While the data and methodologies are typically the only requisites 

for public access, Mann and colleagues have in fact also made their computer program available. The National Science Foundation was consulted on this matter and 

its legal office has stated that Dr. Mann and his colleagues have behaved in an entirely appropriate manner. 

I understand that the work of Dr. Mann et. al has also been replicated by other 

climate scientists and these independent replications have been explicitly referred 

to in the comprehensive letter sent by Dr. Mann to the House Committee on Energy 

and Science on July 15th of this year, which I understand has been submitted into 

the record of this hearing. The letter also indicates where the data, methodologies 

and computer programs are publicly accessible and addresses in detail each of the 

issues raised by Dr. Crichton. 

In an imperfect world, there will always be disputes and disagreements among 

reputable scientists of good will. This is a normal part of the process of developing 

generally respected sound science. Peer-reviewed journals, and trusted, apolitical institutions like the National Academy of Sciences, have earned a deserved reputation 

as the best places to resolve scientific disagreements, rather than in works of fiction. 

I believe that anyone who would make accusations about the integrity of scientists—accusations that could destroy professional careers—has an ethical obligation to independently verify facts before seeking publicity. Unless they do this, their 

insinuations lose credibility. 

RESPONSES OF RICHARD E. BENEDICK TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM

SENATOR JEFFORDS

Question 1. In your written testimony, you write that in March 1998 a joint NASA 

press conference released the Ozone Trends Panel Report. Can you provide a citation for the record of the Executive Summary of that report, which you used in your 

remarks? 

Response. R.T. Watson, F.S. Rowland, and J. Gille, ‘‘Ozone Trends Panel Executive Summary,’’ NASA, Washington, D.C. 

STATEMENT OF DR. MICHAEL CRICHTON, M.D., AUTHOR, DOCTOR

Thank you Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee. I am Michael Crichton, 

known to most people as the author of Jurassic Park and the creator of the television series ER. My academic background includes degrees from Harvard College 

and Harvard Medical School; I was a visiting lecturer in Physical Anthropology at 

Cambridge University; and a post-doctoral fellow at the Salk Institute, where I 

worked on media and science policy with Jacob Bronowski. 

My recent novel ‘‘State of Fear’’ concerns the politicization of scientific research. 

I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this subject. What I would like to emphasize 

to the committee today is the importance of independent verification to science. 

In essence, science is nothing more than a method of inquiry. The method says 

an assertion is valid and will be universally accepted only if it can be reproduced 

by others, and thereby independently verified. The impersonal rigor of the method 

has produced enormously powerful results for 400 years. 

The scientific method is utterly apolitical. A truth in science is verifiable whether 

you are black or white, male or female, old or young. It’s verifiable whether you 

know the experimenter, or whether you don’t. It’s verifiable whether you like the 

results of a study, or you don’t. 

Thus, when adhered to, the scientific method can transcend politics. Unfortunately, the converse may also be true: when politics takes precedent over content, 

it is often because the primacy of independent verification has been abandoned. 

Verification may take several forms. I come from medicine, where the gold standard is the randomized double-blind study. Not every study is conducted in this way, 

but it is held up as the ultimate goal. 
53

1Mann, M.E., R.S. Bradley and M.K. Hughes, 1998. ‘‘Global-Scale Temperature Patterns and 

Climate Forcing Over the Past Six Centuries,’’ Nature, 392, 779-787. 2McIntyre, S. and R. McKitrick, 2003. ‘‘Corrections to the Mann et. Al. (1998) Proxy Data Base 

and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series.’’ Environment and Energy 14(6) 751-

771. See also, McIntyre, S. and R. McKitrick, 2005. ‘‘Hockey Sticks, Principal Components and 

Spurious Significance’’, Geophysical Research Letters V 32 (3) L03710 10.1029/2004GL021750 

12

In that vein, let me tell you a story. It’s 1991, I am flying home from Germany, 

sitting next to a man who is almost in tears, he is so upset. He’s a physician involved in an FDA study of a new drug. It’s a double-blind study involving four separate teams—one plans the study, another administers the drug to patients, a third 

assess the effect on patients, and a fourth analyzes results. The teams do not know 

each other, and are prohibited from personal contact of any sort, on peril of contaminating the results. This man had been sitting in the Frankfurt airport, innocently 

chatting with another man, when they discovered to their mutual horror they are 

on two different teams studying the same drug. They were required to report their 

encounter to the FDA. And my companion was now waiting to see if the FDA would 

declare their multi-year, multi-million-dollar study invalid because of this contact. 

For a person with a medical background, accustomed to this degree of rigor in research, the protocols of climate science appear considerably more relaxed. A striking 

feature of climate science is that it’s permissible for raw data to be ‘‘touched,’’ or 

modified, by many hands. Gaps in temperature and proxy records are filled in. Suspect values are deleted because a scientist deems them erroneous. A researcher may 

elect to use parts of existing records, ignoring other parts. Sometimes these adjustments are necessary, sometimes they are questionable. Sometimes the adjustments 

are documented, sometimes not. But the fact that the data has been modified in so 

many ways inevitably raises the question of whether the results of a given study 

are wholly or partially caused by the modifications themselves. 

In saying this, I am not casting aspersions on the motives or fair-mindedness of 

climate scientists. Rather, what is at issue is whether the methodology of climate 

science is sufficiently rigorous to yield a reliable result. At the very least, we should 

want the reassurance of independent verification by another lab, in which they 

make their own decisions about how to handle data, and yet arrive at a similar conclusion. 

Because any study where a single team plans the research, carries it out, supervises the analysis, and writes their own final report, carries a very high risk of undetected bias. That risk, for example, would automatically preclude the validity of 

the results of a similarly structured study that tested the efficacy of a drug. Nobody 

would believe it. 

By the same token, it would be unacceptable if the subsequent verification of such 

a study were conducted by investigators with whom the researcher had a professional relationship—people with whom, for example, he had published papers in the 

past. That’s peer review by pals, and it’s unavoidably biased. Yet these issues are 

central to the now-familiar story of the ‘‘Hockey stick graph’’ and the debate surrounding it. 

To summarize it briefly: in 1998-99 the American climate researcher Michael 

Mann and his co-workers published an estimate of global temperatures from the 

year 1000 to 1980.1 Mann’s results appeared to show a spike in recent temperatures 

that was unprecedented in the last thousand years. His alarming report received 

widespread publicity and formed the centerpiece of the U.N.’s Third Assessment Report, in 2001. The graph appeared on the first page of the IPCC Executive Summary. 

Mann’s work was initially criticized because his graph didn’t show the well-known 

Medieval Warm Period, when temperatures were warmer than they are today, or 

the Little Ice Age, when they were colder than today. But real fireworks began 

when two Canadian researchers, McIntyre and McKitrick, attempted to replicate 

Mann’s study. They found grave errors in the work, which they detailed in 2003:2

calculation errors, data used twice, and a computer program that generated a hockey stick out of any data fed to it even random data. 

Mann’s work has been dismissed as ‘‘phony’’ and ‘‘rubbish’’ by climate scientists 

around the world who subscribe to global warming. Some have asked why the UN 

accepted Mann’s report so uncritically. It is unsettling to learn Mann himself was 

in charge of the section of the report that included his work. This episode of climate 

science is far from the standards of independent verification. 

The hockey stick controversy drags on. But I would direct the committee’s attention to three aspects of this story. First, six years passed between Mann’s publication and the first detailed accounts of errors in his work. This is simply too long 
54

3Crichton, M., N.P. Christy and A. Damon, 1981. ‘‘Host Factors in ‘Chromophobe’ Adenoma 

of the Anterior Pituitary; a Retrospective Study of 464 Patients.’’ Metabolism, 3:248-67. 4‘‘Our evaluation process is not as clear-cut as a simple search for ‘falsification.’ While we do 

not consider that the complexity of a climate model makes it impossible to ever prove such a 

model ‘false’ in any absolute sense, it does make the task of evaluation extremely difficult and 

leaves room for a subjective component in any assessment.’’ IPCC TAR p 474. See also ‘‘We fully 

recognize the evaluation statements we make contain a degree of subjective scientific perception 

and may contain much ‘community’ or ‘personal’ knowledge.’’ IPCC TAR p. 475. Evaluations that 

are non-falsifiable, personal, and subjective are by definition not independently verifiable. 5Landsea, C. et al., 2000, ‘‘How Much Skill Was There in Forecasting the Very Strong 1997-

98 El Nino?’’ Bulletin American Meteorological Society 81: 2107-19. The authors observe: ‘‘—one 

could have even less confidence in anthropogenic global warming studies because of the lack of 

skill in predicting El Nino—the successes in ENSO forecasting have been overstated (sometimes 

drastically) and misapplied in other arenas.’’

for policymakers to wait for validated results. Particularly if it is going to be shown 

around the world in the meantime. 

Second, the flaws in Mann’s work were not caught by climate scientists, but rather by outsiders in this case, an economist and a mathematician. McIntyre and 

McKitrick had to go to great lengths to obtain the data from Mann’s team, which 

obstructed them at every turn. When the Canadians sought help from the NSF, they 

were told that Mann was under no obligation to provide his data to other researchers for independent verification. 

Third, this kind of stonewalling is not unique or uncommon. The Canadians are 

now attempting to replicate other climate studies and are getting the same runaround from other researchers. One leading light in the field told them: ‘‘Why 

should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something 

wrong with it.’’

Even further, some scientists complain the task of archiving is so time-consuming 

as to prevent them from getting any work done. But this is nonsense. 

The first research paper I worked on, back in the 1960s, consisted of data on 

stacks of paper. When we received a request for data from another lab, I stood at 

a Xerox machine, copying one page a minute at 11 cents a page for several hours. 

Back in those days, a request for data meant a lot of work.3

But today we can burn data to a CD, or post it at an ftp site for downloading. 

Archiving data is so easy it should have become standard practice a decade ago. 

Government grants should require a ‘‘replication package’’ as part of funding. Posting the package online should be a prerequisite to journal publication. And since it’s 

so easy, there’s really no reason to exclude anyone from reviewing the data. 

One problem with replication is this: while it can tell you a research result is 

faulty, it can’t tell you what the right answer is. Policymakers need sound answers 

to the questions they ask. A better way to get them might be to give research grants 

for important projects to three independent teams simultaneously. A provision of the 

grant would be that at the end of the study period, all three papers would be published together, with each group commenting on the findings of the other. I believe 

this would be the fastest way to get verified answers to important questions. 

But if independent verification is the heart of science, what should policymakers 

do with research that is unverifiable? For example, the UN Third Assessment Report defines general circulation climate models as unverifiable.4 If that’s true, are 

their predictions of any use to policymakers? 

Arguably not. In 2000, Christopher Landsea and co-workers studied various computer models that had forecast the strong El Nino event of 1997-98. They concluded 

that the older, simpler models hardly more than simple formula had performed 

much better than the global circulation models when predicting the arrival and 

strength of the El Nino.5

If policymakers decide to weight their decisions in favor of verified research, that 

will provoke an effort by climate scientists to demonstrate their concerns using objectively verifiable research. 

In closing, I want to state emphatically that nothing in my remarks should be 

taken to imply that we can ignore our environment, or that we should not take climate change seriously. On the contrary, we must dramatically improve our record 

on environmental management. That’s why a focused effort on climate science, 

aimed at securing sound, independently verified answers to policy questions, is so 

important now. 

I would remind the committee that in the end, it is the proper function of government to set standards for the integrity of information it uses to make policy, and 

to ensure that standards are maintained. Those who argue government should refrain from mandating quality standards for scientific research including some professional organizations are merely self-serving. In an information society, public 
55

safety depends on the integrity of public information. And only government can perform that task. 

RESPONSES OF DR. MICHAEL CRICHTON TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM

SENATOR JEFFORDS

Question 1. Did your interest in climate change science stem solely from the writing of your book, or is there something else in your background that initiated your 

interest in this issue? Do you consider yourself to be an expert on the science of 

climate change? 

Response. My views on global warming were entirely conventional until 2001 

when I began to inspect temperature records, which are available online. I was 

underwhelmed by the evidence I saw and I continued my research for two years. 

My decision to write a book came later. 

I am not a climate scientist and I consider my observations useful precisely because I am an outsider looking at this field. I do consider myself a well-educated 

American citizen, and I share with my countrymen a healthy skepticism toward experts of all sorts. If war is too important to be left to the generals, science is too 

important to be left to the scientists. 

Question 2. Have you ever received funding from any person or entity for your 

views on climate change or any other environmental scientific issue? If so, please 

provide the amount received, when and for what purpose. 

Response. In the 25 years of my career, I have never received funding for my 

views on any subject. No one has ever offered, either. 

Question 3. Do you think scientific studies that have not been peer reviewed or 

published in a scientific peer reviewed journal should be given equal weight to studies that have has such review? 

Response. In general I agree with the scientific tradition that gives greater weight 

to peer-reviewed articles. But I am sure you are aware that several published studies in recent years have questioned the effectiveness of peer review as a process. 

This has spurred a debate among scientists about the procedure. The debate has 

several aspects, ranging from questions of subtle censorship, to questions about 

whether peer-review really results in improved papers overall. One area of particular concern is whether peer-review catches statistical errors efficiently. I mention this debate to raise a questionmark behind my answer, and also to remind you 

that peer-review is not the same as independent replication of results (which is 

what I argued for in my testimony.) 

Question 4. You are quite critical of Michael Mann’s study on global temperature 

changes based on a study done by McIntyre and McKitrick. You also state that the 

National Science Foundation told McIntyre and McKitrick that ‘‘Mann was under 

no obligation to provide his data to other researchers.’’ My understanding is that 

access to the data are not the issue, Mann’s data are publicly available. At issue, 

is whether researchers need access to exactly the same computer program (or 

‘‘code’’) as the initial researcher to get the same result. 

Response. My understanding is not the same as yours on this matter. I believe 

McIntyre and McKitrick said they did not obtain prompt access to relevant data. 

The matter of computer code was only one aspect of the larger question of access. 

Question 4a. Would you agree that the key to replicability is unfettered access to 

all of the underlying data and methodologies used by the first researcher? 

Response. Yes. Such access is necessary but not sufficient. At a minimum, two 

other elements are required. The first is that verification be performed by a genuinely independent researcher, and the second is that the results be published, preferably by the original journal. 

Question 4b. If the data and methodological information are available to anyone 

who wants them, are there other limitations to study replication? 

Response. Replication of a study requires that the original investigator provide all 

the information necessary for another research laboratory to perform the replication. 

What constitutes ‘‘all the information necessary’’ will vary from instance to instance. 

Some back-and-forth between investigator and replicator is often required, and frequently occurs in other scientific fields. 

Question 4c. Are you aware that other scientists have reproduced Mann’s results 

based on publicly available information? 

Response. It’s often claimed that ten other studies have replicated the work. But 

four of the papers have Mann’s name listed among the authors. The authors of the 

other six papers include scientists with whom Mann has published other papers. As 

I indicated in my testimony, this is not genuine independent replication. It’s not a 

matter of honesty or good intentions. It’s simply procedurally invalid. 
56

Question 4d. As a writer, are you sympathetic to Mann’s concerns regarding intellectual property protection for his climate model? 

Response. I believe your question contains two erroneous assumptions. First of all, 

to refer to Mann’s study as a ‘‘climate model’’ invites misunderstanding. Mann performed a meta-analysis of many studies taken together. Such meta-analyses have 

been carried out for decades in many fields of science; there is nothing new or unusual about such a study. There are a variety of known computer algorithms that 

are employed for meta-analysis. The particular computer code that Mann employed 

for his meta-analysis has been reported to be flawed. The determination that the 

code is flawed has been made by scientists around the world. 

Second, you ask about intellectual property protection. As you know, ownership 

of intellectual work product is subject to negotiation. Scientists (and novelists) find 

themselves making different arrangements in different instances. Many scientists 

do not own the work that they do; others have a financial participation but no ownership rights regarding use or disposition of their work; others may have full control 

over their own work. 

However, as a general principle whoever pays for the work will have much to say 

about how it is used. In the case of publicly-funded research, I argue that the results are owned by the American people. This is not clearly the understanding now, 

but it should be. And furthermore, when the public funds a study, it is because the 

public (or its representatives) deems that the answers provided by that study to be 

of public importance. In science, answers need to be verified independently. Therefore I argue that any scientist who accepts public funding also accepts the obligation 

to make his work available for verification by others. 

Question 5. Following the publication of ‘‘State of Fear’’, you have spoken publicly 

about your concerns regarding the state of environmental science. How do you view 

your role in critiquing environmental science? Will it be something you will continue? 

Response. I have spoken about environmental matters since the 1980s. I have always argued that our environmental knowledge is inadequate; that our efforts are 

insufficient; that we spend too little on the environment; and that we don’t necessarily spend our money on the most important problems. These views are explicitly stated in the afterward of my book. At no time have I ever suggested that we 

need to do less about the environment. We need to do more. And we need to be 

much more effective. 

Since I have been speaking on this subject for the last twenty years, I expect I 

will continue from time to time. 

Question 6. As I think you anticipated, your book has stirred up some controversy 

among climate scientists, some of whom have charged that you did not accurately 

portray their work. Do you anticipate responding to these challenges in future editions of the book? 

Response. I have included footnotes and thirty pages of annotated bibliography so 

that readers can go to the scientific references I used, and decide for themselves 

what they think. I am pleased that many readers are doing so. 

Question 7. On p. 246 of ‘‘State of Fear’’ one of the characters talks about testimony by Dr. James Hansen, director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies. 

Your character only mentions one of Hanson’s three scenarios. Why? Are you aware 

that Dr. Hansen characterized the highest scenario that is reference in your book 

as not very likely? Are you aware that the middle scenario, which Dr. Hansen characterized as most likely, is consistent with the observed warming since 1988? 

Response. Whenever there are multiple estimates for some future outcome, there 

is always an issue of which estimate to use. In keeping with the established tradition of the mainstream media, I used the highest and most dramatic estimate. The 

fictional character on page 246 is clearly evoking the public impact of Hansen’s 1988 

Senate testimony, and that impact is clear in contemporary news accounts. Nowhere 

did I find it reported that Dr. Hansen predicted a tenth of a degree increase in the 

next 10 years. On the contrary: after the Hansen testimony, the New York Times 

stated in several articles that increases would be on the order of 3 to 9 degrees by 

2030, and might run as high as 20 degrees by 2075. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM M. GRAY, PH.D., PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF ATMOSPHERIC

SCIENCE COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY

Mr. Chairman and Members of the committee, I am William M. Gray, a Professor 

of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University in Fort Collins, Colorado. I 

have been studying and forecasting weather and climate for over 50 years (see my 
57

attached Vitae). My specialty has been tropical meteorology and tropical cyclones. 

I have made Atlantic basin seasonal hurricane forecasts for the last 22 years. 

Over the last 20 years, I have been dismayed over the bogus science and mediahype associated with the nuclear winter and the human-induced global warming 

hypotheses. My innate sense of how the atmosphere-ocean functions does not allow 

me to accept either of these scenarios. Observations and theory do not support these 

ideas. The nuclear winter hypothesis did not recognize that the globe’s hydrologic 

cycle operates on a time scale of 8-10 days and that nuclear- spawned dust material 

would be quickly rained out of the atmosphere. The human-induced global warming 

scenarios have a major flaw in that they accept the view that an increase in the 

global hydrologic cycle will cause enhanced upper-tropospheric water vapor gain and 

a suppression of outgoing long wave radiation (OLR) to space. The opposite is true. 

Global Climate Models (GCMs) are also not able to realistically predict the ocean’s 

deep water circulation which is fundamental to any understanding of global temperature change. 

As a boy, growing up here in Washington, DC, I remember the many articles on 

the large global warming that had occurred between 1900 and 1940. No one understood or knew if this warming would continue. Then the warming abated, and a 

weak global cooling trend set in from the mid-1940s to the early 1970s. The global 

warming talk ceased and speculation about a coming ice age came into vogue. I anticipate that the trend of the last few decades of global warming will come to an 

end, and in a few years we will start to see a weak cooling trend similar to that 

which occurred from the mid-1940s to the early 1970s. 

I would like to present a different view on the likelihood of human-induced global 

warming and also provide evidence that global hurricane activity has not increased 

as the globe has warmed in recent decades. There is no significant correlation between global warming and global hurricane activity. 

HUMAN-INDUCED GLOBAL WARMING

Although initially generated by honest scientific questions, this topic has long ago 

advanced into the political arena and taken on a life of its own. It has been extended and grossly exaggerated and misused by those wishing to make gains from 

the exploitation of ignorance on this subject. This includes many governments of 

western countries, the media, and scientists who were willing to bend their objectivity to obtain government grants for research. It is unfortunate that most of the 

resources for climate research come from the federal government. When a national 

government takes a political position on a scientific topic, the wise meteorologist or 

climatologist either joins the crowd or keeps his/her mouth shut. Scientists can be 

punished if they do not accept the current views of their funding agents. An honest 

and objective scientific debate cannot be held in such a political environment. 

I have closely followed the greenhouse gas warming arguments. From what I have 

learned of how the atmosphere functions in over 50 years of study and forecasting, 

I have been unable to convince myself that a doubling of human-induced greenhouse 

gases can lead to anything but quite small and likely insignificant amounts of global 

warming (∼ 0.2-0.3° C). 

Most geophysical systems react to forced imbalances by developing responses 

which oppose and weaken the initial forced imbalance; hence, a negative feedback 

response. Recently proposed human-induced global warming scenarios go counter to 

the foregoing in hypothesizing a positive feedback effect. They assume that a stronger hydrologic cycle (due to increased anthropogenic greenhouse gases) will cause additional upper-level atmospheric water vapor. This increased vapor results in a reduction of OLR loss to space and causes additional warming (Fig. 1). This positive 

water vapor feedback assumption allows the small initial warming due to humaninduced greenhouse gases to be unrealistically multiplied 8-10 times. This is where 

much of the global modeling is in error. As anthropogenic greenhouse gases increase 

it does not follow that upper-level water vapor will increase. If it does not, little 

global warming will result. Observation of middle tropospheric water vapor over the 

last few decades shows that water vapor has in fact been undergoing a small decrease. The assumed positive water vapor feedback as programmed into the GCM 

models is not occurring. Energy budget studies indicate that if atmospheric water 

vapor and the rate of condensation were held fixed, a doubling of carbon dioxide 

would cause only a small (∼ 0.2-0.3° C) global warming. This can be contrasted to 

the 2-5° C warming projected in the models. 

The other primary physical limitations of the GCM simulations are their inability 

(as yet) to properly treat the global ocean deep circulation. This requires the need 

to model ocean salinity variations. Climate change cannot be objectively discussed 

without a realistic treatment of the ocean.
58

Skillful initial value GCM climate prediction is not possible and probably never 

will be. This is due to the complex nature of the atmosphere/ocean system and the 

inability of numerical models to realistically represent this physical complexity. Realistic features currently cannot be forecast more than a week or two into the future 

(see Figs. 2 and 3). Imperfect representations of the highly non-linear parameters 

of the atmosphere-ocean system tend to quickly degrade (the so-called butterfly influence) into unrealistic flow states upon long period integration. Short-range prediction is possible up to a week or 10 days into the future because there tends to 

be conservatism in the initial momentum fields which can be extrapolated for short 

periods. But beyond about 1-2 weeks, the multiple unknown and non-linear energymoisture exchanges within the earth system become dominant. Model results soon 

decay in chaos. Numerical climate models cannot now and likely never will be able 

to be accurately forecast more than a few weeks into the future. If skillful GCM climate forecasts were possible, we would be eager to follow their predictions. Currently, GCMs do not make seasonal or yearly forecasts. How can we trust climate 

forecasts 50 and 100 years into the future (that can’t be verified in our lifetime) 

when they are not able to make shorter seasonal or yearly forecasts that could be 

verified? They know that they dare not issue shorter forecasts because they are 

aware that they have little or no skill.
59

Besides the physical uncertainty concerning how to represent the complexity of 

the atmosphere-ocean system in quantitative terms, climate models have become too 

complex for any one person or team to understand. Due to the great complexity of 

the GCM system, the true reasons for success or failure often cannot be determined. 

These models have been developed by teams of specialists who concentrate on different parts of their model. No one person is able to understand the whole GCM 

simulation. Most model developers are talented and skilled technicians. However, 

few have ever given real-world weather briefings or made operational weather forecasts.

The potential for climate modeling mischief and false scares from incorrect climate model scenarios is enormous. Numerical modeling output gives an air of authenticity which is not warranted by the input physics and long periods of integration. How many more climate scares are we to see from climate models which are 

not able to realistically predict past and future climate changes let alone future 

decadal or century changes? 

Many of my older meteorological colleagues are very skeptical of these anthropogenic global warming scenarios. But we are seldom asked for any input. Despite my 

50 years of meteorology experience and my many years of involvement in seasonal 
60

hurricane and climate prediction, I have never been asked for input on any of the 

International Panels on Climate Change (IPCC) reports. They know my views and 

do not wish to have to deal with them. Many other experienced but skeptical meteorologists and climatologists are also ignored. I find that the summary page conclusions of the IPCC reports frequently do not agree with the extensive factual material contained within them. In fact, the summary conclusions of many of the IPCC 

reports give the impression they were written before the research is done. 

It is disappointing that more atmospheric scientists have not spoken out about the 

reality of human-induced global warming and the reliability of the GCM simulations. It is also mystifying to me how the global warming advocates are able to get 

away with the argument that extreme weather events have become more prevalent 

in recent years and that they likely have a human-induced component. Such assertions are factually wrong. 

There is nothing we humans can do to prevent natural climate change, which I 

believe nearly all the recent global temperature rise is due too. We have no choice 

but to adapt to future climate changes. Restricting human-induced greenhouse gas 

emissions now, on the basis of their assumed influence on global warming, is not 

a viable economic option, even if it were politically possible. China and India would 

never restrict their growing fossil fuel usage. Restricting greenhouse gas emissions 

would have little or no effect on global temperature. We need to keep the western 

world economies vibrant if for no other reason than to be able to afford the needed 

large technical research funding that will be required to develop future non-fossil 

fuel energy sources. 

I am convinced that in 15-20 years, we will look back on this period of global 

warming hysteria as we now look back on so many other popular, and trendy, scientific ideas—such as the generally accepted Eugenic theories of the 1920s and 

1930s that have now been discredited. There are so many other more important 

problems in the world which need our immediate attention. We should not be distracted by a false threat that is mostly just due to natural changes in climate. 

GLOBAL WARMING INFLUENCE ON HURRICANES

The Atlantic has large multi-decadal variations in major (category 3-4-5) hurricane activity. These variations are observed to result from multi-decadal variations 

in the North Atlantic Thermohaline Circulation (THC)-Fig. 4. When the THC is 

strong, it causes the North Atlantic to have warm or positive Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies (SSTA) and when the THC is weak, cold SSTAs prevail. Figure 5 

shows these North Atlantic SSTAs over the last century with a projection for the 

next 15 years. 

We observe that there are significantly more Atlantic basin major hurricanes 

when the THC is strong than when it is weak. Figure 6 shows the sum of tracks 

of Atlantic major hurricane tracks during a 20-year period when the THC was 

strong (left) versus an 18-year period when it was weak (right). Note the large differences. Figure 7 gives an illustration of how fortunate peninsula Florida was in 

terms of landfalling hurricanes during the period of 1966-2003 in comparison with 

the earlier period of 1932-1965. The varying strength of the Atlantic THC is partly 

responsible for these differences. Luck also played a role. There were many intense 

hurricanes just off the Florida coast during the later period that did not come 

ashore (i.e., Hurricane Floyd, 1999).
61
62

Recent major hurricanes Katrina and Rita and last year’s four U.S. land falling 

major hurricanes have spawned an abundance of questions concerning the role that 

global warming might be playing in these events. The ideas that global warming 

was the cause for these last two years of greater hurricane activity has been greatly 

enhanced by two recent papers presenting data to show that global tropical cyclones 

have become more intense in recent years. They tie this increased hurricane activity 

to global warming. These papers are: 

a) Kerry Emanuel, 4 August 2005: Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones 

over the past 30 years. Nature, 436, 686-688. 

b) P.J. Webster, G.J. Holland, J. Currie and P. Chang, 16 September 2005: 

Changes in tropical cyclone number, duration, and intensity in a warming environment. Science, 309, 1844-1846. 

The near universal reference to these two papers over the last two weeks by most 

major media outlets is helping to establish a belief among the general public and 

scientists not involved in tropical cyclone studies that global hurricane intensity has 

been rising and that global warming is primarily responsible. This conclusion is not 
63

valid. The authors have improperly handled their data sets and their findings 

should not be accepted. These papers require a response from a few of us who study 

hurricanes. I feel I have an obligation to make formal comments on these papers 

(to the editors of the journals), which I will do in another week or two. 

DETERMINATION OF HURRICANE INTENSITY

There always has been, and there probably always will be, problems in assigning 

a representative maximum surface wind to a hurricane. As technology advances and 

the methods of determining a hurricane’s maximum winds change, different values 

of maximum winds will be assigned to hurricanes than would have been assigned 

in previous years. 

With the availability of new aircraft deployed inertial dropwindsondes and the 

new step-frequency surface wind measurement instruments, it is being established 

that Atlantic hurricane surface winds are sometimes stronger than were previously 

determined from wind values extrapolated from aircraft altitude. Saffir/Simpson category numbers in the Atlantic due to these changes in measurement techniques 

have risen slightly in recent years. Although most of the comparative differences in 

the 38 major hurricanes of the last 10 years in the Atlantic basin (1995-2004) vs. 

the 14 major hurricanes of the prior 10 years (1985-1994) is thought to represent 

real variability, a small part of this difference may be due to the assignment of a 

Category 3 or Category 4 status to a hurricane which in earlier years might have 

received a one category lower designation. 

THEORY

Despite what many in the atmospheric modeling community may believe, there 

is no physical basis for assuming that global tropical cyclone intensity or frequency 

is necessarily related to global temperature. As the ocean surface warms, so does 

the upper air to maintain conditionally unstable lapse-rates and global rainfall rates 

at their required values. Although there has been a general warming of the globe 

and an increase of SSTs in recent decades, observations do not show increases in 

tropical cyclone frequency or intensity. 

VARIATION IN MAJOR HURRICANE NUMBERS DURING RECENT DECADES OF GLOBAL

WARMING

The NOAA reanalysis of global mean temperature difference over the last two 10-

year periods have shown that the mean annual global surface temperature has risen 

0.39 degree C from the 10-year periods of 1985-1994 to 1995-2004. This is a substantial increase in global temperature (rate of 3.9 per century). Table 1 shows the 

number of measured major hurricanes around the globe (excluding the Atlantic). 

Major hurricanes have not gone up in the more recent 10-year period when SSTAs 

have warmed considerably.
64

The Atlantic has seen a very large increase in major hurricanes during the last 

10-year period in comparison to the previous 10-year period (38 between 1995-2004 

vs. 11 during 1985-1994). The large last decade increase is a result of multi-decadal 

fluctuations in the Atlantic Ocean thermohaline circulation (THC). Changes in salinity are believed to be the driving mechanism. These multi-decadal changes have 

also been termed the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation (AMO). Even when the 

large increase in Atlantic major hurricane activity is added to the non-Atlantic global total of major hurricanes, there is no significant global difference (208 vs. 218) 

in the numbers of major hurricanes between the two periods. 

COMPARISON OF ATLANTIC HURRICANE ACTIVITY BETWEEN THE LAST 15-YEAR ACTIVE

PERIOD (1990-2004) WITH THE ACTIVITY DURING THE ACTIVE 15-YEAR PERIOD OF 1950-

1964. 

There have been hurricane periods in the Atlantic in the past which have been 

just as active as the current period. A comparison of the last 15 years of hurricane 

activity with an earlier 15-year period from 1950-64 shows no significant difference 

in the more intense major hurricanes (Table 2). Note that there has actually been 

a slight decrease in major hurricane numbers in the most recent 15 years. The number of weak tropical Named Storms (NS) rose by over 50 percent, however. This is 

a reflection of the availability of the satellite in the later period. It would not have 

been possible that a hurricane, particularly a major hurricane, escaped detection in 

the earlier period. But many weaker systems far out in the Atlantic undoubtedly 

went undetected before satellite observations.

CHANGE IN INTENSITY MEASUREMENT TECHNOLOGY OF THE NORTHWEST (NW) PACIFIC

AND COMPARISON OF EARLIER AND LATER PERIODS

This most active of the tropical cyclone basins had aircraft reconnaissance flights 

during the period 1945-1986 but has not had aircraft reconnaissance since. The satellite has been the only tool to track NW Pacific typhoons since 1987. 

There was an anomaly in the measurement of typhoon intensity in the 14-year 

period of 1973-1986 when the Atkinson-Holliday (1977) technique for typhoon maximum wind and minimum sea-level pressure (MSLP) was used. This technique is 

now known to have significantly underestimated the maximum winds of the typhoons in comparison with their central pressures. This has been verified by a combination of satellite-aircraft data from the Atlantic and pre-1973 NW Pacific aircraft-measured wind and MSLP. Table 3 shows the official average of the annual 

number of super typhoons in the West Pacific (equivalent to the number of category 

3-4-5 or major hurricanes of the Atlantic). Note that between 1950-1972 and over 

the last 18 years, this number of super-typhoons has averaged about five per year 

while during the Atkinson-Holliday period of 1973-1986 it was less than half this 

number. Weaker storm numbers during the 1973-1986 period were the same. If we 

disregard this anomalous 1973-1986 period and compare annual frequency of supertyphoon activity between 1950-1972 versus 1987-2004 we see little difference despite 

the recent global warming trend.
65

WHAT OTHERS SAY

I fully subscribe to the view expressed by Max Mayfield, Director of the NOAA 

National Hurricane Center when he stated last week before the Senate Committee 

of Commerce, Science and Transportation Sub-Committee: 

‘‘We believe this heightened period of hurricane activity will continue due to 

multi-decadal variance, as tropical cyclone activity in the Atlantic is cyclical. The 

1940s through the 1960s experienced an above average number of hurricanes, while 

the 1970s into the mid-1990s averaged fewer hurricanes. The current period of 

heightened activity could last another 10-20 years. The increased activity since 1995 

is due to natural fluctuations/cycles of hurricane activity, driven by the Atlantic 

Ocean itself along with the atmosphere above it and not enhanced substantially by 

global warming. The natural cycles are quite large with an average 3-4 major hurricanes a year in active periods and only about 1-2 major hurricanes annually during 

quiet periods, with each period lasting 25-40 years’’. 

I also subscribe to the views expressed in the new paper titled ‘‘Hurricanes and 

Global Warming’’ which will soon be published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. This paper is authored by [Roger Pielke, Jr., Director, Center 

for Science and Technology, University of Colorado; Christopher Landsea, Director 

of Research, NOAA National Hurricane Center, Miami, FL; Max Mayfield, Director, 

National Hurricane Center, Miami, FL; James Laver, Director, NOAA National Climate Center, Washington, DC; and Richard Pasch, Hurricane Specialist, NOAA National Hurricane Center, Miami, FL] and makes the following statements: 

‘‘Since 1995 there has been an increase in frequency and in particular the intensity of hurricanes in the Atlantic. But the changes of the past decade are not so 

large as to clearly indicate that anything is going on other than the multi-decadal 

variability that has been well documented since at least 1900 (Gray et al. 1997; 

Landsea et al. 1999; Goldenberg et al. 2001)’’ and ‘‘Globally there has been no increase in tropical cyclone frequency over at least the past several decades (Lander 

and Guard 1998, Elsner and Kocher 2000). In addition to a lack of theory for future 

changes in storm frequencies, the few global modeling results are contradictory 

(Henderson-Sellers et al. 1998; IPCC 2001)′′

SUMMARY

Analysis of global tropical cyclone activity of all intensities does not support the 

hypothesis that there has been a significant increase in tropical cyclone frequencyintensity associated with global temperature rise. 

REFERENCES

Atkinson, G.D. and C.R. Holliday, 1977: Tropical cyclone minimum sea level pressure/maximum sustained wind relationship for the western North Pacific. Mon. 

Wea. Rev., 105, 421-427. 

Elsner, J.B and B. Kocher, 2000: Global tropical cyclone activity: A link to the 

North Atlantic Oscillation. Geophysical Research Letters, 27, 129-132. 

Goldenberg, S.B., C.W. Landsea, A.M. Mestas-Nunez and W.M. Gray, 2001: The 

recent increase in Atlantic hurricane activity: Causes and implications. Science, 293, 

474-479. 

Gray, W.M., J.D. Sheaffer and C.W. Landsea, 1997: Climate trends associated 

with multidecadal variability of Atlantic hurricane activity. ‘‘Hurricanes: Climate 
66

and Socioeconomic Impacts.’’ H.F. Diaz and R.S. Pulwarty, Eds., Springer-Verlag, 

New York, 15-53. 

Henderson-Sellers, A., H. Zhang, G. Berz, K. Emanuel, W. Gray, C. Landsea, G. 

Holland, J. Lighthill, S-L. Shieh, P. Webster and K. McGuffie, 1998: Tropical cyclones and global climate change: a post-IPCC assessment. Bulletin of the American 

Meteorological Society, 79, 9-38. 

Lander, M.A. and C.P. Guard, 1998: A look at global tropical cyclone activity during 1995: Contrasting high Atlantic activity with low activity in other basins. Mon. 

Wea. Rev., 126, 1163-1173. 

Landsea, C.W., R.A., Pielke, Jr., A.M. Mestas-Nunez and J.A. Knaff, 1999: Atlantic basin hurricanes: Indices of climate changes. Climate Change, 42, 89-129. 

RESPONSES OF WILLIAM GRAY TO ADDTIONAL QUESTIONS FROM

SENATOR INHOFE

Question 1. Is there any other information you wish to add? 

Response. Yes, my below discussion and interpretation of how we should interpret 

the very active U.S. hurricane landfall years of 2004-2005 and their potential relationship to global warming. It is very important that we not read more into these 

years than is there. Although 2004 and 2005 had a rare combination of very intense 

hurricane activity accompanied by westward steering currents, it is not outside the 

realm of natural variations. 

The recent U.S. landfall of major hurricanes Dennis, Katrina, Rita and Wilma and 

the four landfalling hurricanes of last year (Charley, Frances, Ivan and Jeanne) 

have raised questions about the possible role that global warming played in the last 

two unusually destructive seasons. 

The global warming arguments have been given much attention by many media 

and blog citations to recent papers claiming to show such a linkage. Observations 

my colleagues and I have gathered do not observationally or theoretically support 

this contention. Despite the global warming of the sea surface of about 0.3oC that 

has taken place over the last 3 decades, the global number of hurricanes and major 

hurricanes (Category 3-4-5) have not shown increases in recent years except for the 

Atlantic. 

The Atlantic basin has seen a very large increase in major hurricanes during the 

last 11-year period of 1995-2005 (average 4.0 per year) in comparison to the prior 

25-year period of 1970-1994 (average 1.5 per year). This large increase in Atlantic 

major hurricanes is primarily a result of the strengthening of the Atlantic Ocean 

thermohaline circulation (THC) that is not directly related to global temperature increase. Changes in ocean salinity are believed to be the driving mechanism. These 

multi-decadal changes have also been termed the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation 

(AMO). 

There have been similar past periods (the later part of the 19th century and 

1940s-1960s, for example) when the Atlantic had similar activity to that observed 

in recent years. For instance, when we compare Atlantic basin hurricane numbers 

of the last 15 years with an earlier 15-year period (1950-64), we see little difference 

in hurricane frequency or intensity even though global surface temperatures were 

cooler. Also, there was a general global cooling during 1950-64 as compared with 

global warming during 1990-2004. 

We should interpret the last two years of unusually large numbers of US 

landfalling hurricanes as low probability events but within the realm of natural 

variations. During 1966-2003, U.S. hurricane landfall numbers were substantially 

below the long-term average. In the last two seasons, they have been much above 

the long-term average. Although the 2004 and 2005 hurricane seasons have had an 

unusually high number of major landfall events, the overall Atlantic basin hurricane activity has not been much more active than other recent hurricane seasons 

such as 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999, and 2003 have been. What has made the 2004-2005 

seasons so unusually destructive is the higher percentage of major hurricanes which 

have moved over the US coastline. These landfall events were not primarily a function of the overall Atlantic basin net major hurricane numbers, but rather of the 

strong westerly broad-scale Atlantic upper-air steering currents which were present 

the last two seasons. It was these westerly steering currents which caused so many 

of the major hurricanes which formed to come ashore. 

It is rare to have such a strong simultaneous combination of high amounts of 

major hurricane activity together with especially favorable western Atlantic steering 

flow currents. Historical records and laws of statistics indicate that the probability 

of seeing another two consecutive hurricane season like 2004-2005 is very low. Even 

though we expect to see the current active period of Atlantic major hurricane activ-
67

ity to continue for another 15-20 years, it is statistically unlikely that the coming 

2006 and 2007 hurricane seasons, or the seasons which follow these will have nearly 

the number of major hurricane U.S. landfall events that we have seen in 2004-2005. 

Question 2. In your written testimony, you say it is ‘‘unfortunate that most of the 

resources for climate research come from the Federal Government.’’ Is it your view 

that the Federal Government should not be funding climate research at all, or just 

that it should not be supporting certain areas of investigation? 

Response. I am in favor of the Federal Government funding climate research because so many aspects of needed climate research will not be supported by the private industry of research foundations. A problem of bias occurs when top government officials desire to obtain a particular scientific outcome evidence of (humaninduced global warming, for instance, by the Clinton/Gore Administration) when 

overall climate resources are limited. They try to concentrate funding in the areas 

they think will produce results verifying their views. They become reluctant to support other needed research or research which may come up with results of opposite 

persuasion. Those who disagree with the Government’s position get typecast as antiadministration and are often cut-off from research support. I believe this has happened to me (see my answer to questions No. 3 and No. 15). The Government’s funding of science should be objective and removed from a desired result. 

Question 3. So the Committee has a clear understanding, what percentage of your 

work is federally funded versus funding by non-federal sources? Please include an 

estimate of your total level of research funding. 

Response. Up until this fall, I have had two sources of funding for my project’s 

research. 

a. The Federal Government — NSF (∼ $110k/year). This funding terminates 30 

November 2005. I have a new 2-year proposal which I hope will be renewed in December 2005 at an increased funding level of $160k/year. This is the only federal 

funding support I receive. I have not been able to obtain NOAA, FEMA, ONR or 

NASA support. 

b. Lexington Insurance ($50k/year). I hope to increase this to $100k/year starting 

this fall. This is the only private support I receive. 

My total grant support, up until this fall, has thus been $160k/year. With Colorado State University overhead taken out, I barely have $100k/year to actually 

spend on project research. I have stopped taking a CSU salary. Two years ago I 

made a personal contribution of $45k in order to keep my few support staff employed, some at a reduced part-time level. See the answer to question No. 15 for 

more background information. 

Question 4. Your written testimony states that federally funded climate research 

is tainted by a ‘‘political position.’’ I think it is fair to say that this Administration 

has a different political view than the previous Administration with respect to the 

need for federal or multilateral action to address climate change. Have you noticed 

any change in the amount or availability of funds for those researchers that have 

differing viewpoints on climate change under this Administration? 

Response. I applaud the new outlook on this topic by the Bush Administration. 

But down at my grass-roots research level, I have not observed any real changes. 

The federal administrators who hand out the grants are at lower administration levels and are mostly the same people who were in place during the prior Clinton/Gore 

Administration. They still have the same pro-human induced global warming and 

pro-numerical modeling biases. They are not about to discontinue federal support 

to those they have been supporting for years. As far as I have observed, life goes 

on just about the same down in the research trenches. The big government weather 

labs (GFDL, GISS, NACA, Livermore, etc.) seem to me to be impervious as to what 

the president and his higher level advisors may believe and mandate to the lower 

echelons. 

Question 5. Have you ever received any grants from any agencies under this Committee’s jurisdiction, such as the US EPA or the Fish and Wildlife Service? Or have 

you done any work for the Army Corps of Engineers? 

Response. No — I have never had support from any of these agencies. 

Question 6. Is it, in your view, only federally funded climate science that seeks 

to obtain results that fit with a particular policy outcome? Are you saying that, for 

researchers, the conduct of foundation-funded or industry-funded science is less restrictive and does not contain any presumption of outcome? 

Response. I can only judge the category of federal support for human-induced 

global warming as being directed to obtain a desired outcome. I am sure other 

federally- supported research disciplines have this same problem to some extent, but 

I judge it to not be as blatant as with the human-induced global warming funding 

that VP Gore and his appointees were pushing. 
68

I am sure foundation-funded and industry-funded research is often rendered to obtain a desired outcome. But these outcomes usually have much less impact on the 

global economy and the change of lifestyles of humanity as does the global warming 

debate. We need to have some Federal research resources specifically directed to uncovering the technical and other problems associated with the human-induced global 

warming hypothesis. We need to determine how much of the recent global warming 

trend is due to natural variability. If ever there was a topic which needed researchers to play the ‘Devil’s Advocate’ it has to be human-induced global warming. 

Question 7. You express concern in your written testimony that you have never 

been asked to contribute, participate or review in any report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Though you say you haven’t ever been asked, 

have you ever sought a nomination by the U.S. Federal Government to serve on the 

IPCC? Do you work with the NOAA lab in Boulder, CO that serves as the IPCC 

Working group I support unit, which is the IPCC working group that is specifically 

tasked to assess the scientific aspects of the climate system and climate change? 

Response. I am well-known in the atmospheric science field. Had they wanted my 

input, I am sure the organization would have solicited me as they have solicited the 

services of some of my former students. I did not feel that it was my responsibility 

to force myself on them. I know many of the NOAA Lab (Boulder) scientists and 

have had profitable exchanges with many of them over the years. Four years ago 

I gave a formal seminar on my views on global warming to a large audience at the 

NOAA lab. There is very little research on hurricanes conducted at the NOAA Boulder lab. 

Question 8. Is it a correct assumption, in reading your testimony that though you 

dispute projections about the magnitude of human induced climate change, you do 

believe in a background or natural greenhouse effect? Do you believe there is any 

human contribution to climate change? 

Response. There is a natural greenhouse effect. The primary driver of the natural 

greenhouse effect is water vapor. The globe would be much colder (about 33° C colder) than it is if it were not for water vapor acting as a greenhouse gas. 

I believe that there are likely a lot of human-induced changes brought on by differing land use, industrial pollution, urban heat island effects, contrails, etc. I believe all of these human influences are present, but their influence cannot be isolated from a global temperature change perspective. None of these human influences 

is strong enough, in my view, to bring about anything close to the amounts of global 

warming of 2-5° C as projected by the GCMs for a doubling of CO2. Yes, I believe in human induced greenhouse gas warming but of a much smaller 

magnitude (∼ .Κ 0.3° C for a doubling of CO2). This magnitude is not sufficient to 

justify a forced alteration of global industry and global lifestyles as the pro-warming 

advocates recommend. 

Question 9. In your written testimony, you say that developed country governments should not take actions to combat climate change, which you argue would 

possibly be very costly for governments to implement. You further say that developed country governments should take no action on climate change if only for reason 

that the dollars that should be spent on researching alternatives to fossil fuel. If 

human induced climate change is not causing climate change, what would you cite 

as the justification for researching fossil fuel alternatives? 

Response. Fossil fuels cause local pollution which can considerably reduce air 

quality. Most environmental problems are local. Non-polluting energy sources are, 

of course, highly desirable if they are not economically prohibitive. The difference 

between having clean energy sources or not will make little difference in global surface temperature, however. 

Question 10. Over the last few weeks it seems that the controversy over hurricanes and global warming exists because different scientists have different views as 

to what future research will reveal, and they have been outspoken in advancing 

these opinions. It seems clear that you expect future research to reveal no discernible connection between hurricanes and global warming. By contrast, others believe 

that a connection will be found. Future research will help to clarify this dispute. 

Is it the case that the two papers about which you have concerns, the Emanuel and 

Webster papers referred to in your testimony, are the current peer reviewed research on this topic? 

Response. The Emanuel and Webster et al. papers I referred to were peer reviewed but they are just plain wrong in saying that there has been a thirty year 

increase in global intense hurricane activity and that this increase may be associated with global mean surface temperature rise. The peer reviewers apparently did 

not have the background or knowledge to properly review these papers. 

Increased hurricane activity has occurred only in the Atlantic and only during the 

last 11 years. The Atlantic increases have resulted from the large increase in 
69

strength of the Atlantic Ocean thermohaline circulation that has occurred since 

1995. Atlantic changes are not related to overall global surface temperature change. 

I have written Letters to the Editors of Nature (Emanuel paper) and Science 

(Webster et al. paper) showing how their interpretations of the trend in global hurricane activity is not correct. The longer versions of these reviews are available on 

my website (tropical.atmos.colostate.edu). I have also e-mailed copies of these reviews to John Shanahan. I recommend their reading for anyone interested in the 

topic of global warming’s influence on global hurricane activity and why the United 

States hurricane seasons of 2004-2005 have been so destructive. 

The authors of these two papers have little recent experience in global tropical 

cyclone data sets. They were naive to believe their results. 

Question 11. Is it also the case that research has not been conducted that would 

allow for a definitive conclusion on these different opinions on hurricanes and global 

warming? 

Response. I would recommend other research be performed on this topic but not 

by those with a bias toward global warming. A question exists of what magnitude 

of global warming will influence hurricanes. Does a warming of less than 0.5° C constitute global warming or is this just noise within the climate system? The observations of global warming and hurricanes that we have seen do not indicate a relationship. 

Question 12. You suggest in your written testimony, that you may have something 

in the publication pipeline on the link between hurricane and warming. Will this 

be in the form of a new communication with the editors of Nature and Science, or 

are you conducting a new study? 

Response. Yes, I have already sent out letters to Nature and Science discussing 

the many problems of accepting the research put forth in the Emanuel and Webster 

et al. papers. I hope to send a paper to Science in the next month or two concerning 

how we should interpret the very active 2004-2005 United States landfall hurricane 

seasons. 

Question 13. Do you know if there will be any peer-reviewed scientific studies 

available by the end of 2005, and thus available for the next IPCC report, that clarify the issue of attribution of greenhouse gas effects on hurricanes? 

Response. I do not know of any ’reliable’ peer-reviewed studies that will be published by the end of 2005. I think that my answer to question No. 1 and my reviews 

of the Emanuel and Webster et al. papers is the best information available on this 

topic. I doubt that the IPCC report will take much notice of my or other views to 

the contrary. My extended range prediction for what the next IPCC report will say 

is as follows: ‘‘The weight of evidence suggests that there is a discernable association between global surface temperature increases and the increase of global tropical 

cyclone activity.’’ Somehow, they will find and twist data that will lend support to 

this conclusion. 

Question 14. In your written testimony, you review the correlations between the 

occurrences of hurricanes in the Atlantic during a 20-year period when THC was 

strong versus when the THC was weak. You state that Atlantic THC was partially 

responsible for the difference in the numbers of hurricanes that make landfall. You 

also say in your written testimony that ‘‘luck’’ played a role. How often, in your estimation, was hurricane landfall in the Atlantic during the 20-year period you examined associated with strong THC versus just plain luck? 

Response. It is hard to make the THC versus luck distinction. This has a lot to 

do with the westerly Atlantic upper-air steering currents that cause hurricanes to 

move as they do. It is possible to have very active hurricane seasons with no landfalls if the steering currents are not favorable, and the opposite—few storms, but 

many come ashore if the steering currents are just right. 

Luck plays a greater role on the short-time scale. On longer timescales, multidecadal periodicity is more dominant. For instance, in the 25 years between 1970-

1994 when the Atlantic ocean thermohaline circulation (THC) was weak, there were 

12 United States landfalling major hurricanes (∼ .48/year). In the last 11 years 

(1995-2005) when the THC was strong, there were 10 landfalling major hurricanes 

(∼ .96/year) — twice as many. This difference was not luck but due to natural fluctuations in Atlantic hurricane activity. 

Let us now break up the last 11 years into two groups; 1) 1995-2003—9 years 

with only 3 of 32 (9 percent) major hurricanes making United States landfall or .33/

year, and 2) 2004-2005—2 years with 7 of 13 (54 percent) major hurricanes making 

United States landfall or 3.5/year (10 times the number of the earlier period). This 

difference might be explained to a large extent as luck. With a strong THC the 

years of 1995-2003 should have had, by normal climate standards, eight landfalling 

major hurricanes but they only had three. These were lucky years. But in the last 
70

2 years (2004-2005) we have had 7 landfalling major hurricanes. These were very 

unlucky years. 

Question 15. You testified ‘‘scientists can be punished if they do not accept the 

current views of the funding agents.’’ Have you experienced such actions? If so, 

please explain by whom and the circumstances. 

Response. Yes, I think I was not funded by the NOAA-OGP (Office of Global Programs) in part because of my views on human-induced global warming, and also the 

fact that I was working on climate features (seasonal hurricane variability) that 

were not then of OGP interest. Also, I was not performing numerical modeling research. 

I had received NOAA funding for nearly 30 years until 1990 (my last grant). I 

could not obtain any OGP funding after the Clinton/Gore Administration began. I 

submitted about 1-2 proposals per year for about 8 years (1992-2000) and was 

turned down on all of them (13 turn-downs in a row). Yet, my students and I were 

performing research on climate influences on Atlantic hurricanes and how we were 

likely to see large increases in United States landfalling hurricanes when the Atlantic thermohaline circulation (THC) changed to a stronger mode. This has come to 

pass. 

I have also been issuing 2-4 seasonal forecasts per year for Atlantic hurricane activity over the last 22 years. The forecasts have received extensive media coverage 

and been well received by the public, emergency managers, the Red Cross, etc. I am 

almost a household name in some hurricane-prone areas like Florida and along the 

Gulf Coast. Yet none of this made a difference to NOAA-OGP. I made many protests 

to higher NOAA officials above OGP but to no avail. 

I have given nearly 50 years of my life to studying hurricanes (and have turned 

out a high percentage of the best graduate students in hurricanes and tropical meteorology). Yet I was continually turned down by OGP on small $60k/year and $75k/

year grants for over 9 years. What was I to think? My best estimate of what happened is as follows: VP Gore appointed the directors of NOAA-OGP and they (I believe) followed his dictates. There was little new OGP money for climate research 

when the Clinton/Gore administration came in. Gore wanted new money to support 

his global warming claims. He directed his new department heads to cut out some 

existing programs to free up new global warming-directed research funds. Hurricanes, at this time, were not considered important. I was consequently required to 

turn down a number of very promising graduate students that wanted to study hurricanes and also reduce my staff. 

Question 16. You testified that there has been a substantial increase in global 

temperatures and sea surface temperatures. Please explain why you are convinced 

that this rise in temperatures will not result in a greater frequency and intensity 

of storms? 

Response. By substantial increase, I meant that global mean surface temperatures 

averaged 0.4° C higher during the 10 years of 1995-2004 in comparison with the 

10 years of 1985-1994. The sea surface temperature (SST) increases in the oceans 

where tropical cyclones formed went up only about half as much (∼ 0.2° C) during 

these two 10-year periods. 

I would say that sea surface temperature rise has not caused tropical cyclone frequency-intensity to rise because the global tropical cyclone data sets do not show 

a rise (except for the Atlantic) during this period. We have no theory as to why global hurricane activity should go up with a small increase in sea surface temperature. 

There is no physical basis for assuming that global hurricane intensity or frequency is necessarily related to global mean surface temperature changes of less 

than plus or minus 0.5° C. As the ocean surface warms, so too does global upper 

air temperatures to maintain conditionally unstable lapse-rates and global rainfall 

rates at their required values. Seasonal and monthly variations of sea surface temperature (SST) within individual storm basins show only very low correlations (∼

0.30) with monthly, seasonal, and yearly variations of hurricane activity. Other factors such as tropospheric vertical wind shear, surface pressure, low level vorticity 

and mid-level moisture play more dominant roles in explaining hurricane variability 

than do surface temperatures. According to the observations, there has not been a 

significant increase in global major tropical cyclones except for the Atlantic which 

as discussed, has multi-decadal oscillations driven primarily by changes in Atlantic 

salinity. No credible observational evidence is available or likely will be available 

in the next few decades which will be able to directly associate global surface temperature change to changes in global hurricane frequency and intensity. 

Question 17. Table 2 in your written testimony shows an increase in the number 

of Category 4-5 hurricanes, net hurricanes, thunderstorms and named storms in 

1990-2004 as compared with 1950-64. You attribute the increase in hurricanes to 
71

1 Observations presented here are the opinions of the author and should not be interpreted 

as reflecting the views or opinions of the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, 

the Department of Defense, or the United States Government. 2 Boletim Scientifico FMTAM-Abril/Jun-2004 3 Guarda, Asayag, Witzig. 1999. Malaria reemergence in the Peruvian Amazon Region. Emerg 

Infectious Diseases. 5(2) at www://cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol5no2/arambG.htm#fig2 4 http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/history/ 5 http://homepage.mac.com/msb/163x/faqs/typhus.html 

the availability of satellites in the later period. How do you explain the very large 

increase in tropical storms (56 percent increase in later years)? 

Response. I do not attribute the increase of Category 1-2 or major (Category 3-

4-5) hurricanes to satellites. In fact, this table shows no increase between 1950-1964 

and 1990-2004. The only significant increase occurred in tropical storms (Vmax 40-

75 mph). This is due to the large number of storms being named in the mid-Atlantic 

in recent years. During the pre-satellite era, these storms may not have been observed. The 21 named storms of 1933 would have likely been 2-5 storms higher had 

satellite data been available at that time. 

STATEMENT OF DONALD R. ROBERTS, PH.D., PROFESSOR, DIVISION OF TROPICAL PUBLIC HEALTH, DEPARTMENT OF PREVENTIVE MEDICINE AND BIOMETRICS, UNIFORMED

SERVICES UNIVERSITY OF THE HEALTH SCIENCES, BETHESDA, MD1

Thank you, Chairman Inhofe, and distinguished members of the committee on Environment and Public Works for the opportunity to present my views on the misuse 

of science in public policy. My testimony focuses on misrepresentations of science 

during decades of environmental campaigning against DDT 

Before discussing how and why DDT science has been misrepresented, you first 

must understand why this misrepresentation has not helped, but rather harmed, 

millions of people every year all over the world. Specifically you need to understand 

why the misrepresentation of DDT science has been and continues to be deadly. By 

way of explanation, I will tell you something of my experience. 

I conducted malaria research in the Amazon Basin in the 1970s. My Brazilian colleague who is now the Secretary of Health for Amazonas State and I worked out 

of Manaus, the capitol of Amazonas State. From Manaus we traveled two days to 

a study site where we had sufficient numbers of cases for epidemiological studies. 

There were no cases in Manaus, or anywhere near Manaus. For years before my 

time there and for years thereafter, there were essentially no cases of malaria in 

Manaus. However in the late 1980s, environmentalists and international guidelines 

forced Brazilians to reduce and then stop spraying small amounts of DDT inside 

houses for malaria control. As a result, in 2002 and 2003 there were over 100,000 

malaria cases in Manaus alone.2

Brazil does not stand as the single example of this phenomenon. A similar pattern 

of declining use of DDT and reemerging malaria occurs in other countries as well, 

Peru3 for example. Similar resurgences of malaria have occurred in rural communities, villages, towns, cities, and countries around the world. As illustrated by the 

return of malaria in Russia, South Korea, urban areas of the Amazon Basin, and 

increasing frequencies of outbreaks in the United States, our malaria problems are 

growing worse. Today there are 1 to 2 million malaria deaths each year and hundreds of millions of cases. The poorest of the world’s people are at greatest risk. Of 

these, children and pregnant women are the ones most likely to die. 

We have long known about DDT’s effectiveness in curbing insect borne disease. 

Othmar Zeidler, a German chemistry student, first synthesized DDT in 1874. Over 

sixty years later in Switzerland, Paul Muller discovered the insecticidal property of 

DDT.4 Allied forces used DDT during WWII, and the new insecticide gained fame 

in 1943 by successfully stopping an epidemic of typhus in Naples, an unprecedented 

achievement.5 By the end of the war, British, Italian, and American scientists had 

also demonstrated the effectiveness of DDT in controlling malaria-carrying mosquitoes. DDT’s proven efficacy against insect-borne diseases, diseases that had long 

reigned unchecked throughout the world, won Muller the Nobel Prize for Medicine 

in 1948. 

After WWII, the United States conducted a National Malaria Eradication Program, commencing operations on July 1, 1947. The spraying of DDT on internal 

walls of rural homes in malaria endemic counties was a key component of the program. By the end of 1949, the program had sprayed over 4,650,000 houses. This 
72

6http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/history/

7 U.S. Public Health Service. 1944-45. Malaria control in war areas. Federal Security Agency 

U.S. Public Health Service. 134pp 8 The first direct studies on DDT as a repellent were conducted in the mid-1940s and published in 1947. However, also there were many field studies during the same timeframe that 

supported the idea that DDT was functioning as a spatial repellent to keep mosquitoes from 

entering houses and transmitting malaria. Kennedy, J., The excitant and repellent effects of 

mosquitoes of sub-lethal contacts with DDT. Bulletin of Entomological Research, 1947. 37: p. 

593-607. 9 Macdonald, G. and G. Davidson, Dose and cycle of insecticide application in the control of 

malaria. Bulleting of the World Health Organization, 1953. 9: p. 785-812 10 ‘‘Resistance to the DDT deposits sprayed on house walls for malaria control was first discovered in 1951, in Anopheles sacharovi at Nauplion in the Peloponnese peninsula of Greece, a locality where DDT had been applied to rice fields since 1946.’’ From Laird, M, Miles, JW. Ed. 

1983. Integrated mosquito control methodologies, vol. 1. Academic Press, N.Y. page 188 of 369 

pages. 

spraying broke the cycle of malaria transmission, and in 1949 the United States was 

declared free of malaria as a significant public health problem.6

Other countries had already adopted DDT to eradicate or control malaria, because 

wherever malaria control programs sprayed DDT on house walls, the malaria rates 

dropped precipitously. The effectiveness of DDT stimulated some countries to create, 

for the first time, a national malaria control program. Countries with pre-existing 

programs expanded them to accommodate the spraying of houses in rural areas with 

DDT. Those program expansions highlight what DDT offered then, and still offers 

now, to the malaria endemic countries. As a 1945 U.S. Public Health Service manual explained about the control of malaria:

‘‘Drainage and larviciding are the methods of choice in towns of 2,500 or more 

people. But malaria is a rural disease. Heretofore there has been no economically feasible method of carrying malaria control to the individual tenant farmer 

or sharecropper. Now, for the first time, a method is available the application 

of DDT residual spray to walls and ceilings of homes.’’

Health workers in the United States were not the only ones to recognize the particular value of DDT. The head of malaria control in Brazil characterized the 

changes that DDT offered in the following statement:

‘‘Until 1945-1946, preventive methods employed against malaria in Brazil, as 

in the rest of the world, were generally directed against the aquatic phases of 

the vectors (draining, larvicides, destruction of bromeliads, etc.). These methods, 

however, were only applied in the principal cities of each State and the only 

measure available for rural populations exposed to malaria was free distribution 

of specific drugs.’’7

DDT was a new, effective, and exciting weapon in the battle against malaria. It 

was cheap, easy to apply, long-lasting once sprayed on house walls, and safe for humans. Wherever and whenever malaria control programs sprayed it on house walls, 

they achieved rapid and large reductions in malaria rates. 

Just as there was a rush to quickly make use of DDT to control disease, there 

was also a rush to judge how DDT actually functioned to control malaria. That rush 

to judgment turned out to be a disaster. At the heart of the debate to the extent 

there was a debate was a broadly accepted model8 that established a mathematical 

framework for using DDT to kill mosquitoes and eradicate malaria. Instead of 

studying real data to see how DDT actually worked in controlling malaria, some scientists settled upon what they thought was a logical conclusion: DDT worked solely 

by killing mosquitoes. This conclusion was based on their belief in the model. Scientists who showed that DDT did not function by killing mosquitoes were ignored. 

Broad acceptance of the mathematical model led to strong convictions about DDT’s 

toxic actions.9 Since they were convinced that DDT worked only by killing mosquitoes, malaria control specialists became very alarmed when a mosquito was reported 

to be resistant to DDT’s toxic actions.10 As a result of concern about DDT resistance, 

officials decided to make rapid use of DDT before problems of resistance could eliminate their option to use DDT to eradicate malaria. This decision led to creation of 

the global malaria eradication program. 

The active years of the global malaria eradication program were from 1959 to 

1969. Before, during, and after the many years of this program, malaria workers 

and researchers carried out their responsibilities to conduct studies and report their 

research. Through those studies, they commonly found that DDT was functioning 

in ways other than by killing mosquitoes. In essence, they found that DDT was 

functioning through mechanisms of repellency and irritancy. Eventually, as people 
73

11 I am including this testimony, as Annex 2, pages from a book chapter I wrote entitled ‘‘The 

contextual determinants of malaria.’’ This attachment provides a detailed explanation of the importance of spatial repellent actions of DDT in controlling malaria. 

forgot early observations of DDT’s repellent actions, some erroneously interpreted 

new findings of repellent actions as the mosquitoes’ adaptation to avoid DDT toxicity, even coining a term, ‘‘behavioral resistance,’’ to explain what they saw. This 

new term accommodated their view that toxicity was DDT’s primary mode of action 

and categorized behavioral responses of mosquitoes as mere adaptations to toxic affects. However this interpretation depended upon a highly selective use of scientific 

data. 

The truth is that toxicity is not DDT’s primary mode of action when sprayed on 

house walls. Throughout the history of DDT use in malaria control programs there 

has always been clear and persuasive data that DDT functioned primarily as a spatial repellent.11 Today we know that there is no insecticide recommended for malaria control that rivals, much less equals, DDT’s spatial repellent actions, or that 

is as long-acting, as cheap, as easy to apply, as safe for human exposure, or as efficacious in the control of malaria as DDT. Attached as Annex 1 is a more technical 

explanation of how DDT functions to control Malaria. 

The 30 years of data from control programs of the Americas plotted in Figure 1 

illustrate just how effective DDT is in malaria control. The period 1960s through 

1979 displays a pattern of malaria controlled through house spraying. In 1979 the 

World Health Organization (WHO) changed its strategy for malaria control, switching emphasis from spraying houses to case detection and treatment. In other words, 

the WHO changed emphasis from malaria prevention to malaria treatment. Countries complied with WHO guidelines and started to dismantle their spray programs 

over the next several years. The line graph in Figure 1 illustrates the progress of 

the dismantling. As you can see, fewer and fewer houses were sprayed. The bar 

graph illustrates the cumulative increase in cases over the baseline of cases that 

occurred during years when adequate numbers of houses were being sprayed (1965-

1979). As you can also see, as countries reduced numbers of houses sprayed, the 

number of malaria cases continually increased.

Figure 1. Impact of the World Health Organization’s malaria control strategy in 

1979 to de-emphasize indoor spraying of house walls and adoption of World Health 

Assembly resolution in 1985 to decentralize malaria control programs in the Americas. The x-axis is years and the y-axis is cumulative numbers of malaria cases 

above the baseline. Baseline is defined as the average number of malaria cases each 

year from 1965 to 1979.
74

12 Hoffman, F.L. 1916. A plea and a plan for the eradication of malaria throughout the Western Hemisphere. Read in abstract before The Southern Medical Association, Tenth Annual 

Meeting, Atlanta, Georgia, November 14, 1916:65pp. 13 World Health Organization, (1971) Executive Board, 42nd Session, Appendix 14 ‘‘The Place 

of DDT in Operations Against Malaria and Other Vector Borne Diseases’’ p 177. WHO, Geneva. 14 http://www.philotast.de/ecologism.htm 

With data such as this, I find it amazing that many who oppose the use of DDT 

describe its earlier use as a failure. Our own citizens who suffered under the burden 

of malaria, especially in the rural south, would hardly describe it thus. 

Malaria was a serious problem in the United States and for some localities, such 

as Dunklin County, Missouri, it was a very serious problem indeed. For four counties in Missouri, the average malaria mortality from 1910 to 1914 was 168.8 per 

100,000 population. For Dunklin County, it was 296.7 per 100,000 a rate almost 

equal to malaria deaths in Venezuela and actually greater than the mortality rate 

for Freetown, Sierra Leone. Other localities in other states were equally as 

malarious.12 Growing wealth and improved living conditions were gradually reducing malaria rates, but cases resurged during WWII. The advent of DDT, however, 

quickly eradicated malaria from the United States. 

DDT routed malaria from many other countries as well. The Europeans who were 

freed of malaria would hardly describe its use as a failure. After DDT was introduced to malaria control in Sri Lanka (then Ceylon), the number of malaria cases 

fell from 2.8 million in 1946 to just 110 in 1961. Similar spectacular decreases in 

malaria cases and deaths were seen in all the regions that began to use DDT. The 

newly formed Republic of China (Taiwan) adopted DDT use in malaria control shortly after World War II. In 1945 there were over 1 million cases of malaria on the 

island. By 1969 there were only 9 cases and shortly thereafter the disease was 

eradicated from the island and remains so to this day.13 Some countries were less 

fortunate. South Korea used DDT to eradicate malaria, but without house spray 

programs, malaria has returned across the demilitarized zone with North Korea. As 

DDT was eliminated and control programs reduced, malaria has returned to other 

countries such as Russia and Argentina. Small outbreaks of malaria are even beginning to appear more frequently in the United States. 

These observations have been offered in testimony to document first that there 

were fundamental misunderstandings about how DDT functioned to exert control 

over malaria. Second, that regardless of systematic misunderstandings on the part 

of those who had influence over malaria control strategies and policies, there was 

an enduring understanding that DDT was the most cost-effective compound yet discovered for protecting poor rural populations from insect-borne diseases like malaria, dengue, yellow fever, and leishmaniasis. I want to emphasize that misunderstanding the mode of DDT action did not lead to the wholesale abandonment of 

DDT. It took an entirely new dimension in the misuse of science to bring us to the 

current humanitarian disaster represented by DDT elimination. 

The misuse of science to which I refer has found fullest expression in the collection of movements within the environmental movement that seek to stop production 

and use of specific man-made chemicals.14 Operatives within these movements employ particular strategies to achieve their objectives. By characterizing and understanding the strategies these operatives use, we can identify their impact in the scientific literature or in the popular press. 

The first strategy is to develop and then distribute as widely as possible a broad 

list of claims of chemical harm. This is a sound strategy because individual scientists can seldom rebut the scientific foundations of multiple and diverse claims. 

Scientists generally develop expertise in a single, narrow field and are disinclined 

to engage issues beyond their area of expertise. Even if an authoritative rebuttal 

of one claim occurs, the other claims still progress. A broad list of claims also allows 

operatives to tailor platforms for constituencies, advancing one set of claims with 

one constituency and a different combination for another. Clever though this technique is, a list of multiple claims of harm is hardly sufficient to achieve the objective 

of a ban. The second strategy then is to mount an argument that the chemical is 

not needed and propose that alternative chemicals or methods can be used instead. 

The third strategy is to predict that grave harm will occur if the chemical continues 

to be used. 

The success of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring serves as a model for this tricky 

triad. In Silent Spring, Rachel Carson used all three strategies on her primary target, DDT. She described a very large list of potential adverse effects of insecticides, 

DDT in particular. She argued that insecticides were not really needed and that the 

use of insecticides produces insects that are insecticide resistant, which only exacerbates the insect control problems. She predicted scary scenarios of severe harm with 
75

15 Dr. Edwards mentions some of those claims. See page 143. 16 A tropic level can be defined by an organism’s position within a food chain. The number 

of energy transfers to get to that level can establish the organism’s position. For example, humans are at the highest atrophic level. As lions are at the top of their food chain , they are 

at the highest tropic level in that chain. 17 Harrison, HL, Loucks, OL, Mitchell, JW, Parkhurst, DF, Tracy, CR, Watts, DG, Yannacone, 

VJ. Systems studies of DDT transport. Science 170, 30 October 1970, 503-508. 18 Wurster, C, DDT reduces photosynthesis by marine phytoplankton. Science, 29 March 1968. 19 Wurster, CF, Wingate, DB. DDT residues and declining reproduction in the Bermuda petrel. Science 159(818):979-81. 

20 Science 1973;181:1168-1170 21 http://www.audubon.org/local/latin/bulletin3/featured.html 

continued use of DDT and other insecticides. Many have written rebuttals to Rachel 

Carson and others who have, without scientific justification, broadcast long lists of 

potential harms of insecticides. One such rebuttal (see page 143) is attached to my 

testimony. It is a paper by Dr. J. Gordon Edwards entitled ‘‘DDT: A case study in 

scientific fraud.’’

As shown in Annex 2, time and science have discredited most of Carson’s claims.15

Rachel Carson’s descriptions of inappropriate uses of insecticides that harmed wildlife are more plausible. However harm from an inappropriate use does not meet the 

requirements of anti-pesticide activists. They can hardly lobby for eliminating a 

chemical because someone used it wrongly. No, success requires that even the proper use of an insecticide will cause a large and systematic adverse effect. However, 

the proper uses of DDT yield no large and systematic adverse effects. Absent such 

adverse actions, the activists must then rely on claims about insidious effects, particularly insidious effects that scientists will find difficult to prove one way or the 

other and that activists can use to predict a future catastrophe. 

Rachel Carson relied heavily on possible insidious chemical actions to alarm and 

frighten the public. Many of those who joined her campaign to ban DDT and other 

insecticides made extensive use of claims of insidious effects. These claims were amplified by the popular press and became part of the public perception about modern 

uses of chemicals. For example, four well-publicized claims about DDT were:

1. DDT will cause the obliteration of higher tropic16 levels. If not obliterated, 

populations will undergo reproductive failure. Authors of this claim speculated 

that, even if the use of DDT were stopped, systematic and ongoing obliterations 

would still occur.17

2. DDT causes the death of algae.18 This report led to speculations that use of 

DDT could result in global depletion of oxygen. 

3. DDT pushed the Bermuda Petrel to the verge of extinction and that full extinction might happen by 1978.19

4. DDT was a cause of premature births in California sea lions.20

Science magazine, the most prestigious science journal in the United States, published these and other phantasmagorical allegations and/or predictions of DDT 

harm. Nonetheless, history has shown that each and every one of these claims and 

predictions were false. 

1.) The obliteration of higher tropic levels did not occur; no species became extinct; 

and levels of DDT in all living organisms declined precipitously after DDT was delisted for use in agriculture. How could the prediction have been so wrong? Perhaps 

it was so wrong because the paper touting this view used a predictive model based 

on an assumption of no DDT degradation. This was a startling assertion even at 

the time as Science and other journals had previously published papers that showed 

DDT was ubiquitously degraded in the environment and in living creatures. It was 

even more startling that Science published a paper that flew so comprehensively in 

the face of previous data and analysis. 

2.) DDT’s action against algae reportedly occurred at concentrations of 500 parts 

per billion. But DDT cannot reach concentrations in water higher than about 1.2 

parts per billion, the saturation point of DDT in water. 

3.) Data on the Bermuda petrel did not show a cause and effect relationship between low numbers of birds and DDT concentrations. DDT had no affect on population numbers, for populations increased before DDT was de-listed for use in agriculture and after DDT was delisted as well.21

4.) Data gathered in subsequent years showed that ‘‘despite relatively high concentrations [of DDT], no evidence that population growth or the health of individual 

California sea lions have been compromised. The population has increased through-
76

22 http://www.audubon.org/local/latin/bulletin3/featured.html 23 An internationally recognized epidemiologist recently told me that three different journals 

had rejected his negative data on the association of DDT with human health harm. 24 Rogan, WJ, Chen, A. Health risks and benfits of bis (4-chlorophenyl)-1,1,1-trichloroethane 

(DDT). The Lancet 366, August 27, 2005:763-773. 25 Chen, A, Rogan, WJ. Nonmalarial infant deaths and DDT use for malaria control. Emerging Infectious Diseases 2003 Aug. Available from: URL: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol9no8/

03-0082.htm 26 http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol10no6/03-0787—03-1116.htm 27 Takayama, S, Sieber, SM, Dalgard, DW, Thorgeirsson, UP, Adamson, RH. Effects of longterm oral administration of DDT on nonhuman primates. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol (1999) 125: 

219-225. 

out the century, including the period when DDT was being manufactured, used, and 

its wastes discharged off southern California.’’22

If time and science have refuted all these catastrophic predictions, why do many 

scientists and the public not know these predictions were false? In part, we do not 

know the predictions were false because the refutations of such claims rarely appear 

in the literature. 

When scientists hear the kinds of claims described above, they initiate research 

to confirm or refute the claims. After Charles Wurster published his claim that DDT 

kills algae and impacts photosynthesis, I initiated research on planktonic algae to 

quantify DDT’s effects. From 1968-1969, I spent a year of honest and demanding 

research effort to discover that not enough DDT would even go into solution for a 

measurable adverse effect on planktonic algae. In essence, I conducted a confirmatory study that failed to confirm an expected result. I had negative data, and journals rarely accept negative data for publication. My year was practically wasted. 

Without a doubt, hundreds of other scientists around the world have conducted 

similar studies and obtained negative results, and they too were unable to publish 

their experimental findings. Much in the environmental science literature during 

the last 20-30 years indicates that an enormous research effort went into proving 

specific insidious effects of DDT and other insecticides. Sadly, the true magnitude 

of such efforts will never be known because while the positive results of research 

find their way into the scientific literature, the negative results rarely do. Research 

on insidious actions that produce negative results all too often ends up only in laboratory and field notebooks and is forgotten.23 For this reason, I place considerable 

weight on a published confirmatory study that fails to confirm an expected result. 

The use of the tricky triad continues. A copy of a recent paper (see page 150) published in The Lancet24 illustrates the triad’s modern application. Two scientists at 

the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Walter Rogan and Aimin 

Chen, wrote this paper, entitled ‘‘Health risks and benefits of bis (4-chlorophenyl)-

1,1,1-trichloroethane (DDT).’’ It is interesting to see how this single paper spins all 

three strategies that gained prominence in Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring. 

The journal Emerging Infectious Diseases had already published a slim version 

of this paper,25 which international colleagues and I promptly rebutted.26 The authors then filled in some parts, added to the claims of harm, and republished the 

paper in the British journal, The Lancet. To get the paper accepted by editors, the 

authors described studies that support (positive results) as well as studies that do 

not support (negative results) each claim. Complying with strategy number 1 of the 

triad, Rogan and Chen produce a long list of possible harms, including the charge 

that DDT causes cancer in nonhuman primates. The literature reference for Rogan 

and Chen’s claim that DDT causes cancer in nonhuman primates was a paper by 

Takayama et al.27 Takayama and coauthors actually concluded from their research 

on the carcinogenic effect of DDT in nonhuman primates that ‘‘the two cases involving malignant tumors of different types are inconclusive with respect to a carcinogenic effect of DDT in nonhuman primates.’’ Clearly, the people who made the link 

of DDT with cancer were not the scientists who actually conducted the research. 

The authors enacted strategy number two of the triad by conducting a superficial 

review of the role of DDT in malaria control with the goal of discrediting DDT’s 

value in modern malaria control programs. The authors admitted that DDT had 

been very effective in the past, but then argued that malaria control programs no 

longer needed it and should use alternative methods of control. Their use of the second strategy reveals, in my opinion, the greatest danger of granting authority to 

anti-pesticide activists and their writings. As The Lancet paper reveals, the NIEHS 

scientists assert great authority over the topic of DDT, yet they assume no responsibility for the harm that might result from their erroneous conclusions. After many 

malaria control specialists have expressed the necessity for DDT in malaria control, 

it is possible for Rogan and Chen to conclude that DDT is not necessary in malaria 
77

control only if they have no sense of responsibility for levels of disease and death 

that will occur if DDT is not used. 

Rogan and Chen also employ the third strategy of environmentalism. Their list 

of potential harms caused by DDT includes toxic effects, neurobehavior effects, cancers, decrements in various facets of reproductive health, decrements in infant and 

child development, and immunology and DNA damage. After providing balanced 

coverage of diverse claims of harm, the authors had no option but to conclude they 

could not prove that DDT caused harm. However, they then promptly negated this 

honest conclusion by asserting that if DDT is used for malaria control then great 

harm might occur. So, in an amazing turn, they conclude they cannot prove DDT 

causes harm, but still predict severe harm if it is used. 

Rogan and Chen end their paper with a call for more research. One could conclude that the intent of the whole paper is merely to lobby for research to better 

define DDT harm, and what’s the harm in that? Surely increasing knowledge is a 

fine goal. However, if you look at the specific issue of the relative need for research, 

you will see that the harm of this technique is great. Millions of children and pregnant women die from malaria every year, and the disease sickens hundreds of millions more. This is an indisputable fact: impoverished people engage in real life and 

death struggles every day with malaria. This also is a fact: not one death or illness 

can be attributed to an environmental exposure to DDT. Yet, a National Library of 

Medicine literature search on DDT reveals over 1,300 published papers from the 

year 2000 to the present, almost all in the environmental literature and many on 

potential adverse effects of DDT. A search on malaria and DDT reveals only 159 

papers. DDT is a spatial repellent and hardly an insecticide at all, but a search on 

DDT and repellents will reveal only 7 papers. Is this not an egregiously disproportionate research emphasis on non-sources of harm compared to the enormous harm 

of malaria? Does not this inequity contribute to the continued suffering of those who 

struggle with malaria? Is it possibly even more than an inequity? Is it not an active 

wrong? 

Public health officials and scientists should not be silent about enormous investments into the research of theoretical risks while millions die of preventable diseases. We should seriously consider our motivations in apportioning research money 

as we do. For example consider this: the United States used DDT to eradicate malaria. After malaria disappeared as an endemic disease in the United States, we became richer. We built better and more enclosed houses. We screened our windows 

and doors. We air conditioned our homes. We also developed an immense arsenal 

of mosquito control tools and chemicals. Today, when we have a risk of mosquito 

borne disease, we can bring this arsenal to bear and quickly eliminate risks. And, 

as illustrated by aerial spray missions in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina, we 

can afford to do so. Yet, our modern and very expensive chemicals are not what protect us from introductions of the old diseases. Our arsenal responds to the threat; 

it does not prevent the appearance of old diseases in our midst. What protects us 

is our enclosed, screened, air-conditioned housing, the physical representation of our 

wealth. Our wealth is the factor that stops dengue at the border with Mexico, not 

our arsenal of new chemicals. Stopping mosquitoes from entering and biting us inside our homes is critical in the prevention of malaria and many other insect-borne 

diseases. This is what DDT does for poor people in poor countries. It stops large proportions of mosquitoes from entering houses. It is, in fact, a form of chemical screening, and until these people can afford physical screening or it is provided for them, 

this is the only kind of screening they have. 

DDT is a protective tool that has been taken away from countries around the 

world, mostly due to governments acceding to the whims of the anti-pesticide wing 

of environmentalism, but it is not only the anti-pesticide wing that lobbies against 

DDT. The activists have a sympathetic lobbying ally in the pesticide industry. As 

evidence of insecticide industry working to stop countries from using DDT, I am attaching an e-mail message dated September 23, 2005 and authored by a Bayer official (see page 161). The Bayer official states ‘‘[I speak] Not only as the responsible 

manager for the vector control business in Bayer, being the market leader in vector 

control and pointing out by that we know what we are talking about and have decades of experiences in the evolution of this very particular market. [but] Also as one 

of the private sector representatives in the RBM Partnership Board and being confronted with that discussion about DDT in the various WHO, RBM et al circles. So 

you can take it as a view from the field, from the operational commercial level-but 

our companies point of view. I know that all of my colleagues from other primary 

manufacturers and internationally operating companies are sharing my view.’’

The official goes on to say that ‘‘DDT use is for us a commercial threat (which 

is clear, but it is not that dramatic because of limited use), it is mainly a public 

image threat.’’
78

However the most damming part of this message was the statement that ‘‘we fully 

support EU to ban imports of agricultural products coming from countries using 

DDT’’

The e-mail (see page 161) provides clear evidence of international and developed 

country pressures to stop poor countries from using DDT to control malaria. This 

message also shows the complicity of the insecticide industry in those internationally orchestrated efforts. 

Pressures to eliminate spray programs, and DDT in particular, are wrong. I say 

this not based on some projection of what might theoretically happen in the future 

according to some model, or some projection of theoretical harms, I say this based 

firmly on what has already occurred. The track record of the anti-pesticide lobby is 

well documented, the pressures on developing countries to abandon their spray programs are well documented, and the struggles of developing countries to maintain 

their programs or restart their uses of DDT for malaria control are well documented. The tragic results of pressures against the use of DDT, in terms of increasing disease and death, are quantified and well documented. How long will scientists, 

public health officials, the voting public, and the politicians who lead us continue 

policies, regulations and funding that have led us to the current state of a global 

humanitarian disaster? How long will support continue for policies and programs 

that favor phantoms over facts? 

RESPONSES OF DONALD R. ROBERTS TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM

SENATOR JEFFORDS

Question 1. You have testified that ‘‘proper uses of DDT yield no large and systematic adverse effects.’’ Would you clarify for us what is the ‘‘proper’’ use of DDT? 

Response. The proper use of DDT is in public health, not agriculture. 

A fundamental trait of public health programs is limited resources, to include financial, material, and human resources. Because of limited resources the public 

health use of DDT has always been limited, meaning that its use was highly selective in application. 

There have been two very different but major public health uses of DDT. One was 

in malaria control, the other was to eradicate Aedes aegypti from the Americas. In 

each case, I consider the two different uses of DDT as ‘‘appropriate.’’ There have 

been other public health uses, such as spraying DDT in clothing to effectively stop 

typhus epidemics, and DDT to combat plague in wild rodents. Thus, its contributions to human health have been many; but DDT was used continuously over many 

years for malaria and Aedes aegypti eradication. I will explain briefly how DDT was 

used in the two programs. 

For malaria control, DDT was applied to house walls at a rate of 2 grams of active 

ingredient per square meter of wall surface. Each house was to be sprayed every 

6 months. All houses in an endemic area were supposed to be sprayed. Theory was 

that at least 80 percent of houses must be sprayed (some claimed that complete coverage was necessary). The goal of such a program was disease eradication. Even 

today the guidelines for using DDT hark back to the goals of eradication, not malaria control. In 1969 the World Health Organization abandoned the goal of eradication. After 1969 an internationally orchestrated program of DDT elimination 

snuffed out the realignment of programs to use DDT for disease control, opposed 

to eradication. 

DDT was used in programs of peri-focal spraying for eradication of Aedes aegypti 

from countries of the Americas. This meant that it was sprayed in and around containers of water used by the mosquito for their larvae. If the container was next 

to a wall, the wall closest to the container was sprayed. If the container was near 

a bush, the bush was sprayed. The use of peri-focal spraying of DDT for eradicating 

Aedes aegypti from countries of the Americas was highly successful; but environmental activist pressures in the United States ended the program in 1969. 

There are important distinctions between the two uses of DDT described here; but 

there were also similarities. For example, in each of the two uses, if eradication was 

achieved for a particular area, region, or country, there was no need to continue 

spraying DDT. So for both malaria and Aedes aegypti eradication there was an 

identifiable end point beyond which routine spraying of DDT was no longer needed, 

or need was greatly reduced. 

Unlike the goal of Aedes aegypti eradication, poverty and poor living conditions 

made malaria eradication a non-attainable goal in many, if not most, tropical countries. In contrast, Aedes aegyti eradication was indeed demonstrated and carried out 

in many tropical countries. Once the mosquito was eradicated, DDT was then needed only when a re-invasion of the mosquito was detected. Largely ignored in our his-
79

torical record is that the United States was the major country of the Americas that 

failed in its obligation to eradicate Aedes aegytpi. Not surprisingly, as environmental pressure gained strength in the United States during the late 1960s, our 

fledgling eradication program was stopped. Once the United States stopped, the rest 

of the countries of the Americas collapsed their programs and Aedes aegypti started 

to reinvade all of the Americas. 

Basically, I have described here two uses of DDT. 

The use of DDT to eradicate Aedes aegypti was realistic and largely successful. 

This hemisphere-wide program should have been carried to completion. The struggle 

against Aedes aegypti and the diseases it transmits to humans would not have 

ended with eradication. But the dimensions of the fight would have been greatly 

lessened and would have been continued through active surveillance and vigilance. 

As it is today, the mosquito has returned to all its old haunts and is inflicting great 

human health harm and suffering on counties of the Americas outside the United 

States. 

As for the use of DDT to eradicate malaria, the goal was not realistic, but that 

lesson was learned slowly. In the end, use of DDT for control of malaria, opposed 

to eradication, was overtaken by environmental activism for DDT elimination. So 

today we are faced with growing problems of malaria and a growing need to make 

use of DDT for purposes of control, not eradication. Regrettably, environmental activism poisoned the politics of insecticide research to the point that there has been 

almost no research in the United States to find an acceptable alternative to DDT. 

For that reason, even now there is no cost-effective DDT alternative for preventing 

malaria transmission inside houses. 

Question 2. You have done a great deal of work in mapping to predict the presence of mosquitoes and target homes for spray in developing countries. Am I correct 

in my understanding that the spray regime that you advocate is not spraying of 

every house in a developing country? 

Response. You are correct in your understanding. I definitely do not advocate 

spraying of every house in a developing country. 

In the history of house spray programs, I know of no country that sprayed even 

a majority of houses. Programs were highly successful by spraying only a small proportion of houses. Using advance geographic information system technology we can 

achieve better targeting of houses today than ever before. As houses are sprayed, 

the distribution of disease will change and the distribution of spraying should 

change as a result. 

I have studied the history of spraying programs in countries of the Americas. 

There is almost no country where every single house was sprayed. Where this might 

have occurred, it was a temporary condition and spraying quickly declined to levels 

commensurate with greatly reduced levels of disease risk as a result of the spray 

program. The spraying of every house would be an abusive use of DDT—it would 

be costly, wasteful, and unaffordable. 

Question 3. Though you have concerns about DDT bans, do you concur that restriction of the use of DDT in agriculture was an appropriate action for the U.S. 

to take? 

Response. I concur that DDT should have been phased-out of agriculture use. I 

do not concur that DDT should have been de-listed for agricultural uses in such a 

short timeframe as occurred in 1972. I also question the validity of de-listing DDT 

use in agriculture when the replacement chemical (methyl parathion) was multiple 

times more toxic. 

In essence, EPA de-listed DDT for agricultural uses even though there was no 

convincing proof that it caused human health harm (as revealed in the EPA hearing 

of 1971-72). EPA opined that DDT was not necessary and that a substitute could 

be used, knowing full well that the substitute would almost certainly result in 

human deaths (methyl parathion, the replacement chemical, is one of the most toxic 

insecticides in existence). Dangerous toxicity of parathion eventually resulted in it 

being de-listed for most agricultural uses in the United States, and even banned for 

all uses in many countries. In conclusion, I agree that DDT should have been 

phased out of agricultural use; but do not concur that the 1972 decision was appropriate. There should be no doubt that innocent Americans died as a result of that 

decision. 

Question 4. You have looked at DDT’s efficacy as a repellent. Have you examined 

the efficacy of the alternatives to DDT, and are they similarly effective? 

Response. Yes, we have examined alternatives to DDT for efficacy as spatial 

repellents. In fact, we have now tested hundreds of chemicals and have yet to find 

another chemical equal to DDT. No other insecticide presently recommended for use 

in malaria control programs functions as a spatial repellent. The pyrethroid insecticides (comprising those insecticides presently used for treating bed nets) exhibit con-
80

tact irritant and contact toxic actions; but no spatial repellent actions. No other insecticide presently recommended for malaria control will provide protection for as 

many months as DDT. DDT is still the cheapest chemical to buy, offers much greater protection to sprayed households, and is the only chemical that will stop the mosquitoes from entering houses and transmitting malaria indoors. So the short answer 

to this question is that DDT has a unique set of actions and there is no known acceptable replacement insecticide. 

Question 5. In your testimony, you state that not one death or illness can be attributed to DDT. That is in terms of human health, is that correct? Do you dispute 

research into the effect of DDT and its byproducts on animal health in the environment? 

Response. Yes, my comment was in reference to human health. 

Yes, I dispute the claims of research into the effect of DDT and its by products 

on animal health in the environment. I dispute those claims for the following reasons. There are criteria for evaluating a cause and effect relationship, and this relationship is really the critical issue of whether DDT has harmed animal health in 

the environment. I propose the following reasonable criteria: 1) consistency of results, 2) statistical coherence in the form of a proportional dose response relationship, and 3) predictive performance. Many claims of harm are just that, claims. No 

standards or criteria for defining cause and effect relationships are used. For these 

reasons, many claims of harm have been proven false. On the other hand, the cause 

and effect relationships between declining uses of DDT for malaria control and reemerging malaria fulfill completely the criteria listed above. 

As a concluding comment, I personally do not consider the issue of DDT causing 

harm to animals in the environment to be truly relevant to the debate for using 

DDT in malaria control programs. Few would argue that spraying DDT on inside 

walls of houses poses a meaningful risk to animal health in the environment. 

Question 6. You talk about wealth reducing the need for chemical repellents to 

control malaria in your written testimony. Does your work show that physical 

screening ultimately replaces the need for chemicals. 

Response. I really cannot answer this question from standpoint of my own research. However, the research of others plus the events of countries in economic 

transition after controlling malaria suggest that screening, air conditioning, and 

other facets of a higher standard of living provide considerable protection from indoor transmission of malaria. Obviously, such protections are greater in temperate 

environments, less so in tropical environments. My own opinion is that you might 

never eliminate need for chemical control in some tropical regions; but the need 

would be much less if houses were well enclosed, with windows and doors screened, 

or houses air conditioned. 

To provide a better answer to this question, consider the scenario that is played 

out in households across the United States. Family members are sitting on their 

porch on a warm summer day. As it begins to get dark the mosquitoes begin to bite. 

After a time, family members tire of the mosquitoes and go inside away from the 

mosquitoes. Inside, there are no mosquitoes. If one moves this scenario to a malaria 

endemic tropical country, very different conditions prevail. Family members sitting 

outside feel the bites and move indoors. Indoors they do not get away from mosquitoes; but the mosquitoes indoors may be very different from the ones biting outside. 

The mosquitoes inside are the truly dangerous ones. The mosquitoes inside the 

house bite as people sleep and acquire infection from sick people or transmit infection to those who are not sick. In the United States our well-enclosed houses afford 

protection, but the open houses of the tropics actually provide a gathering place for 

the most dangerous mosquitoes. Preventing those mosquitoes from being indoors is 

the work of DDT. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID B. SANDALOW, DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENT & ENERGY PROJECT

THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION

Thank you Mr. Chairman. Tomorrow it will be one month since Hurricane 

Katrina made landfall on the Gulf Coast. The suffering caused by this storm is well 

known, but no less tragic for being so. Today countless thousands of Americans 

grieve relatives lost in the storm, and many more search for ways to restore shattered lives and livelihoods. As we join together as a nation to rebuild this region, 

our thoughts and prayers are with them all. 

Many observers have characterized Katrina as a defining moment in our nation’s 

history. Former Speaker Newt Gingrich said the impact of Katrina will be ‘‘30 to 

100 times bigger than 9/11,’’ arguing that the ‘‘after effects of this extreme disaster 

will last longer and be more complex than any domestic event since World War II.’’ 
81

Commentators have focused on the importance of this event to race relations, antipoverty programs, the federal budget, homeland security and more. 

Then, this past weekend our Gulf Coast was struck by another storm. Hurricane 

Rita was smaller and less powerful than Katrina, but only by comparison to its 

predecessor could Rita be considered a minor event. More than three million people 

were evacuated from their homes, causing traffic jams that stretched for more than 

one hundred miles. The full death toll is not yet known but, including fatalities that 

occurred during the evacuation of Houston, appears to number at least 30. The governor of Texas estimates damages exceeding $8 billion in his state alone. 

Your hearing, Mr. Chairman, is timely. The two hurricanes that struck our nation 

in the past month raise important questions about science policy, environmental policy, and the intersection between the two. How can we better predict natural disasters of this kind? Will our response to Katrina be shaped by the best available 

science? What forces of global change shaped these two disasters, and what impact 

will these forces have in the years to come? 

Because these questions are so important, today I am recommending the Senate 

ask the U.S. National Academy of Sciences to examine them. Specifically, I recommend the Senate ask the US National Academy of Sciences to conduct a major 

new study on extreme weather events, including hurricanes, droughts and floods. 

The report would assess the state of scientific knowledge in several areas, including 

(i) our ability to predict extreme weather events and how that ability might be improved, (ii) the causes of extreme weather events, both natural and anthropogenic, 

(iii) land restoration in the Mississippi Delta, both as part of the response to 

Katrina and to protect against future storms, and (iv) human health and other risks 

related to the clean-up of toxic chemicals released as a result of Katrina. This study 

should be done in phases, with an early product intended to help guide immediate 

recovery efforts in the Gulf Coast region, and then an ongoing and more comprehensive program. 

Today I will touch briefly on several questions raised by the Katrina and Rita, 

and then on questions of science and environmental policy more broadly. 

1. KATRINA, RITA AND SOUND SCIENCE

Sound science should guide all government policy, including in particular matters 

as consequential as our response to Katrina and Rita. Among the areas that require 

priority attention are: 

A. Improving our ability to predict extreme weather events 

More than 100 years ago, on September 8, 1900, a Category 4 hurricane blasted 

into Galveston, Texas. In an era before satellites, airplanes or modern communications, the population had scant information about the fury arriving over warm Gulf 

waters. Eight thousand people lost their lives. 

Today we take for granted our ability to watch storm clouds gather from satellite 

photos beamed to our living rooms. We expect government agencies to provide advance warning of impending danger. But we should not be satisfied with our current 

predictive powers. Rapidly improving information and communications technologies 

can steadily improve these powers, preventing property damage and saving lives. 

New data on ocean currents, for example, may help us predict weather patterns and 

even project the paths of hurricanes with greater confidence than today. 

Nor should our quest be limited to hurricanes. This summer, new heat records 

were set in more than 200 United States cities. Drought has been a chronic problem 

for several years in the American West. In 2004, more than 1700 tornadoes struck 

the United States, by far the most ever recorded in a single year. 

Much more work is needed to develop the capacity to predict such events and better understand the forces causing them. Generations hence, our current abilities to 

predict extreme weather may seem as quaint and outmoded as those from 1900 do 

today. 

B. Land Restoration in the Mississippi Delta 

Wetlands have been called nature’s ‘‘speed bumps,’’ protecting coastal cities and 

from waves and storm surges. But Louisiana’s wetlands have been receding for decades, largely because levees on the Mississippi River send silt-rich waters away 

from marshlands and directly out to sea. No restoration program can succeed without strengthening the natural buffer that protects New Orleans and other parts of 

Louisiana from the next hurricane. 

Although a regional plan called Coastal 2050 was developed several years ago, 

new work is needed to understand the implications of Katrina and Rita on the strategies developed and critically—to set priorities. Furthermore, questions of first impression concerning land restoration will be raised in the process of rebuilding New 
82

Orleans. Can enough fill be found to raise the level of whole neighborhoods? Would 

such fill be stable and safe? These questions require the expertise of a team of national and international experts from diverse disciplines. 

C. Toxic Clean-Up 

The clean-up challenge in New Orleans is unprecedented. Experts have advised 

residents to exercise extreme caution in returning to flooded homes, in part because 

of contaminants that may have settled out of still waters. E coli and fecal coliform 

are the best understood, but other contaminants may also threaten health and safety. At one site within New Orleans, a Superfund site was covered in several feet 

of water and may have leached toxic chemicals. Oil spills throughout the region 

rival the Exxon Valdez oil spill in total volume. 

The clean-up will involve not just extraordinary resources, but difficult choices. 

Decisions will need to be made about steps to protect human health and safety, to 

restore damaged ecosystems and to re-open and rebuild parts of Louisiana’s devastated sea food industry. These decisions must be informed by the best available 

science. Current resources within the federal and state environmental protection 

agencies are insufficient and should be supplemented with outside expertise. 

D. Responsibly Addressing Global Warming 

Today, there is ample evidence that heat-trapping gases from human activities 

may produce more powerful hurricanes. We should proceed responsibly with respect 

to this risk, steadily improving our knowledge and shaping smart policies in response. 

Much is already known on this topic. Heat-trapping gases from human activitiesmainly the burning of fossil fuels—are warming both the atmosphere and oceans. 

As sea surface temperatures rise, average hurricane strength is predicted to increase as well. These predictions are consistent with observations from the historical 

record. During the past 30 years, as the total number of hurricanes globally has remained roughly constant, the percentage of Category 4 and 5 storms has nearly doubled. In our hemisphere, during this period, peak wind speeds of hurricanes have 

increased by roughly 50 percent. 

As several observers have noted, we are starting to play with loaded dice. There 

is no way to determine whether any single hurricane is or is not the result of global 

warming, but as heat-trapping gases build in our atmosphere, the average hurricane 

will become more intense. 

These observations are especially troubling because, according to many experts, 

Atlantic hurricanes will likely be more frequent in the years ahead as a result of 

natural cycles. Hurricanes in our hemisphere appear to fluctuate on a multi-decadal 

basis-they were more frequent during the 1950’s and 1960’s, dropped from the early 

1970’s through mid-1990’s, and have climbed in number since then. 

Thus, in the years ahead the United States faces a double threat—more frequent 

hurricanes due to natural cycles and more intense hurricanes due to human activities. This is a risk we ignore at our peril. 

Today, there are no federal controls on the major heat-trapping gases, although 

the Senate supported such controls in a resolution this summer. As the Senate considers how best to translate this resolution into legislation, it should be informed 

by the best available scientific evidence concerning risks from extreme weather 

events and global warming. 

2. Recent Developments in the Role of Science in Federal Environmental Policy 

Sound science is central to wise environmental policymaking. Our major environmental statutes all contemplate expert scientific and technical analyses as the prerequisite for federal government action. That analysis must be objective and unbiased. As the chair of this committee, Senator James Inhofe, has said: ‘‘Scientific inquiry cannot be censored-scientific debate must be open, must be unbiased and it 

must stress facts rather than political agendas.’’

Unfortunately, the past few years have not been a happy time for the role of 

science in federal environmental policy. Last year, 48 Nobel laureates and 62 National Medal of Science recipients were among the more than 4,000 scientists who 

signed a statement expressing concern about the ‘‘manipulation of the process 

through which science enters into [the Federal Government’s] decisions.’’ Among the 

specific matters noted in the scientists’ statement were several relating to environmental policy. 

The specific concerns expressed by these scientists and others include: 

a. The suppression or distortion of scientific conclusions from federal environmental agencies. In 2003, for example, the White House insisted on changes to the 

climate change sections of an EPA report. Because its scientists considered the proposed changes scientifically indefensible, EPA eliminated the discussion of climate 
83

change from its overall report. Similarly, the New York Times reported recently on 

extensive edits to an EPA document concerning the science of climate change by a 

White House political aide. 

b. Political manipulation of expert advisory committees. For example, substantial 

concerns have been expressed about adjustments to the composition of the CDC Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning during 2002. Experts recommended 

by CDC staff were rejected and replaced with individuals characterized by their opposition to tighter federal standards, some of whom may have had financial ties to 

the lead industry. 

These are issues of great consequence. Sound policymaking cannot proceed in the 

face of such concerns. These issues demand priority attention from this committee 

and the Senate as a whole. 

One approach is suggested by the Restore Scientific Integrity to Federal Research 

and Policy Making Act, introduced in the House as H.R. 839. Among other things, 

the Act would 

Help prevent the manipulation of data; 

Strengthen the independence of federal science advisory committees; and 

Require an annual report to Congress by the Director of the Office of Science and 

Technology Policy on the state of Federal scientific integrity. 

This legislation would help to address many of the most serious concerns that 

have arisen in recent years and is worthy of consideration by this body as well. 

Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee. I would be pleased to 

answer any questions. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES HANSEN, DIRECTOR, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY EARTH INSTITUTE

AND GODDARD INSTITUTE FOR SPACE STUDIES

Michael Crichton’s latest fictional novel, ‘‘State of Fear’’, designed to discredit concerns about global warming, purports to use the scientific method. The book is 

sprinkled with references to scientific papers, and Crichton intones in the introduction that his ‘‘footnotes are real’’. But does Crichton really use the scientific method? 

Or is it something closer to scientific fraud? 

I have not read Crichton’s book, but several people have pointed out to me that 

Crichton takes aim at my 1988 congressional testimony and claims that I made predictions about global warming that turned out to be 300 percent too high. Is that 

right? 

In my testimony in 1988, and in an attached scientific paper written with several 

colleagues at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and published later 

that year in the Journal of Geophysical Research (volume 93, pages 9341-9364), I 

described climate simulations made with the GISS climate model. We considered 

three scenarios for the future, labeled A, B and C, to bracket likely possibilities. 

Scenario A was described as ‘‘on the high side of reality’’, because it assumed 

rapid exponential growth of greenhouse gases and it assumed that there would be 

no large volcanoes (which inject small particles into the stratosphere and cool the 

Earth) during the next half century. Scenario C was described as ‘‘a more drastic 

curtailment of emissions than has generally been imagined’’, specifically greenhouse 

gases were assumed to stop increasing after 2000. The intermediate Scenario B was 

described as ‘‘the most plausible’’. Scenario B had continued growth of greenhouse 

gas emissions at a moderate rate and it sprinkled three large volcanoes in the 50-

year period after 1988, one of them in the 1990s. 

Not surprisingly, the real world has followed a course closest to that of Scenario 

B. The real world even had one large volcano in the 1990s, the eruption of Mount 

Pinatubo, which occurred in 1991, while Scenario B placed a volcano in 1995. 

In my testimony to congress I showed one line graph with scenarios A, B, C and 

observed global temperature, which I update below. However, all of the maps of simulated future temperature that I showed in my congressional testimony were for 

scenario B, which formed the basis for my testimony. No results were shown for the 

outlier scenarios A and C. 

Back to Crichton: how did he conclude that I made an error of 300 percent? Apparently, rather than studying the scientific literature, as his footnotes would imply, 

his approach was to listen to ‘‘global warming skeptics’’. One of the skeptics, Pat 

Michaels, has taken the graph from our 1988 paper with simulated global temperatures for scenarios A, B and C, erased the results for scenarios B and C, and shown 

only the curve for scenario A in public presentations, pretending that it was my prediction for climate change. Is this treading close to scientific fraud? 
84

1The warming is slightly less (change less than 0.1° C) in our analysis of observations if we 

combine ocean temperature measurements with the meteorological station data. However, the 

result is slightly more warming in the British analysis of observations by Phil Jones and associates. So the observational analysis shown in Figure 1 is representative of the various analyses 

of global surface temperature change. 2Climate sensitivity is usually expressed as the equilibrium global warming expected to result 

from doubling the amount of CO2 in the air. Empirical evidence from the Earth’s history indicates that climate sensitivity is about 3° C, with an uncertainty of about 1° C. A climate model 

yields its own sensitivity, based on the best physics that the users can incorporate at any given 

time. The 1988 GISS model sensitivity was 4.2° C, while it is 2.7° C for the 2005. It is suspected 

that the sensitivity of the 2005 model may be slightly too small because of the sea ice formulation being too stable. 3Our papers related to global warming can be obtained from pubs.giss.nasa.gov 

4Discussion of Crichton’s science fiction is provided on the blog 

Crichton’s approach is worse than that of Michaels. Crichton uncritically accepts 

Michaels’ results, and then concludes that Hansen’s prediction was in error ‘‘300 

percent’’. Where does he get this conclusion? 

Let’s reproduce here (Figure 1) the global temperature curves from my 1988 congressional testimony, without erasing the results for scenarios B and C. Figure 1 

updates observations of global temperature using the same analysis of meteorological station data as in our 1988 paper (which removes or corrects station data from 

urban locations)1. The 2005 data point is a preliminary estimate based on the first 

eight months of the year. 

The observations, the black curve in Figure 1, show that the Earth is indeed getting warmer, as predicted. The observed temperature fluctuates a lot, because the 

real world is a ‘‘noisy’’, chaotic system, but there is a clear warming trend. Curiously, the scenario that we described as most realistic is so far turning out to be 

almost dead on the money. Such close agreement is fortuitous. For example, the 

model used in 1988 had a sensitivity of 4.2° C for doubled CO2, but our best estimate for true climate sensitivity2 is closer to 3° C for doubled CO2. There are various other uncertain factors that can make the warming larger or smaller3. But it 

is becoming clear that our prediction was in the right ballpark. 

So how did Crichton conclude that our prediction was in error 300 percent? Beats 

me. Crichton writes fiction and seems to make up things as he goes along. He 

doesn’t seem to have the foggiest notion about the science that he writes about. Perhaps that is o.k. for a science fiction writer4. 

However, I recently heard that, in considering the global warming issue, a United 

States Senator is treating words from Crichton as if they had scientific or practical 

validity. If so, wow—Houston, we have a problem! 

Acknowledgement. I thank Makiko Sato for reproducing and updating the figure.
85

STATEMENT OF RALPH J. CICERONE, PH.D. PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ACADEMY OF

SCIENCES, THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. My name is Ralph 

Cicerone, and I am President of the National Academy of Sciences. Prior to this position, I served as Chancellor of the University of California at Irvine, where I also 

held the Daniel G. Aldrich Chair in Earth System Science. In addition, in 2001 I 

chaired the National Academies Committee that wrote the report, Climate Change 

Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, at the request of the White House. 

This morning I will summarize briefly the current state of scientific understanding on climate change, based largely on the findings and recommendations in 

recent National Academies’ reports. These reports are the products of a study process that brings together leading scientists, engineers, public health officials and 

other experts to provide consensus advice to the nation on specific scientific and 

technical questions. 

The Earth is warming. Weather station records and ship-based observations indicate that global mean surface air temperature increased about 0.7° F (0.4° C) since 

the early 1970’s (See Figure). Although the magnitude of warming varies locally, the 

warming trend is spatially widespread and is consistent with an array of other evidence (including melting glaciers and ice caps, sea level rise, extended growing seasons, and changes in the geographical distributions of plant and animal species). 

The ocean, which represents the largest reservoir of heat in the climate system, has 

warmed by about 0.12° F (0.06° C) averaged over the layer extending from the surface down to 750 feet, since 1993. Recent studies have shown that the observed heat 

storage in the oceans is consistent with expected impacts of a human-enhanced 

greenhouse effect. 

The observed warming has not proceeded at a uniform rate. Virtually all the 20th 

century warming in global surface air temperature occurred between the early 

1900s and the 1940s and from the 1970s until today, with a slight cooling of the 

Northern Hemisphere during the interim decades. The causes of these irregularities 

and the disparities in the timing are not completely understood, but the warming 

trend in global-average surface temperature observations during the past 30 years 
86

is undoubtedly real and is substantially greater than the average rate of warming 

during the twentieth century. 

Laboratory measurements of gases trapped in dated ice cores have shown that for 

hundreds of thousands of years, changes in temperature have closely tracked atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. Burning fossil fuel for energy, industrial processes, and transportation releases carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide 

in the atmosphere is now at its highest level in 400,000 years and continues to rise. 

Nearly all climate scientists today believe that much of Earth’s current warming 

has been caused by increases in the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, 

mostly from the burning of fossil fuels. The degree of confidence in this conclusion 

is higher today than it was 10, or even 5 years ago, but uncertainties remain. As 

stated in the Academies 2001 report, ‘‘the changes observed over the last several 

decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some 

significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability.’’

One area of debate has been the extent to which variations in the Sun might contribute to recent observed warming trends. The Sun’s total brightness has been 

measured by a series of satellite-based instruments for more than two complete 11-

year solar cycles. Recent analyses of these measurements argue against any detectable long-term trend in the observed brightness to date. Thus, it is difficult to conclude that the Sun has been responsible for the warming observed over the past 25 

years. 

Carbon dioxide can remain in the atmosphere for many decades and major parts 

of the climate system respond slowly to changes in greenhouse gas concentrations. 

The slow response of the climate system to increasing greenhouse gases also means 

that changes and impacts will continue during the twenty-first century and beyond, 

even if emissions were to be stabilized or reduced in the near future. 

Simulations of future climate change project that, by 2100, global surface temperatures will be from 2.5 to 10.4° F (1.4 to 15.8° C) above 1990 levels. Similar projections of temperature increases, based on rough calculations and nascent theory, 

were made in the Academies first report on climate change published in the late 

1970s. Since then, significant advances in our knowledge of the climate system and 

our ability to model and observe it have yielded consistent estimates. Pinpointing 

the magnitude of future warming is hindered both by remaining gaps in understanding the science and by the fact that it is difficult to predict society’s future actions, particularly in the areas of population growth, economic growth, and energy 

use practices. 

Other scientific uncertainties about future climate change relate to the regional 

effects of climate change and how climate change will affect the frequency and severity of weather events. Although scientists are starting to forecast regional weather impacts, the level of confidence is less than it is for global climate projections. 

In general, temperature is easier to predict than changes such as rainfall, storm 

patterns, and ecosystem impacts. 

It is important to recognize however, that while future climate change and its impacts are inherently uncertain, they are far from unknown. The combined effects of 

ice melting and sea water expansion from ocean warming will likely cause the global 

average sea-level to rise by between 0.1 and 0.9 meters between 1990 and 2100. In 

colder climates, such warming could bring longer growing seasons and less severe 

winters. Those in coastal communities, many in developing nations, will experience 

increased flooding due to sea level rise and are likely to experience more severe 

storms and surges. In the Arctic regions, where temperatures have risen more than 

the global average, the landscape and ecosystems are being altered rapidly. 

The task of mitigating and preparing for the impacts of climate change will require worldwide collaborative inputs from a wide range of experts, including natural 

scientists, engineers, social scientists, medical scientists, those in government at all 

levels, business leaders and economists. Although the scientific understanding of climate change has advanced significantly in the last several decades, there are still 

many unanswered questions. Society faces increasing pressure to decide how best 

to respond to climate change and associated global changes, and applied research 

in direct support of decision making is needed. 

My written testimony describes the current state of scientific understanding of climate change in more detail, based largely on important findings and recommendations from a number of recent National Academies’ reports. 

THE EARTH IS WARMING

The most striking evidence of a global warming trend are closely scrutinized data 

that show a relatively rapid increase in temperature, particularly over the past 30 

years. Weather station records and ship-based observations indicate that global 
87

mean surface air temperature increased about 0.7° F (0.4° C) since the early 1970’s 

(See Figure). Although the magnitude of warming varies locally, the warming trend 

is spatially widespread and is consistent with an array of other evidence (e.g., melting glaciers and ice caps, sea level rise, extended growing seasons, and changes in 

the geographical distributions of plant and animal species). 

Global annual-mean surface air temperature change derived from the meteorological station network. Data and plots available from the Goddard Institute for Space 

Sciences (GISS) at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/. 

The ocean, which represents the largest reservoir of heat in the climate system, 

has warmed by about 0.12° F (0.06° C) averaged over the layer extending from the 

surface down to 750 feet, since 1993. Recent studies have shown that the observed 

heat storage in the oceans is what would be expected by a human-enhanced greenhouse effect. Indeed, increased ocean heat content accounts for most of the planetary 

energy imbalance (i.e., when the Earth absorbs more energy from the Sun than it 

emits back to space) simulated by climate models with mid-range climate sensitivity. 

The observed warming has not proceeded at a uniform rate. Virtually all the 20th 

century warming in global surface air temperature occurred between the early 

1900s and the 1940s and since the 1970s, with a slight cooling of the Northern 

Hemisphere during the interim decades. The troposphere warmed much more during the 1970s than during the two subsequent decades, whereas Earth’s surface 

warmed more during the past two decades than during the 1970s. The causes of 

these irregularities and the disparities in the timing are not completely understood. 

A National Academies report released in 2000, Reconciling Observations of Global 

Temperature Change, examined different types of temperature measurements collected from 1979 to 1999 and concluded that the warming trend in global-average 

surface temperature observations during the previous 20 years is undoubtedly real 

and is substantially greater than the average rate of warming during the twentieth 

century. The report concludes that the lower atmosphere actually may have warmed 

much less rapidly than the surface from 1979 into the late 1990s, due both to natural causes (e.g., the sequence of volcanic eruptions that occurred within this particular 20-year period) and human activities (e.g., the cooling of the upper part of 

the troposphere resulting from ozone depletion in the stratosphere). The report 

spurred many research groups to do similar analyses. Satellite observations of middle troposphere temperatures, after several revisions of the data, now compare reasonably with observations from surface stations and radiosondes, although some uncertainties remain. 

HUMANS HAVE HAD AN IMPACT ON CLIMATE

Laboratory measurements of gases trapped in dated ice cores have shown that for 

hundreds of thousands of years, changes in temperature have closely tracked with 

atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. Burning fossil fuel for energy, industrial 

processes, and transportation releases carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is now at its highest level in 400,000 years and continues 

to rise. Nearly all climate scientists today believe that much of Earth’s current 

warming has been caused by increases in the amount of greenhouse gases in the 

atmosphere. The degree of confidence in this conclusion is higher today than it was 

10, or even 5 years ago, but uncertainties remain. As stated in the Academies 2001 

report, ‘‘the changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to 

human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes 

is also a reflection of natural variability.’’ 

Carbon dioxide can remain in the atmosphere for many decades and major parts 

of the climate system respond slowly to changes in greenhouse gas concentrations. 

The slow response of the climate system to increasing greenhouse gases also means 

that changes and impacts will continue during the twenty-first century and beyond, 

even if emissions were to be stabilized or reduced in the near future. 

In order to compare the contributions of the various agents that affect surface 

temperature, scientists have devised the concept of ‘‘radiative forcing.’’ Radiative 

forcing is the change in the balance between radiation (i.e., heat and energy) entering the atmosphere and radiation going back out. Positive radiative forcings (e.g., 

due to excess greenhouse gases) tend on average to warm the Earth, and negative 

radiative forcings (e.g., due to volcanic eruptions and many human-produced 

aerosols) on average tend to cool the Earth. The Academies recent report, Radiative 

Forcing of Climate Change: Expanding the Concept and Addressing Uncertainties 

(2005), takes a close look at how climate has been changed by a range of forcings. 

A key message from the report is that it is important to quantify how human and 

natural processes cause changes in climate variables other than temperature. For 
88

example, climate-driven changes in precipitation in certain regions could have significant impacts on water availability for agriculture, residential and industrial use, 

and recreation. Such regional impacts will be much more noticeable than projected 

changes in global average temperature of a degree or more. 

One area of debate has been the extent to which variations in the Sun might contribute to recent observed warming trends. Radiative Forcing of Climate Change: 

Expanding the Concept and Addressing Uncertainties (2005) also summarizes current understanding about this issue. The Sun’s brightness—its total irradiance—has 

been measured continuously by a series of satellite-based instruments for more than 

two complete 11-year solar cycles. These multiple solar irradiance datasets have 

been combined into a composite time series of daily total solar irradiance from 1979 

to the present. Different assumptions about radiometer performance lead to different reconstructions for the past two decades. Recent analyses of these measurements, taking into account instrument calibration offsets and drifts, argue against 

any detectable long-term trend in the observed irradiance to date. Likewise, models 

of total solar irradiance variability that account for the influences of solar activity 

features—dark sunspots and bright faculae—do not predict a secular change in the 

past two decades. Thus, it is difficult to conclude from either measurements or models that the Sun has been responsible for the warming observed over the past 25 

years. 

Knowledge of solar irradiance variations is rudimentary prior to the commencement of continuous space-based irradiance observations in 1979. Models of sunspot 

and facular influences developed from the contemporary database have been used 

to extrapolate daily variations during the 11-year cycle back to about 1950 using 

contemporary sunspot and facular proxies, and with less certainty annually to 1610. 

Circumstantial evidence from cosmogenic isotope proxies of solar activity (14C and 

10Be) and plausible variations in Sun-like stars motivated an assumption of longterm secular irradiance trends, but recent work questions the evidence from both. 

Very recent studies of the long term evolution and transport of activity features 

using solar models suggest that secular solar irradiance variations may be limited 

in amplitude to about half the amplitude of the 11-year cycle. 

WARMING WILL CONTINUE, BUT ITS IMPACTS ARE DIFFICULT TO PROJECT

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which involves hundreds of scientists in assessing the state of climate change science, has estimated 

that, by 2100, global surface temperatures will be from 2.5 to 10.4° F (1.4 to 5.8°

C) above 1990 levels. Similar projections of temperature increases, based on rough 

calculations and nascent theory, were made in the Academies first report on climate 

change published in the late 1970s. Since then, significant advances in our knowledge of the climate system and our ability to model and observe it have yielded consistent estimates. Pinpointing the magnitude of future warming is hindered both by 

remaining gaps in understanding the science and by the fact that it is difficult to 

predict society’s future actions, particularly in the areas of population growth, economic growth, and energy use practices. 

One of the major scientific uncertainties is how climate could be affected by what 

are known as ‘‘climate feedbacks.’’ Feedbacks can either amplify or dampen the climate response to an initial radiative forcing. During a feedback process, a change 

in one variable, such as carbon dioxide concentration, causes a change in temperature, which then causes a change in a third variable, such as water vapor, which 

in turn causes a further change in temperature. Understanding Climate Change 

Feedbacks (2003) looks at what is known and not known about climate change 

feedbacks and identifies important research avenues for improving our understanding. 

Other scientific uncertainties relate to the regional effects of climate change and 

how climate change will affect the frequency and severity of weather events. Although scientists are starting to forecast regional weather impacts, the level of confidence is less than it is for global climate projections. In general, temperature is 

easier to predict than changes such as rainfall, storm patterns, and ecosystem impacts. It is very likely that increasing global temperatures will lead to higher maximum temperatures and fewer cold days over most land areas. Some scientists believe that heat waves such as those experienced in Chicago and central Europe in 

recent years will continue and possibly worsen. The larger and faster the changes 

in climate, the more difficult it will be for human and natural systems to adapt 

without adverse effects. 

There is evidence that the climate has sometimes changed abruptly in the past—

within a decade—and could do so again. Abrupt changes, for example the Dust Bowl 

drought of the 1930’s displaced hundreds of thousands of people in the American 
89

Great Plains, take place so rapidly that humans and ecosystems have difficulty 

adapting to it. Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises (2002) outlines some 

of the evidence for and theories of abrupt change. One theory is that melting ice 

caps could ‘‘freshen’’ the water in the North Atlantic, shutting down the natural 

ocean circulation that brings warmer Gulf Stream waters to the north and cooler 

waters south again. This shutdown could make it much cooler in Northern Europe 

and warmer near the equator. 

It is important to recognize that while future climate change and its impacts are 

inherently uncertain, they are far from unknown. The combined effects of ice melting and sea water expansion from ocean warming will likely cause the global average sea-level to rise by between 0.1 and 0.9 meters between 1990 and 2100. In colder climates, such warming could bring longer growing seasons and less severe winters. Those in coastal communities, many in developing nations, will experience increased flooding due to sea level rise and are likely to experience more severe 

storms and surges. In the Arctic regions, where temperatures have risen almost 

twice as much as the global average, the landscape and ecosystems are being altered rapidly. 

OBSERVATIONS AND DATA ARE THE FOUNDATION OF CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE

There is nothing more valuable to scientists than the measurements and observations required to confirm or contradict hypotheses. In climate sciences, there is a 

peculiar relation between the scientist and the data. Whereas other scientific disciplines can run multiple, controlled experiments, climate scientists must rely on the 

one realization that nature provides. Climate change research requires observations 

of numerous characteristics of the Earth system over long periods of time on a global basis. Climate scientists must rely on data collected by a whole suite of observing 

systems—from satellites to surface stations to ocean buoys—operated by various 

government agencies and countries as well as climate records from ice cores, tree 

rings, corals, and sediments that help reconstruct past change. 

COLLECTING AND ARCHIVING DATA TO MEET THE UNIQUE NEEDS

OF CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE

Most of the instrumentation and observing systems used to monitor climate today 

were established to provide data for other purposes, such as predicting daily weather; advising farmers; warning of hurricanes, tornadoes and floods; managing water 

resources; aiding ocean and air transportation; and understanding the ocean. However, collecting climate data is unique because higher precision is often needed in 

order to detect climate trends, the observing programs need to be sustained indefinitely and accommodate changes in observing technology, and observations are 

needed at both global scales and at local scales to serve a range of climate information users. 

Every report on climate change produced by the National Academies in recent 

years has recommended improvements to climate observing capabilities. A central 

theme of the report Adequacy of Climate Observing Systems (1999) is the need to 

dramatically upgrade our climate observing capabilities. The report presents ten climate monitoring principles that continue to be the basis for designing climate observing systems, including management of network change, careful calibration, continuity of data collection, and documentation to ensure that meaningful trends can 

be derived. 

Another key concept for climate change science is the ability to generate, analyze, 

and archive long-term climate data records (CDRs) for assessing the state of the environment in perpetuity. In Climate Data Records from Environmental Satellites 

(2004), a climate data record is defined as a time series of measurements of sufficient length, consistency, and continuity to determine climate variability and 

change. The report identifies several elements of successful climate data record generation programs, ranging from effective, expert leadership to long-term commitment to sustaining the observations and archives. 

INTEGRATING KNOWLEDGE AND DATA ON CLIMATE CHANGE THROUGH MODELS

An important concept that emerged from early climate science in the 1980s was 

that Earth’s climate is not just a collection of long-term weather statistics, but rather the complex interactions or ‘‘couplings’’ of the atmosphere, the ocean, the land, 

and plant and animal life. Climate models are built using our best scientific knowledge, first modeling each process component separately and then linking them together to simulate these couplings. 

Climate models are important tools for understanding how the climate operates 

today, how it may have functioned differently in the past, and how it may evolve 
90

in the future in response to forcings from both natural processes and human activities. Climate scientists can deal with uncertainty about future climate by running 

models with different assumptions of future population growth, economic development, energy use, and policy choices, such as those that affect air quality or influence how nations share technology. Models then offer a range of outcomes based on 

these different assumptions. 

MODELING CAPABILITY AND ACCURACY

Since the first climate models were pioneered in the 1970s, the accuracy of models 

has improved as the number and quality of observations and data have increased, 

as computational abilities have multiplied, and as our theoretical understanding of 

the climate system has improved. Whereas early attempts at modeling used relatively crude representations of the climate, today’s models have very sophisticated 

and carefully tested treatment of hundreds of climate processes. 

The National Academies’ report Improving Effectiveness of U.S. Climate Modeling 

(2001) offers several recommendations for strengthening climate modeling capabilities, some of which have already been adopted in the United States. At the time 

the report was published, U.S. modeling capabilities were lagging behind some other 

countries. The report identified a shortfall in computing facilities and highly skilled 

technical workers devoted to climate modeling. Federal agencies have begun to centralize their support for climate modeling efforts at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory. However, the U.S. 

could still improve the amount of resources it puts toward climate modeling as recommended in Planning Climate and Global Change Research (2003). 

CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS WILL BE UNEVEN

There will be winners and losers from the impacts of climate change, even within 

a single region, but globally the losses are expected to outweigh the benefits. The 

regions that will be most severely affected are often the regions that are the least 

able to adapt. For example, Bangladesh, one of the poorest nations in the world, is 

projected to lose 17.5% of its land if sea level rises about 40 inches (1 m), displacing 

tens of thousands of people. Several islands throughout the South Pacific and Indian 

Oceans will be at similar risk of increased flooding and vulnerability to storm 

surges. Coastal flooding likely will threaten animals, plants, and fresh water supplies. Tourism and local agriculture could be severely challenged. 

Wetland and coastal areas of many developed nations including United States are 

also threatened. For example, parts of New Orleans are as much as eight feet below 

sea level today. However, wealthy countries are much more able to adapt to sea 

level rise and threats to agriculture. Solutions could include building, limiting or 

changing construction codes in coastal zones, and developing new agricultural technologies. 

The Arctic has warmed at a faster rate than the Northern Hemisphere over the 

past century. A Vision for the International Polar Year 2007-2008 (2004) reports 

that this warming is associated with a number of impacts including: melting of sea 

ice, which has important impacts on biological systems such as polar bears, ice-dependent seals, and local people for whom these animals are a source of food; increased snow and rainfall, leading to changes in river discharge and tundra vegetation; and degradation of the permafrost. 

PREPARING FOR CLIMATE CHANGE

One way to begin preparing for climate change is to make the wealth of climate 

data and information already collected more accessible to a range of users who could 

apply it to inform their decisions. Such efforts, often called ‘‘climate services,’’ are 

analogous to the efforts of the National Weather Service to provide useful weather 

information. Climate is becoming increasingly important to public and private decision making in various fields such as emergency management planning, water quality, insurance premiums, irrigation and power production decisions, and construction schedules. A Climate Services Vision (2001) outlines principles for improving 

climate services that include making climate data as user-friendly as weather services are today, and active and well-defined connections among the Government 

agencies, businesses, and universities involved in climate change data collection and 

research. 

Another avenue would be to develop practical strategies that could be used to reduce economic and ecological systems’ vulnerabilities to change. Such ‘‘no-regrets’’ 

strategies, recommended in Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises (2002), 

provide benefits whether a significant climate change ultimately occurs or not, potentially reducing vulnerability at little or no net cost. No-regrets measures could 
91

include low-cost steps to: improve climate forecasting; slow biodiversity loss; improve water, land, and air quality; and make institutions—such as the health care 

enterprise, financial markets, and transportation systems—more resilient to major 

disruptions. 

REDUCING THE CAUSES OF CLIMATE CHANGE

The climate change statement issued in June 2005 by 11 science academies, including the National Academy of Sciences, stated that despite remaining unanswered questions, the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently 

clear to justify nations taking cost-effective steps that will contribute to substantial 

and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions. Because carbon dioxide and some other greenhouse gases can remain in the atmosphere for many decades and major parts of the climate system respond slowly to changes in greenhouse 

gas concentrations, climate change impacts will likely continue throughout the 21st 

century and beyond. Failure to implement significant reductions in net greenhouse 

gas emissions now will make the job much harder in the future—both in terms of 

stabilizing their atmospheric abundances and in terms of experiencing more significant impacts. At the present time there is no single solution that can eliminate future warming. As early as 1992 Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming found 

that there are many potentially cost-effective technological options that could contribute to stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations. 

MEETING ENERGY NEEDS IS A MAJOR CHALLENGE TO SLOWING CLIMATE CHANGE

Energy—either in the form of fuels used directly (i.e., gasoline) or as electricity 

produced using various fuels (fossil fuels as well as nuclear, solar, wind, and others) 

—is essential for all sectors of the economy, including industry, commerce, homes, 

and transportation. Energy use worldwide continues to grow with economic and population growth. Developing countries, China and India in particular, are rapidly increasing their use of energy, primarily from fossil fuels, and consequently their 

emissions of CO2. Carbon emissions from energy can be reduced by using it more 

efficiently or by switching to alternative fuels. It also may be possible to capture 

carbon emissions from electric generating plants and then sequester them. 

Energy efficiency in all sectors of the U.S. economy could be improved. The 2002 

National Academies’ report, Effectiveness and Impact of Corporate Average Fuel 

Economy (CAFE) Standards, evaluates car and light truck fuel use and analyzes 

how fuel economy could be improved. Steps range from improved engine lubrication 

to hybrid vehicles. The 2001 Academies report, Energy Research at DOE, Was It 

Worth It? addresses the benefits of increasing the energy efficiency of lighting, refrigerators and other appliances. Many of these improvements (e.g., high-efficiency 

refrigerators) are cost-effective means to significantly reducing energy use, but are 

being held back by market constraints such as consumer awareness, higher initial 

costs, or by the lack of effective policy. 

Electricity can be produced without significant carbon emissions using nuclear 

power and renewable energy technologies (e.g., solar, wind, and biomass). In the 

United States, these technologies are too expensive or have environmental or other 

concerns that limit broad application, but that could change with technology development or if the costs of fossil fuels increase. Replacing coal-fired electric power 

plants with more efficient, modern natural-gas-fired turbines would reduce carbon 

emissions per unit of electricity produced. 

Several technologies are being explored that would collect CO2 that would otherwise be emitted to the atmosphere from fossil-fuel-fired power plants, and then sequester it in the ground or the ocean. Successful, cost-effective sequestration technologies would weaken the link between fossil fuels and greenhouse gas emissions. 

The 2003 National Academies’ report, Novel Approaches to Carbon Management: 

Separation, Capture, Sequestration, and Conversion to Useful Products, discusses 

the development of this technology. Capturing CO2 emissions from the tailpipes of 

vehicles is essentially impossible, which is one factor that has led to considerable 

interest in hydrogen as a fuel. As with electricity, hydrogen must be manufactured 

from primary energy sources. Significantly reducing carbon emissions when producing hydrogen from fossil fuels (currently the least expensive method) would require carbon capture and sequestration. Substantial technological and economic barriers in all phases of the hydrogen fuel cycle must first be addressed through research and development. The 2004 National Academies’ report, The Hydrogen Economy: Opportunities, Costs, Barriers and R&D Needs, presents a strategy that could 

lead eventually to production of hydrogen from a variety of domestic sources—such 

as coal (with carbon sequestration), nuclear power, wind, or photo-biological processes—and efficient use in fuel cell vehicles. 
92

CONTINUED SCIENTIFIC EFFORTS TO ADDRESS A CHANGING CLIMATE

The task of mitigating and preparing for the impacts of climate change will require worldwide collaborative inputs from a wide range of experts, including natural 

scientists, engineers, social scientists, medical scientists, those in government at all 

levels, business leaders, and economists. Although the scientific understanding of 

climate change has advanced significantly in the last several decades, there are still 

many unanswered questions. Society faces increasing pressure to decide how best 

to respond to climate change and associated global changes, and applied research 

in direct support of decision making is needed. 

NATIONAL ACADEMIES’ REPORTS CITED IN THE TESTIMONY

Radiative Forcing of Climate Change: Expanding the Concept and Addressing Uncertainties (2005) 

Climate Data Records from Environmental Satellites (2004) 

Implementing Climate and Global Change Research (2004) 

A Vision for the International Polar Year 2007-2008 (2004) 

The Hydrogen Economy: Opportunities, Costs, Barriers and R&D Needs (2004) 

Understanding Climate Change Feedbacks (2003) Planning Climate and Global 

Change Research (2003) 

Novel Approaches to Carbon Management: Separation, Capture, Sequestration, 

and Conversion to Useful Products (2003) 

Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises (2002) 

Effectiveness and Impact of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards 

(2002) 

Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (2001) 

Improving the Effectiveness of U.S. Climate Modeling (2001) 

A Climate Services Vision: First Steps Towards the Future (2001) 

Energy Research at DOE, Was It Worth It? (2001) 

Reconciling Observations of Global Temperature Change (2000) 

Adequacy of Climate Observing Systems (1999) 

Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming (1992)
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161

E-MAIL MESSAGE DISTRIBUTED ON SEPTEMBER 23, 2005 BY DR. GERHARD HESS OF

BAYER ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES S.A.S. 

Dear Robert, 

Sorry for joining the ongoing discussion rather late, You can be assured that I followed the discussion very closely, travelling now through Asia and having met my 

Indian and African colleagues here in Bangkok for a meeting, during which we discussed intensively the DDT issue. I can give you the following additions to the discussion. Not only as the responsible manager for the vector control business in 

Bayer, being the market leader in vector control and pointing out by that we know 

what we are talking about and have decades of experiences in the evolution of this 

very particular market. Also as one of the private sector representatives in the RBM 

Partnership Board and being confronted with that discussion about DDT in the various WHO, RBM et al circles. So you can take it as a view from the field, from the 

operational commercial level but our companies point of view. I know that all of my 

colleagues from other primary manufacturers and internationally operating companies are sharing my view. Even the international pesticide manufacturers association Crop life International has standpoint on that (I can make contacts if you 

wish). 

DDT use is for us a commercial threat (which is clear, but it is not that dramatic 

because of limited use), it is mainly a public image threat 

We agree with WHO that DDT should be used as an exception, when there is no 

alternative efficacy and economically wise, we can proof from the field that there 

are alternatives in nearly all cases where DDT is re-introduced (but these alternatives are not considered as it should be, reasoning to be speculated! 

We agree with WHO that DDT should be used for indoor residual spraying for 

malaria mosquito control only. It is an open secret in the market that considerable 

quantities of the DDT ends up in agriculture, worst case from one country program 

showed a ‘‘loss’’ of 40 percent of the allocated DDT volume during the spraying operation. Checking agricultural products from ‘‘DDT countries’’ show increasing residues. 

Therefore we fully support EU to ban imports of agricultural products coming 

from countries using DDT. 

We are in discussion with WHO’s Pesticide Evaluation Scheme (WHOPES) on 

manufacturers association level (here Public Health Project Team from CropLife 

International) about the significance of the DDT specification available. The value 

of that specification is more than questionable, it is very old, non updated since 

than, and done only according to the old specification procedure. This is due to the 

reason that there is not a single DDT manufacturer in the world but a group of producers, which are not always (to be polite) producing WHO standard quality material. So WHO has to admit that it is very difficult to guarantee to the country programs, seeking advice from WHO, a WHO confirmed quality of the product ‘‘recommended’’. 

This brings us into the situation that WHOPES evaluated and recommended 

products are split into a two class society: the DDT class with basically no guarantee possible for quality and conformity to the specs, and the other pesticides 

which have to run through the WHOPES system with a necessary dossier about tox, 

efficacy, chem/phys data etc. etc., and which are encouraged to update their specification according to the new system to stay in ‘‘business’’. WHOPES is a perfect 

and marvelous system from WHO to guarantee the highest efficacy and quality for 

products used in public health in general and in vector control in special. 

Needless to say that if one DDT supplier (or a consortium) will go nowadays 

through the expensive and time consuming WHOPES, he will fail already in Phase 

I when it comes to the supply of the tox data and the risk and safety assessment. 

Every new compound which is evaluated in WHOPES and the data fill proves that 

it accumulates in the food chain, and that there are doubts about the long term tox 

impacts will be rejected. But there is no supplier of DDT doing that, so there is no 

change in listing of DDT as recommended product for indoor residual spraying 

against mosquitoes by WHO. This seems to be the weakness of the system. 

Difficult and sensitive area: country cases and how the use of DDT sometimes 

evolves (not a general statement but some anecdotal data). India has widespread 

DDT (and Pyrethroid and OP) resistance in malaria vectors, still DDT (and 

pyrethroids) are used accepting control levels below 40 percent. 

Resistance management programs are hardly accepted by the central authorities 

despite pressure from WHO, the State authorities and the academical side, because 

resistance is denied. Here international donors (like World Bank for India), Global 

Fund etc. giving funds to those countries are asked to take necessary restrictive ac-
162

tions when it comes to product choice and strategies selected, here WHO can play 

the referee role. 

Southern Africa: political pressure is made on neighboring countries from the Republic of South Africa to use DDT (reasons can only be speculated). Surprisingly at 

the end let me define a role for DDT: if there is widespread resistance to pyrethroids 

e.g. being the major class of insecticides for indoor residual spraying nowadays and 

there is no confirmed cross-resistance to DDT-than DDT might play a role for a 

short term rotational partner in a resistance management scheme. Short term in 

the sense unless the level of resistance for the other insecticides in use reaches a 

level which allows re-introduction of these. Of course close monitoring and evaluation of the resistance has to be included in the scheme. Needless to say that there 

are other alternatives like carbonates which can be used in rotational programs. 

It would be interesting to get the findings of the various resistance networks, e.g. 

the African network, discussed in this forum, especially what is the level of resistance for DDT. 

Thanks for having the chance to share these thoughts with you, looking forward 

to feedback. 

Best regards 

Gerhard 

Dr. Gerhard Hesse 

Bayer Environmental Science S.A.S. 

Business Manager Vector Control 

email: gerhard.hesse@bayercropscience.com

Æ