S. HRG. 113–736 

CLIMATE CHANGE: IT’S HAPPENING NOW 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

July 18, 2013 

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

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys 

CLIMATE CHANGE: IT’S HAPPENING NOW 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

95–976 PDF 2015

S. HRG. 113–736 

CLIMATE CHANGE: IT’S HAPPENING NOW 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 18, 2013 

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

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director 

ZAK BAIG, Republican Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

JULY 18, 2013 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California ........................ 1 

Vitter, Hon. David, U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana ............................ 2 

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland ................ 37 

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming .......................... 39 

Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island ......... 41 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 42 

Hirono, Hon. Maize K., U.S. Senator from the State of Hawaii .......................... 45 

Sessions, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama ............................. 48 

Sanders, Hon. Bernard, U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont ....................... 49 

Fischer, Hon. Deb, U.S. Senator from the State of Nebraska ............................. 51 

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ................... 52 

Wicker, Hon. Roger, U.S. Senator from the State of Mississippi ........................ 56 

Udall, Hon. Tom, U.S. Senator from the State of New Mexico ............................ 57 

WITNESSES 

Cullen, Heidi, Ph.D, Chief Climatologist, Climate Central .................................. 59 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 61 

Nutter, Franklin W., President, Reinsurance Association of America ................ 82 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 84 

Golden, KC , Senior Policy Advisor, Climate Solutions ........................................ 127 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 129 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer ................................ 148 

Response to an additional question from Senator Vitter .............................. 152 

Furchtgott-Roth, Diana, Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute ............................. 155 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 157 

Murphy, Robert P., Senior Economist, Institute For Energy Research .............. 169 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 171 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Whitehouse ......................................................................................... 179 

Senator Vitter ................................................................................................... 180 

Francis, Jennifer, Research Professor, Institute of Marine and Coastal 

Sciences, Rutgers University ............................................................................... 245 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 248 

Response to an additional question from Senator Boxer .............................. 254 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Whitehouse ......................................................................................... 255 

Senator Udall .................................................................................................... 257 

Doney, Scott C., Ph.D, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution ........................... 259 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 261 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ................................................................................................... 277 

Senator Whitehouse ......................................................................................... 279 

Leinen, Margaret, Ph.D, Executive Director of Harbor Branch Oceanographic 

Institute, Vice Provost for Marine and Environmental Initiatives, Florida 

Atlantic University ............................................................................................... 284 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 286 

Response to an additional question from Senator Boxer .............................. 292 

Response to an additional question from Senator Whitehouse .................... 295 

Page

IV 

Pielke, Roger Jr., Professor, Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Colorado ............................................................................ 299 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 301 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Whitehouse .................................................................................. 312 

Senator Vitter ............................................................................................ 312 

Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D, Principal Research Scientist IV, Earth System Science 

Center, The University of Alabama In Huntsville ............................................ 314 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 316 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Whitehouse ......................................................................................... 328 

Senator Vitter ................................................................................................... 331 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Senators letter to Assistant Administrator, Hon. Gina McCarty ........................ 354 

Articles: 

Gallup: Americans Say Economy Is Top Worry for Nation’s Future ........... 361 

Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, News Release ........ 366 

Wall Street Journal: California’s Cap-and-Tax Grab .................................... 385 

United States Senate Environmant and Public Works Committee Minority 

Report: Critical Thinking on Climate Change ................................................... 386 

Energy & Commerce Committee, Ten Lessons of the Solyndra Failure ............. 409 

U.S. Energy Information Adminitration, Today in Energy .................................. 411 

Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation, 990-DF Return of Private Foundation 2009 ............................................................................................................... 413 

LLoyds’s Risk Index 2013 ....................................................................................... 498 

Economic Outcomes of a U.S. Carbon Tax (Full Report) ..................................... 545 

National Climate Data Center, State of the Climate Global Analysis - Annual 

2012 ....................................................................................................................... 640

Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, Deficit Reduction Rises 

on Public’s Agenda for Obama’s second term .................................................... 649 

Why We Need a ‘Red Team’ Approach in Climate Science, Richard McNider 

& John Christy ..................................................................................................... 655 

Washington Post article; Solyndra: Politics Infused Obama Energy Programs . 732 

(1) 

CLIMATE CHANGE: IT’S HAPPENING NOW 

THURSDAY, JULY 18, 2013 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room 406, 

Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer (chairman of 

the committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Boxer, Vitter, Carper, Cardin, Sanders, 

Whitehouse, Udall, Gillibrand, Hirono, Inhofe, Barrasso, Sessions, 

Wicker, and Fischer. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. The hearing will come to order. 

I got a call from Senator Inhofe and he said he is pulled between 

his duties at the Armed Services Committee and here and that he 

would hope when he arrived, because he has to go back and forth, 

that he could be recognized, whatever the list is. I said it was fine 

with me and that I would ask unanimous consent at the time. I 

just wanted to mention that to everybody. And I told him what 

would a hearing on climate change be without him and I certainly 

was encouraging him to come. 

So, today our hearing will focus on climate change and the serious threat it poses to our Nation. This is not a political hearing or 

a solutions hearing. It is a hearing where I hope we will listen to 

the experts. 

The body of evidence, to me, and I think we will learn today appears to be overwhelming, the world’s leading scientists agree and 

predictions of the impact of climate change are coming true before 

our eyes. 

The issue has been a priority for me since I became Chairman 

of the Committee. How long ago was that? 2007. 2007. Because to 

me, climate change puts our environment and public health at risk 

and the long-term risks are enormous. And I remember that one 

of our first hearings at that time was about climate change. 

I am going to talk about what the scientists then told us would 

be happening and people were looking at the scientists like this 

cannot be possible. But I will tell you what they said then and we 

can all judge as to whether or not what they said is coming true. 

For example, Dr. Kevin Trenberth said it is very likely that hot 

extremes and heat waves will continue to become more frequent. 

He also said it is likely that tropical storms and hurricanes will beVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:34 Nov 13, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\95976.TXT VERN
2 

come more intense and with much heavier rainfalls and thus the 

risk of flooding. 

Dr. Howard Frumkin in 2009 said with climate change, an increase in the severity, duration and frequencies of extreme heat 

waves is expected. Admiral Dennis McGinn said on the most basic 

level climate change has the potential to create sustained natural 

and humanitarian disasters on a scale and frequency beyond those 

we see today. 

So, in just a few short years since these predictions were made, 

we can just look at the window and see the evidence of climate 

change mounting around us. We can just look at what we are all 

voting for in terms of rebuilding our communities because of the intense weather. 

I have a chart of the Rockaways in 2012. Superstorm Sandy resulted in the loss of life, wiped out entire communities and caused 

approximately $65 billion of damage. We all remember that. And 

I have a chart of an Alaskan village. The impacts of climate change 

are being felt. The Arctic has lost more than one-third of total sea 

ice volume over the last decade, making Alaskan Native villages increasingly vulnerable to erosion and storms. 

And I will show you a chart of a California wildfire. These are 

raging. These are raging continually. Right now we have one in the 

county in which I live. We have seen large wildfires break out earlier in the season in California. Nineteen brave firefighters in Arizona tragically lose their lives. In 2012, New Mexico experienced 

the largest wildfire in State history. Colorado suffered the second 

large wildfire in State history. And Oregon has its largest wildfire 

since the 1860’s. 

According to NOAA, the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, over the past 2 years there have been 25 weather and climate disasters, each one costing more than $1 billion. And the second panel, which Senator Whitehouse requested and will chair, will 

look at the State of our oceans. 

Climate change is real. This is what I believe. Human activities 

are the primary cause. That is what I believe. And the warming 

planet poses a significant risk to people and the environment. That 

is what I believe. And I believe all of that because the top scientists 

are telling us that. 

Today we will be hearing from scientists and other experts who 

will tell us about the growing impacts associated with climate 

change. We have an amazing first panel. I will hold off introducing 

them until we have all made our opening statements. 

And with that, I will call on Senator Vitter. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Chairman Boxer and members of 

our Committee who are here today and our panel of witnesses who 

will be discussing a number of very important issues as they relate 

to climate science and our National Energy Policy. 

First let me say I think it is really unfortunate that we do not 

have any witnesses here from the Obama administration. Just 

weeks ago, President Obama announced a sweeping Climate Action 

Plan which will undoubtedly tighten the Federal Government’s grip 

3 

on our economy. It would have been very useful to hear from the 

Administration about how exactly they plan to implement this 

strategy. It also would have been useful to learn the exact the 

exact measurable benefits that the United States can expect from 

these actions. 

In relation to that, I would just like to put into the record, 

Madam Chair, a letter to you specifically requesting we have witnesses as part of this discussion and also a letter to President 

Obama, both are from mid-July, requesting that he make available 

witnesses from his Administration about this climate action plan. 

And I ask unanimous consent to submit these for the record. 

Senator BOXER. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

4 


95976.226
5 


95976.227
6 


95976.228
7 


95976.229
8 


95976.230
9 


95976.231
10 

Senator VITTER. Former Administrator Lisa Jackson testified before this Committee that U.S. action alone will not impact the climate. So, this begs a few questions, starting with have things 

changed so drastically in the last 4 years that now U.S. action 

alone can control the climate? 

The hearing is entitled Climate Change: It’s Happening Now. I 

would also note it is interesting that it is not Global Warming: It’s 

Happening Now. Maybe it is because given the earth’s stagnant 

temperature for the last 15 years, a fact that is currently confounding climate scientists and modeling experts that predicted 

otherwise, that would have been an inconvenient title. 

The unique thing about the title of the hearing is that I think 

it could have been true and accurate and appropriate not only now 

but 50 years ago, and 500 years ago, and 5,000 years ago because 

climate change is happening, it is always happening, and there are 

many significant influences that are making it happen. 

Just a cursory glance at recent scientific literature shows that influences, major influences on climate, include solar activity, solar 

cycles, ocean currents, cosmic rays and greenhouse gases that occur 

naturally as well as those emitted from many countries including 

those who have no plans on regulatory change like China, India 

and Russia. These are factors impacting our climate over which we 

have little or no control. 

As the President unilaterally implements his regulatory agenda, 

I believe it is important to note what the Obama campaign does 

not want us to talk about. And I think it is very interesting. This 

was outlined in email last month by Ken Berlin, a Chair of President Obama’s energy and environment team. And we have that detailed email and talking point memo here and I would like unanimous consent to submit this for the record. 

Senator BOXER. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

11 


95976.458
12 


95976.459
13 


95976.460
14 


95976.461
15 


95976.462
16 


95976.463
17 


95976.464
18 


95976.465
19 


95976.466
20 


95976.467
21 


95976.468
22 


95976.698
23 


95976.469
24 


95976.470
25 

Senator VITTER. Specifically, as outlined very clearly in this 

email, the President and his team do not want anyone to discuss 

‘‘straight economic arguments.’ Well, I think on behalf of the American people we should absolutely talk about the economic impacts 

of these policies and have an honest discussion about that. 

They do not want to talk about ‘‘regulations to control greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.’ I think we should absolutely talk about these very significant and very economically detrimental regulations. 

They do not want to talk about, or they do not want to ‘‘overpromise on impacts taking action will have.’ Again, maybe the reason is, as Lisa Jackson herself testified, such action would have no 

impact given that we in the United States alone do not control impacts on climate. 

They do not want to ‘‘debate the validity or consensus of the 

science that has already settled.’ I am interested in discussing exactly what part of science is settled in light of facts like climate 

models being wrong for the last 15 years regarding temperature 

and the fact that none of White House Science Advisor John 

Holdren’s predictions on climates have come true, very dramatic 

predictions, just have not come true. 

They do not want to talk about ‘‘the need to regulate industry 

and shut down power plants.’ If I can ask for unanimous consent 

for one additional minute? 

Senator BOXER. I cannot do that because we have got everybody 

here to speak, we have got two panels. But if you could finish in 

a minute, it would be great. 

Senator VITTER. That is exactly what I asked for. Thank you. 

They do not want to talk about ‘‘the need to regulate industry 

and shut down power plants.’ And certainly no none should ‘‘debate 

the increase in electricity rates.’ Well, again, we think these are 

very important issues that should be discussed for the benefit of 

the American people. 

So, I look forward to this discussion. I look forward to digging 

down into the science, what exactly it suggests and does not suggest, and I certainly look forward to talking about economic impacts on the American people as they face very, very tough times. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Vitter follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

Thank you, Chairman Boxer, the members of our Committee who are here today, 

and our panel of witnesses who will be discussing a number of very important issues 

as they relate to climate science and our national energy policy. 

It is unfortunate we don’t have any witnesses here from the Obama administration. Just weeks ago, President Obama announced a sweeping climate action plan, 

which will undoubtedly tighten the Federal Government’s grip on our economy. It 

would have been very useful to hear from the Administration how exactly they plan 

to implement this strategy. It would also have been helpful to learn the exact measurable benefits that the United States can expect from these actions. 

Former Administrator Lisa Jackson testified before this Committee that U.S. action alone will not impact the climate. This begs a few questions: Have things 

changed so drastically in the last 4 years that now U.S. action alone can control 

the climate? Are we now able to determine what weather events will happen and 

which ones won’t? 

26 

This hearing is entitled ‘‘Climate Change: It’s Happening Now.’’ I would note that 

it has not been titled ‘‘Global Warming: It’s Happening Now.’’ Maybe that would 

have been too ironic given the Earth’s stagnant temperature for the past 15 years, 

a fact that is currently confounding climate scientists and modeling experts who 

predicted otherwise. 

The unique thing about the title of our hearing is that we could have been holding 

this hearing 50 years ago, 500 years ago, 5 thousand years ago, or 5 million years 

ago, and it would have been just as accurate a statement. The climate has always 

and will always be changing because there are influences on our climate that will 

always be outside Congress’s control. 

Just a cursory glance at recent scientific literature shows that influences on our 

climate include: solar activity; solar cycles; ocean currents; cosmic rays; and greenhouse gases that occur naturally as well as those emitted from other countries such 

as China, India, and Russia. These are factors impacting our climate over which we 

have little or no control. 

As the President unilaterally implements his regulatory agenda, I believe it is important to note what the Obama campaign does not want us to talk about. This was 

outlined in an email last month by Ken Berlin, a chair of President Obama’s Energy 

& Environment Team. Specifically, President Obama does not want anyone to discuss: 

• ‘‘Straight economic arguments.’’ I think the economic impacts of these policies 

are imperative to an honest discussion. 

• ‘‘Regulations to control greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.’’ I think we 

absolutely should talk about the regulations so the American public can know exactly what the Administration has planned. 

• ‘‘Over promise on the impacts taking action will have.’’ Maybe the reason is because Lisa Jackson said such action would have no impact, and I think that is something we should discuss. 

• ‘‘Debate the validity or consensus of the science that is already settled.’’ I am 

interested in discussing exactly what part of the science is settled in light of the 

fact that climate models have been wrong for the last 15 years and that none of 

White House Science Advisor John Holdren’s predictions on climate have come true. 

• ‘‘The need to regulate industry and shut down power plants.’’ I, on the other 

hand, think that is exactly what the Administration is doing and I think we should 

talk about the impacts of shutting down power plants, putting our fellow Americans 

out of work, and increasing the price of energy for those that can least afford it. 

• No one should ‘‘Debate the increase in electricity rates’’ and should ‘‘instead 

pivot to health & clean air message.’’ We should discuss the increase in electricity 

rates and, if we are going to discuss health, let’s focus on the health effects of higher 

unemployment or the benefits to plant life from increased CO2 . 

President Obama would like his supporters to ‘‘suggest net job increases’’ from all 

these new regulations and mandates. Perhaps because the reality is that all evidence actually suggests the President’s agenda will be horrible economic policy over 

the long-term. So any assertion of net job increase is a flat out lie. 

Today, only 47 percent of Americans have a full time job, the workforce participation rate is at its lowest level since the Carter administration, and the national unemployment rate has exceeded 7.5 percent for the longest period since the Bureau 

of Labor Statistics started tracking it. At the end of President Obama’s second term 

in office, the Federal debt will likely exceed $20 trillion, further frustrating America’s future. 

Policy and economic decisions surrounding the issue of climate change should be 

based on being honest with our fellow Americans. That starts with being honest 

about the economic impacts of regulatory actions, avoiding sensationalism when it 

comes to the science, and taking a retrospective look at the models, predictions and 

claims over the last 30+ years to assess what impacts we can truly measure and 

what claims under the guide of ‘‘science’’ have been inaccurate. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

I ask unanimous consent to place in the record two documents 

that refute what you said about temperatures remaining stagnant, 

one from the EPA, one from Climate Central. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

27 


95976.285
28 


95976.286
29 


95976.679
30 


95976.680
31 


95976.681
32 


95976.682
33 


95976.683
34 


95976.684
35 


95976.685
36 


95976.686
37 

I want to reiterate. We did get a letter asking for the Obama administration to be here and I responded that this is a committee 

of experts and we will do this. But as you know, we have been 

without a head of the EPA for the longest time in history. We are 

about to solve that, thank goodness, thank you. And then we will 

have someone who is going to carry out those rules. 

Now, we are going to go with the early bird rule, which is what 

the Committee asked to do. So, I am going to tell you who is going 

where with an exception for James Inhofe which, he is going to be 

called on when he arrives, when it is the Republican’s turn. 

So, ours are Boxer, Cardin, Whitehouse, Hirono, Sanders and 

Carper. The Republicans are Vitter, Barrasso, Sessions, Fischer 

and Wicker. 

So, with that I will call on Senator Cardin. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Senator CARDIN. Well, thank you Madam Chair and I would ask 

consent that my full statement be included in the record. 

Senator BOXER. Without objection. 

Senator CARDIN. And Madam Chair, let me thank you for calling 

this hearing. I was listening to the Ranking Member and I very 

much agree that we need to have Administration before this Committee. But I think it is refreshing that we have a hearing with the 

experts. We all want to be judged by the best science and I think 

this hearing gives us a chance to talk about the science of climate 

which I think is our responsibility. I applaud you for convening this 

hearing. 

Madam Chair, I also want to thank you for making the arrangements yesterday for the naming of the EPA building in honor of 

William Jefferson Clinton. It was an incredible day. We all talk 

about the fact that we can have respect for our environment and 

we can grow our economy and create jobs. 

But I think President Clinton said it best yesterday in that we 

cannot have a growing economy and create jobs unless we have a 

pro-environment agenda. If you do not respect our environment, 

you cannot grow the economy. And I think that was at least every 

telling to many of us and that is why we are so concerned about 

what is happening with global climate change. 

Let me just give you the example in Maryland. In 2007, Maryland decided to pass the toughest power plant emission laws on the 

East Coast of the United States. And the result was a $1 billion 

investment in the Brandon Shores Coal Fired Power Plant. It created thousands of jobs. And Maryland has some of the cleanest 

burning power plants in the Nation. It was the right thing to do. 

The people of Maryland have benefited both from their environment and from their economy. 

But it is not enough because we are downwind from many other 

States. We need national policies to deal with these issues. And I 

applaud President Obama and the action he has taken with the authority that he has as President and the agencies involved to take 

action to clean up our environment through reduced carbon emissions and to deal with greenhouse gas problems. 

38 

As the Chairman pointed out, this is an urgent situation. The 

wildfire photo that you showed was taken just 6 weeks ago. This 

is a current crisis that we are facing every day. Where we are here, 

we have experienced record numbers of heat days. Last summer, 

we had the largest number of above 95 degrees in the history of 

recordkeeping. So we see it every day. 

I am honored to represent the State of Maryland and my colleagues on this Committee have heard me talk about the Chesapeake Bay many time. Sea level rising is occurring. It is having a 

devastating impact on the people of Maryland and on this region. 

It is urgent that we act and we act now. 

President Obama was right to act. But we have a responsibility, 

as Members of Congress, to act, to pass the policies that will make 

this Nation safer. The interesting thing is, the same policy that will 

make us more secure by developing our own energy sources will 

create the jobs of the future, good paying jobs, grow our economy, 

will also protect our environment for future generations. 

We should take advantage of the opportunity now. And it should 

be judged by best science. And that is why this hearing is so important to the work of the Committee. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Cardin follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

Thank you for holding this hearing, Madam Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to come together today to talk about such a critical, timely issue. Today we 

will hear not only from the scientists who will explain to us how our climate and 

our oceans are changing. We will also hear from experts in policy and business who 

will tell us what we should be doing about these disturbing trends. 

This climate crisis is already happening, and the extreme weather that we have 

been experiencing as a nation makes it clear. Just last month, Colorado experienced 

the most destructive wildfire in the history of the state; spreading to 100 square 

miles, it destroyed five hundred homes—all fueled by forests full of trees that are 

completely dried out from the ongoing drought. 

This is a tragic repeat of last summer’s deadly wildfire season in our western 

states, also exacerbated by historic drought conditions. According to the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2012 was the hottest year globally on 

record. There was a deadly wildfire season in our western states last summer. Right 

here in Washington, the summer of 2012 brought us the longest recorded streak of 

95-degree-plus days, and a resulting multi-day power outage that crippled the 

Washington area. In my home State of Maryland, hundreds of thousands of people 

were without power for days. Being without air-conditioning during a heat wave, 

without heat during a blizzard, without refrigeration for days at a time is no mere 

inconvenience—it is a public health issue. We must act to ensure the health and 

safety of our communities. 

These extreme weather events and increased temperatures are not theoretical. 

They are happening to us right now. When those of us in this hearing room leave 

the building today, we will be walking into a sustained heat wave. These extremes 

are the new normal, and they are affecting our nation’s infrastructure, our environment, and our public health and safety. It is time that we get serious with three 

key responses to the climate threat. First, we must commit to investing in clean and 

efficient technologies to move away from the carbon-based energy that is contributing to the climate threat. Equally importantly, we must adapt our infrastructure 

and systems to these new conditions. And finally, we must put a price on carbon. 

Last month, President Obama took an important step forward by announcing his 

Administration’s plan of action on climate change, including steps to cut carbon pollution from power plants, spur clean energy innovation, and dramatically reduce the 

pollution that fuels climate change and extreme weather. I applaud his efforts and 

his leadership on this issue, but the Administration cannot do it alone. We in Congress must be an active partner in reducing carbon emissions and protecting our 

communities from the devastating impacts of climate change. 

39 

There are those who would have us believe that, despite the devastating impacts 

that we will hear about from our witnesses, addressing climate change is simply too 

expensive and not worth the financial costs. This is simply not true. Investing in 

clean energy technologies and in the infrastructure of our communities creates jobs 

and spurs economic growth. 

The experience in Maryland shows that it works. In 2007, Maryland took a bold 

step for public health and the environment by implementing the toughest power 

plant emissions law on the East Coast. 

Maryland’s power plants met the challenge by installing new pollution control 

technologies that resulted in substantial economic benefits for the region. In March 

2010, Constellation completed the upgrades at its 13-hundred Megawatt Brandon 

Shores coal-fired power plant. The project required a $1 billion investment that generated nearly four million man-hours of labor from the Baltimore Building and Construction Trades Council workers. This included 26 months of work for 2,000 skilled 

construction workers. This figure does not include the manufacturing and distributions jobs associated with the production of technologies and equipment purchased 

by the plant. Brandon Shores is now one of the cleanest coal-burning power plants 

in the country. 

Maryland’s experience demonstrates that technological progress in the name of 

public health can actually boost employment and stimulate the economy. 

I believe that I have a responsibility to the people of Maryland and to the people 

of this country, to do all that I can to help prepare us for the consequences of climate change. We need to adapt our water infrastructure, our transportation infrastructure, and our electrical grid. We need to help our farmers to adapt so that our 

food supply—and that of the world—remains reliable. We need to adapt our coastal 

regions and prepare for the sea-level rise that is already beginning to threaten some 

of our coastal communities. We need to improve our public health infrastructure to 

deal with the heat-related illnesses that result from these extreme temperatures. In 

short, we need to act now to protect our communities. 

I look forward to hearing from our diverse panel of speakers on the latest climate 

change science and the steps we can take to reduce the impacts of climate change. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator Cardin. 

Senator BARRASSO. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I 

am pleased that you are having this hearing today. 

I must echo the concerns of Senator Vitter that we believe a Federal witness should be present at this hearing. It only makes sense 

that this Committee should able to have, and this Administration 

should be able to provide, a witness that can defend the Administration’s Energy Policy. 

Just this morning, Madam Chairman, I was speaking at a web 

cast event on energy by Politico, down at the museum. Heather 

Zichal, the Deputy Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change, was the speaker right before I spoke. Now, this is 

the President’s Chief Climate Change Advisor. Administration officials are apparently available for web casts today but not for hearings to defend their policies to the public and to answer questions. 

Senator BOXER. Would the Senator yield without losing his time? 

Senator BARRASSO. Yes, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. I just want to say, we did not invite Heather 

Zichal. We did not. It was the decision of the Majority that we will 

have hearings with the Administration down the line. I do not 

want people to feel that they said no. We did not ask them because 

we are going to have those hearings once Gina is in place and we 

move forward. 

And so, I guarantee you, you will have more than one time to go 

at the Administration. I promise you. I committed to you, probably 

40 

much more than once, probably two of three times. Please, do not 

make it sound like they did not want to come because honestly we 

did not invite them. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

This hearing today is entitled Climate Change: It’s Happening 

Now. Many have tried to point to the specific severe weather 

events in the news and on the Senate floor and to say that a tornado or a storm, that is climate change. In response I quote the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Allison Macfarland who 

stated before this Committee that, ‘‘I would not call these events 

extreme, I would consider them normal.’ She stated that she made 

this statement as an earth scientist. 

So, what we need to be talking about is jobs. The Administration 

has, I believe, pummeled coal country, power plants, manufacturing and small businesses for 4 years, pursuing their preferred 

version of a clean energy future. 

Since 2009, unemployment has remained stagnant, families are 

hurting in States like Wyoming, Kentucky, Ohio, West Virginia, 

Montana and, according to the Heritage Foundation, the President’s June 25th announcement to issue carbon limits for existing 

coal fired power plants, existing coal fired power plants, would adversely effect the more than 1,100 at nearly 500 plant locations. 

These plants generate 40 percent of America’s affordable, reliable 

energy. 

And this why today I am introducing legislation called the National Energy Tax Repeal Act. The bill very simply says that the 

authority to direct such regulations resides with Congress and cannot be issued by EPA unless Congress first authorizes it. President 

Obama’s June 25th announcement circumvents the legislative process and the will of the American people. Congress had rejected the 

President’s cap and trade policies in the past. 

The President’s proposal is extraordinarily expensive. When you 

combine all of what the President is proposing for new and existing 

coal fired power plants, the compliance costs would be $130 billion. 

Those costs are going to be passed on to the hardworking families 

and seniors on fixed incomes. In addition, more than 250,000 jobs 

are at risk as coal fired power plants go bankrupt and are retired. 

The indirect job losses from high energy costs as small businesses 

lay off workers to stay afloat makes the number higher. 

We also know that this Administration and like-minded environmental activists are already planning the demise of natural gas. If 

the President is going after greenhouse gases, he will not stop at 

coal. 

Then Presidential-Nominee Barrack Obama said himself in the 

San Francisco Chronicle on January 17, 2008, he said because I am 

capping greenhouse gases, coal powered plants, natural gas, these 

are the President’s words as a candidate, natural gas, you name it, 

whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would 

have to retrofit their operations, that will cost money, they will 

pass that money onto consumers. 

The Sierra Club has already announced their Beyond Gas campaign. So the President has promised it, the Sierra Club has announced it, these actions are going to cost our economy even more 

41 

jobs, lost opportunities for States to bring in new revenues to pay 

for things like college tuition, roads, hospitals. 

The fact is, these costs are very real. Yet the benefits of these 

climate change regulations are very much unknown. Even the 

President’s Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force 

stated in their 2011 progress report, they said ‘‘The scope, severity 

and pace of future climate change are difficult to predict with precision.’ 

The problem is this Administration and others on this Committee 

are willing to bet our economic future today as if their predictions 

about the future are a certainty. That is not the way to manage 

an economy and this is certainly not the way to develop an energy 

future for this Country. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Senator Whitehouse and then Senator Inhofe. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much, Chairman. I know 

how important this issue is to you and to many of our colleagues. 

And I think today’s discussion is especially significant is light of 

the latest misleading line coming from the special interests that climate change has stopped and we can all pack up our bags and go 

home. The American people need to hear the truth. 

As we all know, the past 10 years are much warmer than 10 

years before them and are, in fact, warmer than any decade since 

recordkeeping began. And unfortunately there are plenty of other 

plain indicators that climate change is continuing apace. 

On the second panel, we will focus on the effects of climate 

change and ocean acidification, both consequences of carbon pollution. Oceans are still getting warmer and more acidic. Sea level is 

still rising. Glaciers and Arctic sea ice are still melting. Seasons 

are still shifting. The most convincing thing about climate science 

is not how many climate scientists are part of the consensus, but 

how many different lines of evidence that consensus is built on. 

Climate change is happening now. The consequences are real. We 

here in Congress should be working to slow the known cause of 

that change, the incessant dumping of carbon pollution into our atmosphere and oceans. And we should be working to prepare for the 

changes that we can no longer avoid. We need to seek bipartisan 

and common sense solutions. Instead, because the barricade of special interest influence has blocked action of climate change, we are 

taking on risk. 

Some of us have put forward a solution that we think can appeal 

to a broad section of Senators, namely to put a price from carbon 

pollution coming from the largest sources. The big polluters have 

been getting a free ride. They are harming all of us with their 

emissions and they are paying no price for it. 

Carbon-driven climate change hurts our economy, damages our 

infrastructure, compromises the security of our Nation and harms 

public health. These costs, however, are not factored into the price 

of the coal or oil that is burned to release the carbon. The big oil 

42 

companies and the coal barons have offloaded those costs onto society. 

The cost of the damages from carbon pollution that these corporations are unloading onto the rest of the society is called the social cost of carbon. The Administration recently released updated 

social cost of carbon values which they use in cost benefit analysis. 

While I commend them on the update, there remains room to improve the calculation to account for damages from carbon pollution 

that are difficult to quantify now, such as ocean acidification and 

species loss. I look forward to future updates factoring in these 

damages. 

We often hear, in this chamber, colleagues extolling the virtues 

of the marketplace. Indeed, a fair and open marketplace is the cornerstone of our economy. Markets work, not perfectly always, but 

better than any other mechanism. But markets only work when 

they are fair and markets are not fair if the price of pollution is 

not taken into account. The value of open and fair markets is lost 

when people cheat, just as when they offload their costs onto the 

general public. 

The mounting costs of carbon pollution on society is a market 

failure. A carbon fee would make the market work more efficiently 

by putting the costs of carbon pollution into the price of the product 

instead of letting the big polluters freeload on the general public. 

It is Economics 101. It will also be a real step toward reducing 

harmful carbon pollution and it will generate significant revenue, 

every penny of which could and should go back to the American 

people and propel the economy. 

Climate change is, indeed, happening now. Now is the time for 

us to get serious about solving this problem. And I thank the 

Chairman for calling this hearing. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. 

Senator INHOFE. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And I do want 

to thank you for, I called you this morning and, as you are well 

aware, I am the Ranking Member on Armed Services and we have 

another hearing taking place at the same time. But this is too important not to participate in. So, I thank you very much. And I will 

be going back and forth. 

Thank you for holding the hearing. I am disappointed that we do 

not have Administration officials here. I anticipated that we would 

early on, but we do not. 

Around the same time that the President gave his speech on 

global warming last month, his campaign team developed a talking 

points memo that was crafted to provide alarmists around the 

Country with specific instructions about how they should talk 

about global warming. The President wants everyone to be on the 

same page. He has tested and tried these talking points on focus 

groups and even has come up with a list of dos and don’ts which 

they are putting up behind us, dos and don’ts when talking about 

climate change which you can see in the chart behind me. 

43 

Now, these talking points are not honest or straightforward. 

They are purely political. In the memo’s first point, it says I do not 

lead, it says do not lead with straight economic arguments. The 

President makes it clear that he does not want anyone talking 

about the cost of taking action to stop global warming. And we 

know exactly why. Whether it is legislation or regulation, any action to reduce greenhouse gases is going to cost the economy at 

least $300 billion to $400 billion a year. 

We have used this figure now for quite some time. It is rather 

interesting because when it first came out, it was a Wharton figure. Later on, MIT and I think Charles Rivers and others came 

out. Now, that is a figure that is tied to the, a cap and trade bill. 

Now instead, the President instructs alarmists to ‘‘talk about how 

climate change is harming America now’ and about ‘‘real impacts 

including asthma attacks and extreme weather events like hurricanes and tornadoes.’ 

Claiming global warming is causing extreme weather is wrong 

and even President Obama’s nominees disagree with him. Allison 

Macfarlane, who was nominated by the President to be Chairman 

of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, testified before this Committee just a few weeks ago. When she was asked about the weather and if she thought the tornadoes or that Hurricane Sandy were 

extreme weather events, she said I would not call these events extreme. I would call them normal. 

Most meteorologists agree. A recent study by George Mason University reported that 63 percent of weathercasters believe that any 

global warming that occurs is the result of natural variation and 

not human activities. That is a significant two to one margin. Now, 

given this, we are lucky one of our distinguished panelists, which 

I hope I will come back, Dr. Cullen, to ask a few questions of you, 

is not in charge. 

I am kind of glad you are not in charge of meteorological licenses. If so, then 63 percent of them would be fired. You once said, 

or she once said I should say in opening statement, if a meteorologist cannot speak to the fundamental science of climate change and 

that it is manmade, then maybe the American Meteorological Society should not give them a seal of approval. 

That would mean that meteorologists like Aaron Tuttle in Oklahoma City would be out of a job. He does not believe in manmade, 

in global warming, but he regularly saves Oklahoma lives by predicting when and where tornadoes will strike which helps people 

know exactly when they need to take cover during severe storms. 

And even though the President’s talking points instruct alarmists not to ‘‘debate the validity or consensus of the science that is 

already settled’ more and more reports are surfacing all the time 

that show the science is not settled. 

In March, the Economist reported that ‘‘Over the past 15 years, 

air temperatures and the earth’s surface have been flat while 

greenhouse gas emissions have continued to soar.’ And just this 

past week Harvard and the Forest Service came out with a study 

that shows trees are growing faster and using less water with higher concentrations of atmospheric concentrations of CO2 . This is the 

opposite of what scientists expected before. But the alarmists canVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:34 Nov 13, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\95976.TXT VERN
44 

not talk about it because they have received their instructions from 

the President. 

The President’s talking points demonstrate that he is only interested in achieving his desired political outcome whatever the costs. 

Now, why do they want to do this? We all remember what Richard 

Lindzen said and I have quoted it many times. I think it is very 

difficult for anyone to criticize Richard Lindzen. He is the atmospheric physicist at MIT. He said that regulating carbon is a bureaucrats dream because if you control carbon, you control life. 

And when you zoom out and consider this from a distance, it is 

a core tenant of liberalism. As the President’s political philosophy, 

he believes that the Government can make better decisions than 

the people. 

And I do applaud you for having this hearing, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Thanks. 

Senator INHOFE. I think it is a lot of theater here but it is going 

to be fun and we can get back in and start talking about it again. 

Senator BOXER. Your time is up. But I love the theater. Is this 

the second act? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator INHOFE. Excuse me? 

Senator BOXER. I said are you giving us the second act? 

Senator INHOFE. Act Two, that is right. 

Senator BOXER. Anyway, I am glad you came because I do not 

think this is theater. I think this is deadly serious. I appreciate 

that you have the same song that you have had all along. I do not 

know what it will take to convince you but I am going to keep on 

trying. 

Senator INHOFE. Well, then, let me respond to that. 

Senator BOXER. Please do. I would not feel good if you did not. 

Senator INHOFE. I would only say that there has been time, in 

the last 12 years, I cannot tell you how many bills have been introduced in the House and the Senate. Not one has passed the U.S. 

Senate, which is the more liberal branch of the two Houses. And 

I do not think today you could get 35 votes out of the U.S. Senate 

for a cap and trade bill. 

Senator BOXER. Well, we are not discussing that, OK? Let us not 

get into cap and trade. All I am saying, and this will be the last 

word before I call on Senator Hirono, is this. I do not know what 

it will take to convince you and the deniers of what is out the window. 

Senator INHOFE. It is not just me. It is two-thirds of the United 

States Senator. 

Senator BOXER. Senator Hirono. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 

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

FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Madam Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today. I was looking forward to hearing from Administration officials about the President’s global warming 

proposal, so you can understand why I’m disappointed that no officials are testifying 

today. Around the same time the President gave his speech on global warming last 

month, his campaign team developed a secret talking points memo that was crafted 

to provide alarmists around the country with specific instructions about how they 

should talk about global warming. 

45 

The President wants everyone to be on the same page. He’s tested and tried these 

talking points on focus groups, and he even came up with a list of ‘‘Do’s and Don’ts’’ 

when talking about climate change, which you can see on the Chart behind me. 

These talking points are not honest or straight forward. They’re purely political. In 

the Memo’s very first point, which says ‘‘don’t lead with straight economic arguments,’’ the President makes it clear that he doesn’t want anyone to talk about the 

cost of taking action to stop global warming. And we know exactly why—whether 

it’s legislation or regulation, any action to reduce greenhouse gases is going to cost 

the economy at least $300 billion or $400 billion per year. And the Administration 

knows that once the discussion turns to cost—they’ve lost the debate. 

Instead, the President instructs alarmists to ‘‘talk about how climate change is 

harming Americans now’’ and about the ‘‘real impacts including asthma attacks and 

extreme weather events’’ like hurricanes and tornadoes. But claiming global warming is causing extreme weather is farfetched, and even President Obama’s nominees 

agree with him. Allison MacFarlane, who was nominated by the President to be the 

Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, testified a few weeks ago in this 

Committee. And when she was asked about whether she thought the tornadoes in 

Oklahoma or Hurricane Sandy were extreme weather events, she said, ‘‘I would not 

call these events extreme. I would call them normal. Most meteorologists agree. A 

recent study by George Mason University reported that 63 percent of weather casters believe that any global warming that occurs is the result of ‘‘natural variation’’ 

and not ‘‘human activities.’’ That is a significant two-to-one majority. 

Given this, we’re lucky one of our distinguished panelists is not in charge of meteorological licenses. If she were, then 63 percent of them would be fired. She once 

said, ‘‘If a meteorologist can’t speak to the fundamental science of climate change,’’ 

and that it’s man-made, ‘‘then maybe the American Meteorological Society shouldn’t 

give them their Seal of Approval.’’ That means that Meteorologists like Aaron Tuttle 

in Oklahoma City would be out of a job. He doesn’t believe in manmade global 

warming, but he regularly saves Oklahoma lives by predicting when and where tornadoes will strike, which helps people know exactly when they need to take cover 

during severe storms. And even though the President’s talking points instruct 

alarmists to not ‘‘debate the validity or consensus of the science that is already settled,’’ more and more reports are surfacing all the time that show the science is not 

settled. 

In March, the Economist reported that ‘‘Over the past 15 years, air temperatures 

at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued 

to soar.’’ And just this past week, Harvard and the Forest Service came out with 

a study that shows trees are growing faster and using less water with higher atmospheric concentrations of CO2 . This is the opposite of what scientists expected before, 

but the alarmists can’t talk about it because they’ve received their instructions from 

the President. 

The President’s talking points demonstrate that he’s only interested in achieving 

his desired political outcome—whatever the cost. Why do they want to do this? We 

all remember Richard Lindzen, the world renowned atmospheric physicist at MIT. 

He said that regulating carbon is a ‘‘bureaucrat’s dream,’’ because ‘‘if you control 

carbon, you control life.’’ When you zoom out and consider this from a distance, it 

is the core tenant of liberalism and the President political philosophy. He believes 

that government can make better decisions than the people, and regulating carbon 

dioxide will give him all he needs to make nearly every decision for the American 

people. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MAIZE K. HIRONO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF HAWAII 

Senator HIRONO. Thank you, Chairman Boxer and Ranking 

Member Vitter for scheduling today’s hearing. This is my first 

hearing as a Member of this Committee and as a Senator from Hawaii I am very glad to be here to take part in this important discussion. 

Throughout human history, our natural environment has provided a stable, predictable foundation for civilization. However, 

there is clear evidence that foundation is changing. Today’s hearing 

will explore the scientific evidence that changes to earth’s climate 

are contributing to extreme weather events of increasing severity 

and frequency. These extreme events, as well as changes occurring 

46 

in our world’s oceans, are a major concern to the long-term economic and national security interests of the U.S. 

In Hawaii, we have already seen the impact of climate change 

both on land and in the ocean that surrounds us. There are many 

impacts on Hawaii that I could mention, but given the short time, 

I will focus on three: impacts on our economy, our communities and 

national security. 

The Pacific Ocean is the world’s largest physical feature. Situated in the center of the Pacific, Hawaii is the world’s most isolated 

archipelago. While our people and communities have always had a 

special relationship with the ocean, we are also acutely aware that 

we are at its mercy. Rising ocean temperatures, sea level rise and 

ocean acidification pose serious risks to our economy and communities. 

For example, the sea level has risen in Hawaii at the rate of 0.6 

inches per decade over the past century. Research indicates that 

sea levels may increase by three feet by the end of the century. 

This means that areas like Waikiki, I am sure many of you have 

been there, a critical driver of Hawaii’s tourism economy, are likely 

to face serious flooding if sea level rise intensifies. 

In addition, we are seeing more extreme weather as a result of 

changes to our weather patterns. This is straining our infrastructure and harming our communities. For example, while overall 

rainfall in Hawaii, which is critical to replenishing the groundwater we rely on, has decreased by 15 percent in the past 20 years, 

but yet we have seen a 12 percent increase in very heavy 

downpours. In fact, in the spring of 2012, severe flooding occurred 

that required the Governor to issue a disaster declaration for Oahu 

and Kauai. 

President Obama also signed a Federal disaster declaration for 

the island of Kauai which was hard hit by flooding that caused 

more than $3 million in damage just to public facilities and roads. 

These situations demonstrate the impact climate change is already 

having on Hawaii’s economy and communities. 

As a result of scientific evidence and real life experiences with 

climate change, the State of Hawaii has taken an aggressive approach toward addressing climate change. We have passed State 

laws limiting greenhouse gas emission, promoting clean energy and 

energy efficiency, and a law to address climate change adaptation. 

These efforts are forward looking, but support on the Federal level 

is needed. 

Hawaii is also home to the U.S. Pacific Command, PACOM, 

which is responsible for the entire Asia Pacific region. That is over 

half the planet. PACOM’s leadership has continually warned of the 

impact of increasingly severe weather patterns on stability in the 

region. On average, PACOM is involved in responding to a natural 

disaster within the region once every 8 weeks. 

These are just some of the economic and security concerns that 

climate change are posing in Hawaii right now. And the situation 

will only intensify in the future if we do nothing. 

Some will argue that we should not lead on this issue as a Nation because it will not make enough of a difference unless developing nations join us. The fact is we are risking falling behind right 

now. China is taking this issue seriously. It has set up pilot carbon 

47 

markets and is taking action to invest in renewable energy. In fact, 

there is a U.S.-China climate change working group to promote 

high level negotiations and discussion between our two countries 

on key climate change issues. 

Climate change is a great challenge of our time. We can stand 

and meet the challenge, which will change the foundation of our 

economy and society for the better. I hope that today’s hearing will 

serve to make the case for strong, cooperative, bipartisan action. I 

look forward to working with all of my colleagues on these vital 

issues. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Hirono follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. MAIZE K. HIRONO, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF HAWAII

Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Vitter, thank you for scheduling today’s hearing. This is my first hearing as a member of this Committee, and as a Senator from 

Hawaii I am very glad to be here to take part in this important discussion. Throughout human history our natural environment has provided a stable, predictable foundation for civilization. However, there is clear evidence that foundation is changing. 

Today’s hearing will explore the scientific evidence that changes to the earth’s climate are contributing to extreme weather events of increasing severity and frequency. These extreme events, as well as changes occurring in our world’s oceans, 

are of major concern to the long-term economic and national security interests of 

the U.S. 1In Hawaii, we are already seeing the impact of climate change—both on 

land and in the ocean that surrounds us. There are many impacts on Hawaii that 

I could mention, but given the short time I will focus on three: Impacts on our economy, our communities, and national security. 

The Pacific Ocean is the world’s largest physical feature. Situated in the center 

of the Pacific, Hawaii is the world’s most isolated archipelago. While our people and 

communities have always had a special relationship with the ocean, we are also 

acutely aware that we are at its mercy. Rising ocean temperatures, sea level rise, 

and ocean acidification pose serious risks to our economy and communities. For example, the sea level has risen in Hawaii at rate of 0.6 inches per decade over the 

past century. Research indicates that sea level may increase by 3 feet by the end 

of the century. This means that areas like Waikiki—a critical driver of Hawaii’s 

tourism economy—are likely to face serious flooding if sea level rise intensifies. 

In addition, we are seeing more extreme weather as a result of changes to our 

weather patterns. This is straining our infrastructure and harming our communities. For example, while overall rainfall in Hawaii—which is critical to replenishing the groundwater we rely on—has decreased by 15 percent in the past 20 

years, we have seen a 12 percent increase in very heavy downpours. In fact, in the 

spring of 2012 severe flooding occurred that required the Governor to issue a disaster declaration for Oahu and Kauai. President Obama also signed a Federal disaster declaration for the island of Kauai, which was hard hit by flooding that caused 

more than $3 million in damage just to public facilities and roads. 

These situations demonstrate the impact climate change is having on Hawaii’s 

economy and communities. As a result of scientific evidence and real life experiences 

with climate change, the State of Hawaii has taken an aggressive approach toward 

addressing climate change. We have passed State laws limiting greenhouse gas 

emissions, promoting clean energy and energy efficiency, and a law to address climate change adaptation. These efforts are forward looking—but support on the Federal level is needed. 

Hawaii is also home to the U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM) which is responsible 

for the entire Asia-Pacific region. That is over half the planet. PACOM’s leadership 

has continually warned of the impact of increasingly severe weather patterns on stability in the region. On average, PACOM is involved in responding to a natural disaster within the region once every 8 weeks. These are just some of the economic 

and security concerns that climate change are posing in Hawaii right now—and the 

situation will only intensify in the future if we do nothing. 

Some will argue that we shouldn’t lead on this issue as a nation because it won’t 

make enough of a difference unless developing nations join us. The fact is we’re 

risking falling behind right now. China is taking this issue seriously. It has set up 

pilot carbon markets and is taking action to invest in renewable energy. In fact, 

48 

there is a U.S.-China Climate Change Working Group to promote high level negotiations and discussions between our two countries on key climate change issues. Climate change is the great challenge of our time. We can stand and meet the challenge, which will change the foundation of our economy and society for the better. 

I hope that today’s hearing will serve to make the case for strong, cooperative, bipartisan action. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues on these vital 

issues. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Senator. 

Senator SESSIONS. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you very much. We appreciate the desire to have a hearing focused on science and we need to talk about 

that. But I do agree with Senator Vitter that the Administration 

officials, it would be good to have them here today. 

With regard to the science, we need to be honest and somewhat 

humble, I think, as we deal with these issues. No person knows everything about the future of climate in the world and what causes 

it. 

We know greenhouse gases emitted by humans can have a 

warming affect. I think that sounds commonsensical to me. I agree 

that there is logic to that, as did President Bush. It is this view, 

Senator Boxer says that 97 percent or 98 percent that agree. Well, 

I think I am in the 98 percent. Dr. Spencer, who will raise some 

questions here today, is in the 98 percent that I believe that we 

have changes in the temperature and we need to analyze how they 

occur. 

But how much can we do and what all is occurring? We have less 

confidence it seems to me. We know the atmosphere has warmed 

some over the last 100 years. We know that global temperatures 

have not increased in 15 years, pretty clearly. 

Senator Boxer, I asked EPA for the kind of report you say you 

have that justifies the claim that there has been no decline, or no 

flattening of the temperature, and they have not produced it. So, 

I would like to see the document that you put into the record. I 

have been asking for it for months. But it is not going to say that 

the temperature has increased in the last 10 years because it has 

not. 

So, the President, I believe, continues to mislead the public on 

this subject. He has said ‘‘Temperatures around the globe are increasing more than was predicted 10 years ago.’ He said that in 

November. He said that again this spring. So, we need to be talking about real data and real facts. I asked Lisa Jackson about it 

and Gina McCarthy and we have not been able to see any data 

that backs that statement up. 

We also know that many of the President’s supporters have already benefited financially from the green energy agenda. They are 

out there having a real interest in maintaining this agenda and 

sometimes it is alarmism at expense to the taxpayers. Solyndra, a 

failed solar power effort, exposed taxpayers to $535 million in 

losses. A123 Systems, a failed battery power project, exposed taxpayers to $249 million in losses. Abound Solar, a failed solar power 

project, exposed taxpayers to $400 million in losses. 

49 

Wages are falling. The American people are hurting. Unemployment is high. Energy costs are high. Poor people are hurting. And 

we have got to be careful when we impose regulations that do not 

have an overt U.S. Treasury cost that cost them because they have 

to pay more for the electricity, pay $50 or $100 more a month to 

drive to work, that is not a little matter. It is a big matter. We 

need to know what the science is that would justify that. 

But we do not really know how much of this warming will actually occur in the years ahead. That is very much in question. So, 

we need more science to try to figure that out. That is why I 

thought it was important that scientists like Dr. Spencer at UAH 

and Dr. Christy who assessed the data. 

And I would like to submit for the record a paper prepared by 

Dr. Richard McKnight and Dr. John Christy entitled Why We Need 

a Red Team Approach to Global Science. We need some people that 

challenge some of this data. More and more as years go by we find 

some of it is not objective. 

Senator BOXER. Without objection, we will place that in the 

record. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. 

We keep hearing that there are record high temperatures in recent years. But Dr. Christy said by far there were far more record 

high temperatures in the Dust Bowl years than we are having in 

the last decade. Who is correct about that? Let us look at these 

numbers and see who is accurate in that. 

The ultimate fact is as U.S. policymakers we need to know 

whether imposing a carbon tax and cap and trade system are cutting our greenhouse emissions by 80 percent, as the Chair proposes, would achieve the kinds of reductions in global atmospheric 

concentrations of CO2 that could change global temperatures. 

So, I look forward to the hearing. I think it is important. And let 

us all maybe chill a moment and learn something. 

Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. Let us all chill. That is good. 

OK, we turn to Senator Sanders and then followed by Senator 

Fischer. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BERNARD SANDERS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Senator SANDERS. Madam Chair, thanks for very much for holding this hearing. 

This truly is an Alice in Wonderland hearing. Within this little 

room we are clearly living in two separate planets. Two separate 

worlds. And whether the differences are influenced by the fact that 

the Koch brothers at ExxonMobil and the petroleum industry and 

fossil fuel industry is pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into 

think tanks trying to confuse the American people or are we just 

dealing with politics here, I really do not know. 

But to deny the fact that the overwhelming, overwhelming majority, some 98 percent of scientists who have published peer reviewed articles, believe not only that global warming is real, but 

that it is manmade. And to continue that discussion is we are not 

sure, let us not talk about, let us look at something else, is almost 

beyond intellectual comprehension. 

50 

And I will say this. We have a lot of differences in the Congress, 

a lot of philosophical differences. But I predict that our grandchildren and our great grandchildren will look back on this period 

and they will not be appreciative of the fact that members of the 

U.S. Senate have refused not only not to go forward in combating 

global warming but even acknowledging the reality of global warming. 

Madam Chair, among scientists, this is according to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, one the large scientific organizations in the world, quote, this is a month ago, 1 

month ago, ‘‘There is now overwhelming agreement based on multiple lines of scientific evidence that global climate change is real, 

it is happening right now and it will have broad impact on society.’ 

That is virtually what every major scientific organization, not only 

in the United States of America but throughout the world, is saying. And it is incredible that we are not on the floor right now discussing serious legislation to cut back on greenhouse emissions. 

I think it was Senator Vitter who said, what about the costs? 

What about the costs? Well, let me talk about the costs. What 

about the costs of inaction? What will more droughts mean to agriculture in this Country? What will more floods mean in terms of 

property destruction? What will climate change mean for national 

security? 

It is not only meteorologists, and by the way, not weathermen 

and weatherwomen, in all due respect weathermen, I am not quite 

sure that they are part of the scientific community, but what you 

have is our national security people who are telling us that if you 

see more drought and less food production, more drought and less 

drinkable water, you are going to have international conflict. 

Navy Admiral Samuel J. Locklear III, who is the head of the 

U.S. Pacific Command, I think Senator Hirono referred to this, recently described climate change as the biggest national security 

threat facing the region. Climate change, he warns, and I quote, 

‘‘will cripple the security environment probably more than other 

scenarios we all often talk about.’ That is the national security 

issue. 

Now, to my mind the time for waiting is over. We need bold action. The United States needs to do what we do best, is lead the 

world in a new direction. And I am very proud that along with Senator Boxer, she and I have introduced legislation that will, in fact, 

impose a tax on carbon. 

Senator Whitehouse is absolutely right. People who are causing 

enormous damage to our planet are saying we need cheap energy. 

You are not cheap energy. Coal and oil are not ‘‘cheap’ energy as 

they are causing catastrophic damage to this planet. It is the most 

expensive form of energy. 

So, Madam Chair, I think the time is long overdue for us to move 

away from fossil fuel, to move boldly to energy efficiency and to 

such sustainable energies as wind, solar, geothermal, biomass and, 

by the way, when we do that we will also create millions of jobs 

as we transform this economy. 

Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Senator. 

Senator FISCHER. 

51 

STATEMENT OF HON. DEB FISCHER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you Madam Chair and thank you Ranking Member Vitter, for holding this hearing today. I would also like 

to thank our witnesses for being here and their willingness to 

share their time with us. 

I would also like to welcome Senator Hirono. As a fellow member 

of the freshman class, it is so nice to have you on this Committee. 

Today we are going to have a serious discussion, I hope. It is 

going to be a robust discussion. Because as we see movement to 

unilaterally force reductions in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, the 

American people who are being forced to pay more for fuel and 

electricity as a result, they deserve to have an accounting of these 

actions. 

Without reductions from China and India, the world’s biggest 

greenhouse emitters, we must question whether the environmental 

benefits are even discernible and whether they are worth harming 

our economy at a time when three-quarters of Americans are living 

paycheck to paycheck. 

The U.S. share of global CO2 emissions has been declining for 

nearly a decade, from 25 percent in 2000 to 19 percent in 2008. I 

believe that these declines occurred due to market forces and without expensive, burdensome and unworkable policies. 

President Obama’s order to EPA to cut carbon dioxide emissions 

from new and existing power plants would adversely affect coal 

fired plants the most. America has more than 1,000 coal fired generators at nearly 600 plant locations that generate 40 percent of 

America’s affordable and reliable energy. Nebraska families and 

Nebraska businesses depend on coal fired generation for two-thirds 

of their electric needs and we would be disproportionately penalized under this plan. 

It is important for our Committee to examine energy price-raising climate change policies and I am hopeful that we will have a 

hearing soon to do so. 

With that, I will end my time and thank you, Madam Chair, and 

I look forward, again, to a robust discussion. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. 

So now we turn to our panel of experts and I echo Senator 

Fischer’s welcome and thank you all for being here. No pun intended, this is a hot topic. 

Dr. Heidi Cullen, Chief Climatologist at Climate Central, Mr. 

Frank Nutter, President, Reinsurance Association of America, Mr. 

KC Golden, Policy Director, Climate Solutions, Ms. Diana 

Furchtgott-Roth, Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, and Dr. Robert Murphy, Senior Economist, Institute for Energy Research. 

So, we welcome you. 

I see that Senator Carper is here. So, we will just hold off for 

one moment, he will do his 5 minutes, and we will start with you, 

Dr. Cullen. 

Go ahead, Senator. 

52 

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. Please bear with me. Thank you 

very much, Madam Chair. 

I will not need to take 5 minutes. I will just say this. I was privileged as a 17 year old to win a Navy ROTC scholarship and went 

off to Ohio State to study economics and fall into the Navy. And 

from time to time I go back to Ohio State. 

There is a husband and wife research team that still works there 

and they run something called the Pohl Research Center that you 

may have heard of at Ohio State. And what they have done over 

the last 20, 25 years is to visit the, how many of you have ever 

heard of the Pohl Research Center? OK. What they have done is 

they have visited some of the highest mountaintops in the world, 

largely down around the equator, and they recover ice core samples 

that enable them to look back in time. And they look back in time 

not just 100 or 200 years, they look back 100,000, 200,000, 800,000 

years. 

The ice core samples disclose the levels of carbon in the atmosphere during those periods if time. And they have the ability to see 

where levels of carbon were high and where they were relatively 

low. And there is a direct correlation to the temperature in those 

times and the levels of carbon in those times. And we see in our 

atmosphere today levels of carbon that I believe are higher than 

any other data observed in all of those ice core samples that they 

have recovered over decades of work. 

The other thing that I want to say, more up to the present, 

Madam Chair, in my State there is a major highway, Highway 1, 

kind of like 101 in California, that goes from the northern part of 

the State to the southern part of the State. When you get down 

into Sussex County, our southernmost county, and you turn east off 

of Highway 1, you head toward the Delaware Bay. You drive literally alongside a wildlife refuge, Prime Hook Wildlife Refuge, a 

beautiful place. And when you keep going, you drive right into the 

bay and off in the distance, maybe 20 miles or so, is New Jersey. 

But if you keep on driving, you drive right into the bay. 

It was not always that way. It used to be you would drive into 

a parking lot. And people parked their cars or their trucks or their 

boats and they would fish or crab or go boating. And I have a picture from 1947, the year I was born. In 1947, there is a picture of 

that spot and you are standing there looking east from Delaware 

toward New Jersey but you are looking out across the Delaware 

Bay. 

And in 1947 there was a bunker, a concrete bunker, I think it 

had something to do with the fortifications in anticipation of attack 

by the Germans, submarines or whatever, during World War II. It 

was a concrete bunker that sat about 300 feet or 400 feet west of, 

west of the dune line in that place, 300 feet or 400 feet west of the 

dune lines on dry sand, a concrete bunker. Today, that concrete 

bunker is in the water. It is in the Delaware Bay. You can still see 

the top of the bunker protruding from time to time, but it is not 

400 feet west of the dune lines anymore. It is in the water. 

I like to quote the guy that actually the Chair knows, a guy 

named Stephen Stills, and I jokingly refer to him as that famed 

53 

California climatologist who once wrote something is happening 

here, just what it is ain’t exactly clear. Well, something is happening here and I think it is pretty clear. It is pretty clear to me. 

And the question is what, if anything, are we going to do about? 

Thanks very much. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Carper follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOMAS R. CARPER, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF STATEMENT DELAWARE

I want to thank the Chairman for having this hearing and thank the witnesses 

for being here today. For years, I have worked with my colleagues—many on this 

Committee—and President Obama and his administration to try to tackle climate 

change. Yes, it’s true. I’m a believer. I believe that climate change is not only real, 

but that it is one of the biggest challenges facing our world today. Two climatologists I met years ago from my alma mater of Ohio State University, Dr. Lonnie 

Thompson and his wife Dr. Ellen Mosley-Thompson, helped make me a believer. 

For decades, this husband-and-wife duo has been climbing some of the tallest 

mountains in the world to collect ice core samples. These ice samples date back hundreds of thousands of years and contain valuable data about what was in the atmosphere and what the climate was like at the time. Their research has found that 

there is a direct correlation between the levels of carbon dioxide in our air and 

warmer temperatures. 

We know humans have dramatically increased the levels of carbon dioxide in the 

air through burning fossil fuels. We also know, based on ice samples, carbon pollution in the atmosphere is at levels not seen in 800,000 years. And we know we have 

rising global temperatures. To borrow from Stephen Stills, I believe that something’s 

happening here—and what it is actually pretty clear. We don’t have to go the highest mountains in the world to see the impacts of climate change; we can find impacts in my own State of Delaware. 

The harmful effects of climate change, specifically sea-level rise and extreme 

weather events like Superstorm Sandy, pose a unique and serious threat to my 

coastal home State of Delaware, as well as several of our neighbors along the coast. 

When I am in Sussex County, Delaware, I like to drive out to the Delaware Bay. 

I usually head east, and I like to go through Prime Hook National Wildlife Refuge. 

Years ago, I would come across a parking lot where people could walk, fish, swim 

or go crabbing. Today, that parking lot is entirely underwater. 

If you look slightly out in the water—there lays a World War II bunker, once 300 

meters from the shoreline and now almost completely submerged by the rising tides. 

When I talk with people who don’t believe that the sea is rising, I urge them to 

drive out and see that parking lot, see that bunker. Despite the science and what’s 

happening in states like Delaware, we will hear from some of my colleagues and 

some of today’s witnesses that taking action is too expensive. They say we cannot 

protect our economy and our environment at the same time. 

I’d like to remind my colleagues that history has proven this is a false choice: we 

can protect both. In fact, I would argue the costs are too great if we do not act. The 

Government Accountability Office agrees with me—listing this year that climate 

change is a high risk to our country’s fiscal health. Taking action means investing 

in a lower carbon economy, but also investing in more resilient communities. We 

need to be making investments in beach replenishment, smarter infrastructure, and 

drought resistant crops that can help our economy weather the storms to come. 

We also need to be smarter about where we put our homes, buildings and roads— 

especially along our coastlines. Fortunately, we aren’t starting from square one. Already, this country is moving forward on a cleaner economy—due in big part to the 

commitments made by the Obama administration. Investments in solar, wind, nuclear, and even clean coal are moving this country away from our dirty fossil fuel 

dependence. Our cars, trucks and vans continue to become more efficient, saving 

consumers money at the pump and keeping our car companies more competitive 

than ever. And laws like the Coastal Barrier Resources Act, sponsored in 1982 by 

my good friend, former Delaware Congressman Tom Evans, have saved countless 

tax dollars and protected coastlines highly exposed to storms that otherwise would 

have been developed. 

I’d like to ask for unanimous consent to submit a further statement about Congressman Evans’s efforts and a recent article by Justin Gillis, which appeared in 

the April 8th, 2013, edition of The New York Times, for the Record. We aren’t at 

square one, but we still have a long way to go. As I said at the beginning—I’m a 

believer. And I believe it’s time we stop fighting over established science and work 

54 

together to enact common-sense environmental protections that are good for both 

our earth and our economy. 

Thank you again Madam Chairman. 

Statement on Coastal Barrier Resources Act: 

Madame Chairman, it has now been 8 months since Hurricane Sandy devastated 

so much of the Northeastern coast of our country. In the immediate aftermath of 

this tragic storm, we saw people from all walks of life pulling together, helping one 

another, and taking care of their neighbors. In Delaware, we witnessed State, country, and local officials, along with first responders, the Red Cross, the Delaware National Guard, and many volunteers all pitch in to help. It was both incredible and 

inspirational to witness, and it was a testament America’s longstanding tradition of 

helping our neighbors, whether they live down the street or across the country. 

Madame Chairman, we’re now well into the summer, and as every Member who 

represents a coastal area knows, summertime is a vital time for our critically important tourism industry. As families and businesses continue to rebuild, I am heartened to see that coastal communities up and down the East Coast have made significant progress toward a full recovery, and are open for business in most instances. It is a testament to the decisive and comprehensive actions taken by President Obama, Secretary Donovan and the members of the President’s Hurricane 

Sandy Rebuilding Task Force, along with the congressional delegations and Governors of all of the affected states, and countless State and local leaders, officials, 

residents, business owners, and volunteers. 

As remarkable as the progress has been, it will take years to recover from the 

devastation caused by Sandy, and it’s important that we get it right. Lives, communities, and businesses depend on it. We also must remember that, even as we continue to do all we can to support those who are working so hard to rebuild their 

lives and livelihoods, it is our responsibility to remain ever mindful of the threat 

of extreme weather, which is always looming along our coastal areas. Unfortunately, 

the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic are expected to see more frequent and larger storms 

like Sandy in the future. As a result, we need to do everything we can to mitigate 

the effects of these future storms, since we know all too well that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. 

In Delaware, we’ve seen the benefits of mitigation up close. Over a number of 

years, the Army Corps of Engineers built a series of storm protection projects in 

Delaware, funded by State and Federal dollars. Our robust beaches and strong dune 

systems performed very well during the worst of Sandy, likely sparing us billions 

of dollars in damage. The relatively small investment of tens of millions of dollars 

that our State made, matching even larger Federal investments, helped to protect 

more than 17,000 homes in our coastal communities, whose value exceeds over $7 

billion. 

There is another key tool that we can use to help protect against the impact of 

coastal storms and reduce the significant Federal investment that is required in 

their aftermath. This is the legacy of a remarkable Delaware leader who served in 

many respects as a role model for many of us in Congress not that long ago. In 

1982, Congressman Tom Evans and Senator John Chafee of Rhode Island—both Republicans—wrote a simple, yet brilliant, law to slow the growth of rising Federal 

disaster recovery costs. Their bill, entitled The Coastal Barrier Resources Act, declared that certain fragile, undeveloped coastlines, which were highly exposed to 

storm damage, could not receive any Federal subsidies, grants, or other investments. The rising cost of responding to disasters such as storms and floods was expected to require steady increases in Federal spending, making building in these 

areas too risky and—ultimately—irresponsible. Congressman Evans and Senator 

Chafee were able to pass this law with bipartisan support, and President Ronald 

Reagan signed it in 1982, calling it a ‘‘triumph for natural resource conservation 

and Federal fiscal responsibility.’’ 

Madame Chairman, that law has served America well for more than 30 years. It 

has preserved critical coastal habitat while protecting communities from storm and 

flood damage and saving countless tax dollars. It is a true win-win-win, and I am 

grateful it has protected many areas in my home State of Delaware. I’d ask to submit a recent article by Justin Gillis, which appeared in the April 8th, 2013 edition 

of The New York Times, for the Record. 

Thank you. 

The New York Times 

April 8, 2013 

Rebuilding the Shores, Increasing the Risks 

By JUSTIN GILLIS 

This might be a good time to take a look at the most important environmental 

law that nobody has ever heard of. 

55 

The real eState industry fought that law bitterly in Congress, but lost, and it 

landed on Ronald Reagan’s desk in 1982. The president not only signed it, but did 

so with a rhetorical flourish, calling it a ‘‘triumph for natural resource conservation 

and Federal fiscal responsibility.’’ 

The law—the Coastal Barrier Resources Act—was intended to protect much of the 

American coastline, and it did so in a clever way that drew votes from the most 

conservative Republicans and the most liberal Democrats. 

It is worth bringing up today because we are once again in an era when our coasts 

are at risk and our national coffers are strained. The $75 billion in damages from 

Hurricane Sandy, coming only 7 years after the $80 billion from Hurricane Katrina, 

told us this much: We need a plan. 

The climate is changing, the ocean is rising, more storms are coming, and millions 

of Americans are in harm’s way. The costs of making people whole after these 

storms are soaring. Without ideas that stand some chance of breaking the political 

gridlock in Washington, the situation will eventually become a national crisis. 

The law that Reagan signed in 1982 might just offer a model of how to move forward. 

First, the background: 

Scientists are still figuring out how storms will be altered as global warming proceeds, but they are pretty certain about some things. Land ice the world over is 

melting in the changing climate, and the ocean is heating up, too, which makes the 

water expand. Those factors are causing the ocean to rise. 

It rose about eight inches in the past century, requiring billions of dollars to fight 

erosion. Recently the rate of increase seems to have jumped, to about a foot per century—and climate scientists think it will go up quite a bit more. The cautious prediction at this point is that we could see two or three feet of sea-level rise by 2100, 

and possibly even six feet. 

What will that mean for people living near the shore? 

You might think things would be fine for them until the day the ocean finally covers their land. But it does not work that way. 

Long before inundation occurs, people will be hit more and more often by coastal 

flooding. In places where it took a huge storm to send seawater into living rooms, 

a routine storm will do the trick once the ocean has risen several feet. 

It should be obvious that the more people we move out of harm’s way in the reasonably near future, the better off we will ultimately be. 

But we are doing the opposite, offering huge subsidies for coastal development. 

We proffer federally backed flood insurance at rates bearing no resemblance to the 

risks. Even more important, we go in after storms and write big checks so towns 

can put the roads, sewers and beach sand right back where they were. 

We are, in other words, using the Federal Treasury to shield people from the true 

risks that they are taking by building on the coasts. Coastal development has soared 

as a direct consequence, and this rush toward the sea is the biggest factor in the 

rising costs of storm bailouts. 

So what was so clever about that 1982 law, and how can we learn from it? 

Development pressure on the nation’s coasts was intense back then, but hundreds 

of miles of barrier islands and beaches were as yet unspoiled. Environmental groups 

would have loved a national ban on further coastal development, but conservatives 

would never have gone along with that. 

Two Republicans, Senator John H. Chafee of Rhode Island and Representative 

Thomas B. Evans Jr. of Delaware, found the magic formula. Their bill simply declared that on sensitive coastlines that were then undeveloped, any future development would have to occur without Federal subsidies. 

In other words, no flood insurance and no fat checks after storms. 

The law did not prohibit anybody from building anything. And in fact, some development has occurred on lands in the redlined zone. But the law has mostly held, 

discouraging development along some 1.3 million acres of American coastline—a 

monumental triumph that continues to pay dividends. 

So here is a modest idea. As the first plank of our plan for coping with storm risk, 

what about expanding the boundaries of the program that Reagan took such pride 

in? 

That is not to be cruel: people deserve humanitarian help after big storms. But 

Robert S. Young, head of the Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines at 

Western Carolina University, thinks we have to start weaning beach towns from the 

welfare roll. 

One way to begin, he suggests, would be to identify the towns in the riskiest 

areas, the ones that the taxpayers keep bailing out again and again. 

56 

Perhaps we say to them: You get one more shot. We will make you whole after 

the next big storm, and if you choose to use the money to rebuild, then you are on 

your own. 

Just maybe, in some areas that should never have been developed in the first 

place, the necessary retreat from the beaches would finally begin. 

Senator BOXER. Well, thank you very much. And we have been 

rejoined by Senator Wicker, so we will hold off on the panel to hear 

his 5 minutes. 

Go right ahead, Senator. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER F. WICKER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI 

Senator WICKER. Well, I ran up the stairs, Madam Chair, so I 

was hoping Senator Carper would take his additional minute so I 

could get my breath back. 

Senator BOXER. Well, we could ask him to sing. 

Senator WICKER. Well, yes. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. I would do it, too. 

[Laugher.] 

Senator WICKER. Depending on his expertise. 

But thank you very much, Madam Chair. You have billed this 

hearing as a forum to focus on the science of climate change. I 

want to reiterate the importance of treating various scientific views 

on climate science with deference. Comments concerning some researchers as having a flat earth mentality unnecessarily polarize 

what should be a robust dialog. 

I also hope we can discuss today the serious implications of the 

Administration’s unilateral move to execute its environmental 

agenda. In his recent speech, the President described his commitment to a coordinated assault on climate change. I think many of 

my colleagues would agree that we do expect that coordination to 

include the congressional oversight of Federal policy decisions. 

One of the most disturbing actions outlined by the President’s climate plan is the regulatory push against the coal industry which 

would have a severe and widespread impact. With these regulations, the President has confirmed what many of his critics have 

long alleged. Rather than advancing a truly all of the above energy 

strategy, this Administration is determined to wage an all out war 

on coal. 

Both Republicans and Democrats in the Congress realize the consequences of issuing drastic regulations on coal which remains a 

primary source of energy production in America and fuels 37 percent of our electricity, 37 percent of our electricity still comes from 

coal. 

Under the severe standards being proposed, many coal fired 

plants would go bankrupt or close, putting more than 250,000 

American jobs at risk. Businesses would feel the effect of the stricter rules in the form of additional compliance costs and consumers 

would be saddled with higher energy bills. 

Now, regarding sound science, the Administration continues to 

defend its aggressive policies with assertions that global temperatures are on the rise, dismissing disputed information from scientists and scholars. Recently released data, disputed data I will 

acknowledge, showed temperature have stayed flat over the past 15 

57 

years despite rising carbon dioxide emissions. I would note that 

some of these data come from the United Nations, the recorded 

temperatures which were much lower than predictions from climate models that the President has himself cited. 

I recently joined seven of my colleagues on this Committee in requesting copies of the climate data and analysis used to support 

the President’s statements. In our letter to Gina McCarthy, we expressed our concerns that the agency had not sufficiently responded to past requests for this information. The President’s intent to pursue a costly regulatory roll out demands proof of sound 

science as well as transparency. 

Over time, studies by scientists and researchers have actually 

shown there is no climate signal limited to extreme weather events. 

In fact, one of our witnesses today can speak directly to this issue. 

I also realize there are those on the other side of the issue. 

At the very least, I think it is time for some tolerance in the public discourse regarding the many scientific viewpoints on climate 

change. Respect should be shown to those who have done the research and come to a different conclusion. 

I remain committed to working with my colleagues in the Congress to reign in the Administration’s intrusive power grabs to 

push a radical climate agenda that will not help but will cost jobs. 

Unwarranted rules and restrictions are unfair to all Americans 

who will bear the cost of higher energy prices. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Well, this is the most fascinating time. Now we 

have the great Senator from New Mexico who is here. We are going 

to call on you. We are just about to go our panel but we will hold 

off to hear your opening statement. 

I want to say, Senator, I am going to give this to you. This is 

an EPA document with maps and graphs and I put it in the record 

and I am going to send it over to you now. Maybe it is not enough 

but EPA clearly has made this case publicly that they made to the 

President. 

Should we send it over to you? 

Senator WICKER. Please pass it over. 

Senator BOXER. Send it over, special delivery. 

Senator WICKER. And I will deliver contrary scientific data to the 

Chair. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. Senator, you said you did not know what they 

were thinking, and we think you should read this first. I guess, oh, 

never mind, I will not go there. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. Senator Udall. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I know 

the witnesses have been waiting here for an hour to speak so I will 

try to be very brief. And I would just ask to put my full statement 

in the record. 

Senator BOXER. It will be done. 

58 

Senator UDALL. Climate change, global warming, climate disruption are having a huge impact in the Southwest. I think most of 

the computer models we see is that the Southwest will probably be 

twice the temperature rise as other places in the United States. 

And we are seeing it right now on the ground. 

I will give you an example. I was just out in a little town called 

Tucumcari, New Mexico. It has always had a water project that 

has delivered water to farmers, 700 farmers and ranchers. That 

water project is the last 5 years, four out of the last five, has not 

delivered any water. That example is being spread throughout New 

Mexico in terms of our ability to have the water resources we need 

to develop, to grow and to do the economic development. 

So, we are seeing it in water. We are seeing it in the snow pack 

which recharges our aquifers, we are seeing it in these catastrophic 

forest fires which have grown in the last 10 or 15 years very dramatically. In terms of the amount of acreage, we are having larger 

and larger acreage and setting records every year. 

But also the thing about catastrophic forest fires is they burn 

much hotter than they have in the past. And what you have is a 

soil that is parched. They talk about crown fires in these catastrophic fires with the temperatures reaching 1,000 degrees and 

baking the soil. So it is not, after the fire is over, the soil is not 

there to regenerate things. 

So, there are a number of impacts. I just wanted to mention 

those and just say that I think each of us should look and Senators 

all across the Country in their communities, and you can see this 

impact now. 

I very much appreciate what you all are doing and appreciate the 

panel’s work and really look forward to hearing from them today. 

And with that, and putting my statement in the record, I would 

yield back. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Udall follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF MEXICO

The climate of the southwest is in a State of transformation. Recent years have 

seen our communities struggling with higher temperatures, drought and forest fires 

on an almost constant basis. The tightrope we walk to balance water supply and 

the multiple demands for its uses is increasingly precarious. 

The earth is warming and so is the West. New Mexico’s average temperatures 

have been rising 50 percent faster than the global average in recent decades. Our 

winters are warmer and the season shorter, while summer heat has entered new 

territory for extremes. 

In addition to the heat, the region’s water woes compound the challenges. The 

snowpack that is so vital for our streams and rivers—and in turn for our farmers, 

ranchers and cities—is in steep decline. The last 10 years have seen the lowest 

snowpack on record in the West, and the latest research suggests that Colorado 

snowpack may decline even further by 13 percent by mid-century. 

New Mexico’s most important source of surface water is the Rio Grande and it 

depends on snowpack for one half to three quarters of its dependable water from 

the mountain snowpack in Colorado and Northern New Mexico. River-flows in the 

Colorado River Basin are already declining and projected to shrink further, putting 

huge pressure on Western states water supply for agriculture and power generation. 

The Southwest is still in the grip of a multi-year drought. Is it possible that severe drought will be with us more often from now on? Signs from thousands of miles 

away in the Arctic suggest that this may be the case. Scientists say that unprecedented loss of Arctic snow and sea ice cover has changed the way hemispheric 

59 

weather systems operate increasing the odds of droughts manifesting across our 

country. 

Warmer winters, water stress and drought are wreaking havoc with forests across 

the Southwest. Iconic pinon pine forests have been dying across thousands of square 

miles across Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah due to heat stress and 

drought, as well as the depredations of pine beetles. In Arizona and New Mexico 

alone, warm temperatures have led to bark beetles and wildfires killing 20 percent 

of trees over the last 30 years. 

Massive wildfires have been prevalent throughout the region. Last year, New 

Mexico suffered the largest wildfire ever recorded in the State—the WhitewaterBaldy fire that burned a staggering 259,000 acres. A suffocating pall of smoke 

seemed to hang over the entire west last summer. 

The threat of climate change is no longer a threat. It is a reality and it is predicted to intensify. We need to respond. We can no longer just point to global 

trends—this is local. The impacts are affecting us and damaging our communities. 

We need to accept that this crisis is now at our front door and we need to take action to defend our families, homes and communities. 

Senator BOXER. Well, thank you. 

And now it is your term, experts, to make your case to us. 

So, Dr. Heidi Cullen, Chief Climatologist at Climate Central, 

welcome. 

STATEMENT OF HEIDI CULLEN, PH.D, CHIEF 

CLIMATOLOGIST, CLIMATE CENTRAL 

Ms. CULLEN. Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Vitter, Committee members, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. 

I am Heidi Cullen. I serve as Chief Climatologist at Climate Central which is an independent climate science research and journalism organization. We take no policy positions. 

My testimony aims to give the Committee an overview of how extreme weather events are affected by human-induced climate 

change which is caused primarily by heat-trapping emissions from 

the burning of fossil fuels. The bottom line is certain types of extreme weather are on the rise in the United States. Their links to 

climate change are clear. Heat waves and heavy downpours are becoming more frequent and more intense. 

In the Midwest and in the Northeast, we are already seeing increased flooding. In the West, higher temperatures and decreased 

precipitation are already helping drive an increase in wildfires and 

droughts. Let me put two recent examples into their broader climate context because in each case there is a clear link to humaninduced climate change. 

First, the deadly Yarnell Hill fire which, as Chairman Boxer 

mentioned, killed 19 elite firefighters last month. It played out in 

the midst of one of the most extreme heat waves on record in combination with prolonged drought and low snow pack. Extreme heat, 

drought, low snow pack. These are three Western wildlife ingredients that are made more likely by human-induced climate change. 

Overall, hotter, drier weather and earlier snow melt are helping 

wildfires in the West start earlier in the year, last later into the 

fall and burn more acreage. 

Couple this with long-standing fire suppression policies, population growth and development, these fires now threaten more 

homes and cause more evacuations. Climate models predict an 

alarming increase in large fires in the West in coming years. 

Second, Hurricane Sandy, the largest Atlantic hurricane on 

record, took an unusual left hook into my home State of New JerVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:34 Nov 13, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\95976.TXT VERN
60 

sey. Human-induced climate change can affect storms like Sandy in 

different ways. 

First, ocean temperature. Waters off the East Coast were running about 5 degrees Fahrenheit above average during the summer 

of 2102. Global warming is already contributing to warmer ocean 

temperature and warmer oceans fuel stronger storms. As a result, 

the intensity of the strongest hurricanes is expected to increase. 

Second, blocking. An area of high pressure near Greenland 

blocked upper air flow over the Atlantic, forcing Sandy to take this 

left hook. More frequent blocking events may be related to the loss 

of Arctic sea ice which is melting largely as a result of warmer temperatures caused by human-induced climate change. 

Third, sea level rise gave Sandy’s nine foot storm surge a higher 

launching pad. Global warming is causing sea level to rise because 

water expands as it warms and melting land-based ice adds water 

to the oceans. One recent study estimates that global sea level rise 

caused Sandy to flood roughly 25 square miles more than it would 

have, putting the homes of an additional 38,000 people in New Jersey and 45,000 in New York City below the storm tide and in 

harms way. 

Switching gears a little bit. Despite continued record warmth and 

a steady rise in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, some 

have questioned whether global warming has stopped because the 

rise in global mean surface temperature has been slower over the 

past 15 years. This is an area of active research that is incredibly 

important to our understanding of the interplay between natural 

climate variability and human-induced warming. What is very 

clear is that global warming has not stopped. 

I would like to stress that there is just very much more to our 

climate system that just the atmosphere. The land surface, ice 

sheets and the oceans all carry the burden of human-induced 

warming. Our oceans currently absorb more than 90 percent of the 

excess heat trapped by rising carbon dioxide levels. 

So, the temperature rise in the atmosphere may have temporarily slowed but the warming continues to penetrate into other 

components of our climate system. During the past decade, it appears roughly 30 percent of the excess heat has gone into the deep 

ocean below 2,300 feet. Heat stored in the deep ocean matters. It 

does not go away. It just prolongs the effects of global warming. 

In conclusion, certain types of extreme weather events in the 

United States have become more frequent and intense, particularly 

heat waves and heavy downpours. These extremes have real consequences for people and the economy. Heat waves are the No. 1 

weather-related killer. Heat waves make droughts and wildfires 

worse. Heavy downpours set the table for flooding and sewage overflows. 

This new normal that we are moving into of increased extremes 

is really still a glimpse of what lies ahead is we do not change 

course. 

Thank you and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Cullen follows:] 

61 


95976.001
62 


95976.002
63 


95976.003
64 


95976.004
65 


95976.005
66 


95976.006
67 


95976.007
68 


95976.008
69 


95976.009
70 


95976.010
71 


95976.011
72 


95976.012
73 


95976.013
74 


95976.014
75 


95976.015
76 


95976.016
77 


95976.017
78 


95976.018
79 


95976.019
80 


95976.020
81 


95976.021
82 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so very much. 

We call on Mr. Frank Nutter, Reinsurance Association of America. It is nice to see you again. 

STATEMENT OF FRANKLIN W. NUTTER, PRESIDENT, 

REINSURANCE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA 

Mr. NUTTER. Madam Chair, Senator Vitter, thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

Reinsurance is essentially the insurance of insurance companies 

and one of its widely recognized purposes is to allow insurers to 

transfer natural and manmade catastrophe risk from their books. 

Insurers are dependent, more dependent, on the vagaries of climate and weather than any other financial services sector. The industry is at great financial peril if it does not understand global 

and regional climate impacts, variability, developing scientific assessment of a changing climate. And through its pricing structure, 

it is also a mechanism for conveying the consequences of decisions 

about where and how we build and where people live. The industry 

really needs to be very proactive in dealing with that. 

Our industry is science-based. Blending the actuarial sciences 

with the natural sciences helps us with an understanding about climate and its impact on a variety of weather conditions. 

Insurers see climate primarily through the prism of extreme natural events. I have included a variety of charts and slides in the 

presentation, but the first one is from Munich Reinsurance showing 

the rising number of natural catastrophes globally and in the 

United States. 

In the 1980’s, the average number of natural catastrophes globally was 400 events per year. In recent years, the average is 1,000. 

Munich Re’s analysis suggests that the increase is driven almost 

entirely by weather-related events. 

It is indisputable that the recent rise in damages, insured economic and uninsured, is heavily influenced by the concentration of 

people and property in geographically vulnerable areas. Urbanization, increased development and population shifts have placed more 

people with destructible assets and the most impact, mostly impacted by extreme weather. 

NOAA’s recent State of the Coast Report observes that of a population of 313 million, 39 percent live in coastal shoreline counties 

and 52 percent live in watershed counties. NOAA reports there are 

49 million housing units in these counties and we are going to see 

a population increase of nearly 10 million people before the next 

census in 2020. 

The insured coastal property values along the East and Gulf 

coasts now totals nearly $10 trillion. The research and consulting 

firm Corelogic reports that there are 4.2 million homes along the 

Gulf Coast and Atlantic Coast exposed to storm surge, the most 

significant factor in damages associated with Superstorm Sandy. 

One million of these properties are in the category of extreme risk 

to storm surge. 

Catastrophe-modeling firm AIR estimates the insured value of 

coastal properties, and this is replacement costs, not market value, 

is expected to increase at a rate of 7 percent a year, which means 

that they would double every decade. 

83 

I provided a variety of charts suggesting that thunderstorm convective storms are also creating significant losses. But severe wind 

is not the only peril reflecting this pattern. The 2012 U.S. drought 

alone cut crop yields, reducing the Third-Quarter 2012 GDP by .4 

percent, the equivalent of another Superstorm Sandy. 

The question, of course, is what if the past is not prologue and 

in a changing climate whether economic and social trends exacerbate this impact and that future projected losses from past events 

reflect rising exposures in areas proven to be at high risk. I have 

included a chart reflecting past events and what would happen if 

they occurred in the same place today given property values and 

people. 

In a study on climate change impacts conducted for FEMA by 

consulting firm AECOM, the firm concluded that the typical 100- 

year flood plain nationally will grow by 45 percent and by 55 percent in coastal counties. Notably in this report, they attribute 70 

percent of the projected growth in the 100-year flood plains to climate change and 30 percent to expected population growth. 

I have also included a chart about disaster assistance, declarations that have been made and funded by this Congress, and also 

a study by Dr. David Cummins suggesting that the average annual 

future disaster assistance related to storms, weather and climate 

events is likely to be $20 billion a year. Currently, Congress funds 

FEMA at $1 billion a year for this purpose. 

I have also included statements from Swiss Reinsurance which 

states that climate change has the potential to develop into our 

planet’s greatest environmental challenge for the 21st Century. 

The industry, Swiss Re says, can only be effective in its role if the 

regulatory and legislative framework establishes the right incentives for emissions reductions and adaptation on a global scale. 

Munich Re says anthropogenic climate change is believed to contribute to this trend, a jump in catastrophe losses, though its influences vary by peril and in different ways. It is crucially important, 

Munich Re says, for us as risk managers to find improved solutions 

for adaptation and mitigation. 

And last, I have cited the Geneva Association, which is a research think tank on insurance economics, which says there is 

therefore a need for urgent and concerted mitigation action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We therefore need concerted adaptation as well to avoid the predicted impacts of climate change. 

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I appreciate the opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nutter follows:] 

84 


95976.022
85 


95976.023
86 


95976.024
87 


95976.025
88 


95976.026
89 


95976.027
90 


95976.028
91 


95976.029
92 


95976.030
93 


95976.031
94 


95976.032
95 


95976.033
96 


95976.034
97 


95976.035
98 


95976.036
99 


95976.037
100 


95976.038
101 


95976.039
102 


95976.040
103 


95976.041
104 


95976.042
105 


95976.043
106 


95976.044
107 


95976.045
108 


95976.046
109 


95976.047
110 


95976.048
111 


95976.049
112 


95976.050
113 


95976.051
114 


95976.052
115 


95976.053
116 


95976.054
117 


95976.055
118 


95976.056
119 


95976.057
120 


95976.058
121 


95976.059
122 


95976.060
123 


95976.061
124 


95976.062
125 


95976.063
126 


95976.064
127 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Mr. Nutter. 

Mr. KC Golden, Policy Director, Climate Solutions. 

STATEMENT OF KC GOLDEN, SENIOR POLICY ADVISOR, 

CLIMATE SOLUTIONS 

Mr. GOLDEN. Thank you, Madam Chair, Senator Vitter, Members 

of the Committee. 

My name is KC Golden. I am the Policy Director for Climate Solutions, a Northwest regional organization promoting practical solutions to climate disruption. 

Last month, I had the opportunity to testify at a House subcommittee hearing on the issue of coal export and the witness seated next to me, representing the manufacturers at that hearing, objected to the idea that we would consider the climate impacts of 

coal export in evaluating these export proposals, fearing that might 

be a slippery slope that would lead to climate impact tests for other 

kinds of commodities like corn and toys. 

Now, I think common sense can be our guide here. Corn and toys 

are not among the leading preventable causes of global climate disruption. The increasing use of coal around the world is, so that is 

something we ought to consider. 

But I think the witness had a fair point in at least one respect. 

The issue of how and where exactly in the economy we account for 

the costs of climate pollution is, indeed, a very important consideration in climate policy design. 

But in June 2013, last month, 25 years after our foremost climate scientists went before Congress and testified that climate 

change was indeed a serious problem that required decisive action, 

a full quarter of a century ago, we were not having a hearing about 

climate policy design in the U.S. House. We were having a hearing 

about how to increase fossil fuel exports. 

At that same hearing, the Army Corps of Engineers testified that 

they would not look at the climate impacts of coal exports in their 

review and ironically enough, on that same day, the Commander 

of the Corps announced his support for more aggressive flood protection standards, stronger, more expensive levees, to deal with climate impacts. 

So, we can count on the Corps to request larger budgets to deal 

with the aftermath, to deal with climate impacts, but we can apparently not count on the Corps to analyze those impacts in the 

context of decisions which might help us actually prevent some of 

them. 

We are setting ourselves up for pounds of cure, tons of cure, at 

public expense because we lack the responsible climate policies 

that might provide Americans with a prudent ounce of prevention. 

Now, my written testimony affirms in some detail that we have 

no shortage of practical, economically attractive solutions available 

to us right now. Indeed, in the Northwest and throughout America 

Americans are implementing those solutions. We are reducing our 

climate pollution and we are building healthier communities and 

stronger economies as we go. But we cannot implement these solutions at the necessary pace and scale without the active partnership, the leadership, of our Federal Government. 

128 

Now, there are, of course, many important Federal climate initiatives underway now and without diminishing their importance in 

any way, I will simply submit that they are not remotely sufficient 

to the task in the absence of a credible national climate policy commitment with at least the following three features. 

First, we need responsible science-based limits on climate pollution. This would be the clearest possible signal to energy markets, 

to our international partners, to ourselves, to our kids, that we are 

stepping all the way up to the climate challenge. 

Second, we need a fair price for carbon pollution. Free and unlimited carbon dumping is the prevailing climate policy of the 

United States right now. When prices tell the truth about costs, 

markets will function more effectively, they will allocate capital 

more effectively, and climate solutions will accelerate. 

Third and finally, we need an end to any Federal support for 

major new capital infrastructure investments that make the problem impossible to solve. This does not mean that we need to cease 

fossil fuel consumption overnight. But it does mean that we must 

avoid major, new long-term capital intensive infrastructure investments that lock in dangerous climate disruption. We simple need 

to stop digging the hole deeper if we hope to get out of it. 

Madam Chair, this final, simple, common sense principle, it is 

vital, I believe, to ensuring the integrity and the credibility of 

America’s commitment to climate solutions. Our policy must be a 

way to answer to the growing number of victims of climate-related 

disasters and more importantly to our kids, the prospective victims 

of still-preventable climate disasters. 

As we enter now an era of climate consequences that are so vivid 

and that you have heard described here today, we need a national 

policy that enables us to look our kids in the eye and say in no uncertain terms that we can and will do what it takes to protect 

them, to make this better. But they will not believe us until we 

stop making it worse. 

Thank you. I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Golden follows:] 

129 


95976.065
130 


95976.066
131 


95976.067
132 


95976.068
133 


95976.069
134 


95976.070
135 


95976.071
136 


95976.072
137 


95976.073
138 


95976.074
139 


95976.075
140 


95976.076
141 


95976.077
142 


95976.078
143 


95976.079
144 


95976.080
145 


95976.081
146 


95976.082
147 


95976.083
148 


95976.084
149 


95976.085
150 


95976.086
151 


95976.087
152 


95976.088
153 


95976.089
154 


95976.090
155 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so very much. 

Now we will hear from Ms. Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. 

Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF DIANA FURCHTGOTT-ROTH, SENIOR FELLOW, 

MANHATTAN INSTITUTE 

Mr. FURCHTGOTT-ROTH. Thank you very much for inviting me to 

testify today. 

So, we have heard a lot about climate change. I am an economist. 

I talk about the costs of these offsetting policies and the benefits. 

And I will leave the discussion as to whether CO2 is a pollutant, 

even though I am breathing it out right now, to other better-qualified people than myself. 

But I think what is clear is that, even if greenhouse gas emissions are affecting the climate, actions by the United States, such 

as the one that President Obama has proposed, are not going to be 

helpful because U.S. emissions are about 17 percent of total global 

emissions. And if China and India are not going to follow suit, then 

we are going to be hurting ourselves and our economy for no good 

reason. 

We are still 2.1 million jobs below the level of December, 2007 

when the recession started and it is very important that we keep 

the economy active. We have had many companies move to the 

United States because of our low energy prices and for us to raise 

our energy prices, without having any affect on global emissions 

and climate change, is cutting off our nose to spite our face. 

The costs of the Kerry-Lieberman and Waxman-Markey bills 

were too large for a Democratic Congress with a Democratic President to pass and the revenues from those bills, which would have 

been $646 billion over 8 years, would have been the largest in tax 

history. 

And just recently, on March 22, 2013, the Senate rejected the 

White House amendment which you proposed, Mr. Senator, that 

would have had funds from a carbon tax be used to offset other 

kinds of taxes in the United States. So, just as recently as March 

the Senate rejected a carbon tax. 

I think that what is important is that to reduce greenhouse gas 

emissions in the least costly manner, what it makes more sense to 

do is to assist China and India in reducing their carbon emissions. 

We just heard from Dr. Golden about coal exports. Well, in fact our 

coal is cleaner than the coal that is burnt in China. 

So, if we were to export our coal to China, that might reduce Chinese emissions, or, if we helped China and India develop their 

sources of shale gas so that they could move from their coal fired 

plants and also wood-burning systems to more efficient natural gas 

power plants, that would have a bigger effect of decreasing global 

emissions than putting in place the measures that the President 

has proposed to do by regulation. 

Congress could also fund research into geo-engineering solutions 

such as solar radiation management which potentially diminishes 

the warmth caused by the sun’s rays. This is something that if we 

put into place here in the United States it would have global effect, 

it would reduce global temperatures, whereas if we put a CO2 tax, 

156 

greenhouse gas taxes, into effect, it would not have any effect or 

only a marginal effect on global temperatures. These measures, 

geo-engineering and helping other countries transform their technology, would be a small fraction of what costs would be. 

We have heard a lot about green jobs and President Obama talks 

a lot about green jobs and how this new technology creates jobs. 

But the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in its latest report this spring, 

just found 3.4 million green jobs, many of those have be relabeled 

from other kinds of jobs such as plumbers who installed low-flow 

toilets were considered to have green jobs whereas they had employed other kinds of technology. 

The costs of energy falls disproportionately on low-income Americans. Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that the lowest fifth spend 24 percent of their income on energy whereas the 

highest percent spend 4 percent of their income. So, putting in 

place measures that increase the costs of energy falls disproportionately on lower-income Americans. They also fall disproportionately 

on lower-income regions all through the United States where coal 

fired plants and coal mining occurs. 

Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Furchtgott-Roth follows:] 

157 


95976.091
158 


95976.092
159 


95976.093
160 


95976.094
161 


95976.095
162 


95976.096
163 


95976.097
164 


95976.098
165 


95976.099
166 


95976.100
167 


95976.101
168 


95976.102
169 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

And last, but not least, Dr. Robert P. Murphy, Senior Economist, 

Institute for Energy Research. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT P. MURPHY, SENIOR ECONOMIST, 

INSTITUTE FOR ENERGY RESEARCH 

Mr. MURPHY. Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Vitter and 

Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify 

today on this important topic. 

The social cost of carbon is a concept that was developed in the 

academic literature on the economics of climate change. So far, it 

has been used to help justify over 35 Federal regulations or sometimes more than 20 percent of the alleged benefits of these regulations are derived from the social cost of carbon. 

Now, as I will explain, the Administration’s calculation or estimate of the social cost of carbon is malleable and arbitrary and 

therefore is not appropriate for the Federal Government to use to 

justify regulations. A large fraction of the alleged benefits from reducing carbon dioxide emissions are incredibly speculative as they 

occur in 50, 100 or even 250 years in the future. 

As I will explain, the estimated size of the social cost of carbon 

is heavily dependent on the discount rate that is used in the analysis, and the Administration on this point has ignored OMB’s guidance. 

In fact, this concept is so open-ended that we can generate estimated social cost of carbon that are very high, or close to zero, or 

even negative just by adjusting some key parameters. What this 

means is that the economists can produce just about any estimate 

of the social cost of carbon desired. 

Now, in theory, the social cost of carbon quantifies in dollar 

terms the damages from emitting an additional unit of carbon dioxide because of its presumed acceleration of future climate change. 

As I have said, it has been used to justify policies so it is imposing 

stricter fuel economy standards by giving quantifiable benefits in 

dollar terms from these policies’ impact on emissions. 

The social cost of carbon has been in the news lately because just 

recently, in May, the Administration’s working group, without public comment or notice, dramatically increased its headline estimate 

of the social cost of carbon by around 50 percent from its previous 

estimate that was made back in 2010. Back then, it estimated 

about $22 per ton of CO2 and then now it just bumped it up to $33 

a ton, just in May. 

Now, to understand where these numbers come from, let me 

briefly explain how the working group generates its figures. First, 

they selected three popular models, computer models, from the literature of the Global Economic and Climate System, and then they 

used those models to run thousand of simulations through the year 

2300. 

Now, what may surprise you is in these computer simulations 

chosen by the working group under certain scenarios common dioxide emitted today can sometimes produce net benefits to humanities because, just for example, modest warming can boost agricultural productivity, reduce coal-related deaths in the winter and 

lower heating bills. 

170 

But eventually in these models, they assume that an extra ton 

of emissions today will start producing net damages. The social cost 

of carbon then is an estimate of that flow of possible up-front benefits then followed by a flow of damages through the year 2300. 

So, given this set up of how they compute this number, the discount rate that we use in the analysis will have a huge impact. 

Just to give you an example, in the working group’s May estimate, 

the current social cost of carbon is only $11 per ton if we use a 5 

percent discount rate, but it is $52 ton if we use a 2.5 percent discount rate. 

So, I want to stress that this range in the estimate from $11 up to $52 a ton, that has nothing to do with the climate science. That 

range itself is driven entirely by just changing the discount rate 

from 5 percent down to 2.5 percent. 

So, you can see in this context how important that choice of discount rate is. And on this matter, it is relevant that the working 

group explicitly disregarded OMB’s clear guidance that when providing cost benefit analysis of Federal regulations, one of the estimates should be computed with a discount rate of 7 percent. 

Now, without seeing the actual underlying data we cannot know 

for sure what the results would have been from the working 

group’s analysis had they reported it at 7 percent, but it probably 

would have produced a social cost of carbon again following all of 

their other procedures and just reporting it using 7 percent, a social cost of carbon close to zero, in which case the Administration’s 

rationale for limiting emissions would collapse. 

OMB also required that cost benefit analysis be conducted in 

terms of domestic impacts with the global impacts merely being optional. Yet again, the working group disregarded this clear guidance and just reported the global figure. 

Just to give you an example of the impact of that choice, the re- cent headline figure from the May report of $33 a ton is a global 

figure. Had they reported just the domestic social cost of carbon, 

it could have been as low as $2 per ton using the working group’s 

own range of adjustment factors to go from global to domestic. 

So, in summary, the social cost of carbon is not an objective feature of the world that is out there that we are waiting for economists to go measure and then give feedback to policymakers. Rather, it is generated within computer simulations that make projections centuries into the future. 

Even more troubling, the working group disregarded two OMB 

guidelines on how to compute and report these figures. Clearly, 

Federal policy should not be formed on the basis of such a dubious 

concept. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Murphy follows:] 

171 


95976.103
172 


95976.104
173 


95976.105
174 


95976.106
175 


95976.107
176 


95976.108
177 


95976.109
178 


95976.110
179 


95976.111
180 


95976.112
181 


95976.113
182 


95976.114
183 


95976.115
184 


95976.116
185 


95976.117
186 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very, very much. 

So, I want to fill everybody in on what is happening on the floor. 

We are trying to get an agreement, apparently, for a vote at 12:15. 

This puts a lot of pressure on us. We have got to get to our next 

panel. 

I talked to Senator Vitter and he and I agreed, if each of us could 

hold our questions to 4 minutes? So, hone in on the one issue that 

you care about, and the panel can answer succinctly, because we 

need to move on. 

I am going to say this. I am always interested in how these various organizations you represent are funded. So I always look up 

all the five and obviously the Insurance Association is behind what 

you said and we looked at all of the others. 

I think it is important to note that the two Republican witnesses, 

there is nothing wrong with this, but I think it is important to note 

where the funding for your organizations comes from. In the case 

of Dr. Murphy, it is a, and I will put these documents into the 

record, it is the ExxonMobil Foundation and one of the main directors on that board of directors is the Managing Director for Federal 

Affairs at the Koch Brothers. 

And Ms. Diane Furchtgott-Roth, who said she was not going to 

talk about carbon but she was definitely breathing it out which I 

think we knew but it was good to remind us of that, the Manhattan Institute has accepted almost $2 million from the Koch foundations and also huge amounts of money from ExxonMobil. 

I think it is just important to note because I take up what Senator Sanders said and I do not think that it could be overlooked, 

that 98 percent of the scientists are saying one thing and 2 percent 

are saying something else. And yet, we have endless money behind 

the 2 percent, the few. And the tobacco companies tried that. They 

fought it. They took an oath to tell the truth. They lied. OK? And 

eventually, the truth came out. And eventually the truth will come 

out here. 

But my point is really repeating what my colleagues have stated. 

This is not a game. We are playing with the lives of the future generations. I was at that wonderful dedication of the William Jefferson Clinton Building yesterday and I was researching what Teddy 

Roosevelt said over and over again in different ways. I do not have 

the exact quote. But what he said is we owe it to our children not 

to steal their resources. It is dangerous. It is wrong. He said it in 

a far more eloquent way that I am. 

So, I am taken with what you said, Mr. Golden, about doing 

things that make things worse. The Hippocratic Oath, do no harm. 

And I want to hone in on the Keystone XL Pipeline, but not really 

on the pipeline, the pipeline does not do any harm itself, it is what 

goes into it. 

So, I wanted you to explain to us about tar sands. To me, I have 

been told it is one of the dirtiest fuels on the planet and it would 

create at least 17 percent more carbon pollution than domestic oil 

and it could create 30 percent more carbon than domestic oil if the 

full range of products produced from tar sands crude, such as petroleum coke, is taken into account. 

I wanted to ask you, when you say, do not do anything to make 

it worse, are you thinking about that, tar sands? 

187 

Mr. GOLDEN. That is a classic example and one of the most important ones before us right now. That would tap into one of the 

largest carbon reserves on the planet. Yes, it is dirtier than conventional oil but conventional oil is already causing the climate disruption that we are seeing now. It would prolong the world’s addiction 

to fossil fuels and to oil in particular in ways that would make it 

impossible to solve climate change in the future by locking in longterm infrastructure decisions that prevent us from reducing our 

emissions as ambitiously as we need to. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. Senator Vitter. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you very much. 

I want to go back to a focus of Senator Sessions which is a statement of President Obama and asking for the data, the science behind it. And again, President Obama said ‘‘The temperature 

around the globe is increasing faster than was predicted even 10 

years ago.’ Do any of the witnesses agree with that statement and, 

if so, what is the data set you rely on? 

Ms. CULLEN. I think right now we need to focus on the fact that 

the warming is happening very, very quickly and as with respect 

to the projections of the future, we expect it to warm even more 

quickly as we go forward. So, with respect to President Obama’s 

specific statement, I cannot comment on that. But the bottom line 

is that greenhouse gases have continued to move quickly in the atmosphere and the warming has continued. 

Senator VITTER. And so you think the surface temperature increase has continued in the last 10 to 15 years? 

Ms. CULLEN. Well, as I mentioned in my testimony, I think it is 

important not to focus specifically on the atmosphere. So, as I said, 

warming has, the temperature rise has slowed in the atmosphere 

despite continued warm decades, record-setting decades, the warming over the past 15 years has slowed but, it is—— 

Senator VITTER. And what would explain that? 

Ms. CULLEN. Sir, explaining the fact that the atmosphere temperature rise has slowed is because the warming has gone into 

other component of our climate system, most notably the deep 

ocean. So, the warming has by no means stopped. It is merely penetrating into other aspects of our climate system and that is really 

important to note. 

Senator VITTER. OK. And Ms. Cullen, one narrative of this hearing seems to be that extreme weather is dramatically accelerating. 

Now, most of the folks telling that story and most of your testimony were about examples, anecdotal evidence. And that is relevant but that is obviously not a trend, that is not data, that is not 

science. So, what scientific trend would you point to with regard to 

extreme weather? 

Ms. CULLEN. Sir, I think there are very clear trends that we can 

point to, both with respect to heat waves, for example, and heavy 

downpours. So, for example, in my part of the world, in the Northeast, here was seen a roughly 73 percent increase in heavy 

downpours. Those heavy downpours have increased across the 

United States. 

Senator VITTER. Over what period of time? 

188 

Ms. CULLEN. Starting in the 1950’s, moving forward. So, a very 

significant increase in heavy downpours that we can see in the observational record. 

Senator VITTER. Would you point to any other metric besides 

heavy downpours? 

Ms. CULLEN. I would say that we could point to several different 

metrics. We can see an increasing trend in flood magnitude. When 

we look at the U.S. as well, we can see that there has been an increase toward drought in the Southwest and that is being pushed 

by the fact that we are seeing less precipitation out West and we 

are seeing this increased heat in the West. 

Senator VITTER. Well, let me just show you some long-term 

trends that I think was made available to you because it is part 

of the testimony of one of our other panelists on panel two. And 

it seems to suggest a significantly different story and I just wanted 

you to react. Put those up, quickly. 

So, this is heat waves long term. This is drought, long term, the 

whole 20th Century. 

Ms. CULLEN. Sir, I think this is an important issue. 

Senator VITTER. Let me just walk through it. 

Ms. CULLEN. Sure. 

Senator VITTER. These are wildfires, obviously peak here but recently a change. 

Senator BOXER. We are going to have to keep it moving, David. 

Senator VITTER. Sure. These are cyclone landfalls globally and 

these are hurricane landfalls in the U.S. 

Senator BOXER. We have to move it on. 

Senator VITTER. OK, I would just like Dr. Cullen’s reaction to 

that. 

Senator BOXER. OK, Dr. Cullen, would you respond? 

Ms. CULLEN. Yes. I think there is a really quick response to this 

and that is it is really important for us to not look at the Nation 

as this average, that what we are seeing now is how the warming 

is in specific regions. So, in the Southwest we are seeing this increase in drought and wildfires, in the Midwest and in the Northeast we are seeing this increase in flooding. 

So, I think of the observational data record, which you just 

showed, annually and nationally averaged, but we also have to 

think of the physical mechanisms so that we know, that as it 

warms the Southwest will be particularly impacted as we have 

more moisture in the atmosphere, the Northern tier will see this 

shift in more storm tracks. So, think of it as a regional signal. 

Senator BOXER. OK. I ask unanimous consent to place in the document a NOAA document, Billion Dollars Weather Climate Disasters from 1980 to 2012, which I think everyone will find instructive. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

189 


95976.566
190 


95976.567
191 


95976.568
192 


95976.569
193 


95976.570
194 


95976.571
195 

Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WICKER. Observing the right to object, can Senator 

Vitter’s reduced, well, let me ask unanimous consent that the 8.5 

by 11 copy of Senator Vitter’s documents also be included in the 

record. 

Senator BOXER. Not only can he put it into the record, we will, 

if I could just say, we will put in any document. We will leave the 

record open until tomorrow at 10 a.m. Put in anything you want. 

Senator WICKER. I just wanted to make sure that it got in at the 

same time. 

Senator BOXER. Just put in anything that you want, Alice in 

Wonderland, anything you want. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

196 


95976.304
197 


95976.305
198 


95976.306
199 


95976.307
200 


95976.308
201 


95976.309
202 


95976.310
203 


95976.311
204 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Well, let me ask my first question of Mr. 

Nutter. You, in your testimony on pages 5 and 6, show graphs that 

demonstrate substantial increases in natural catastrophes worldwide and in natural catastrophes in the U.S.A. The change in 

them, according to the graphs on pages 5 and 6, are demonstrably 

different for the weather-related catastrophes than for earthquakes 

which seem to be relatively constant. 

We also have testimony in the coming panel from Republican 

witnesses who all are skeptical about the increase in storm activity. One, for instance, says it is the most indefensible claim regarding climate change, that severe weather has increased. 

Could you tell me how confident you are in your data, react to 

their concerns? And if you do not mind, also give us an estimate 

of how much money you have riding on getting this right in your 

industry. 

Mr. NUTTER. Thank you, Senator, for the question. 

The data that was reflected in the chart that was held up comes 

from a data base that Munich Re monitors worldwide. There are 

33,000 actual events reflected in that. These are real events. It reflects a clear trend in weather and climate-related events. So, these 

are not, it is not research, it is not models, it is not studies. It is 

actual real events. 

And the reconciliation, in part, I think, comes from what the 

Congress has done to fund flood control measures. So, for example, 

the legend, the model or the suggestion that you do not have increases in floods over the last few years is a function in part of 

what the Army Corps does with levees and dams and water management kinds of things. So, it does not mean that there are not 

greater precipitation events, as Dr. Cullen refers to, or greater 

thunderstorms, it just means that we are managing them in a way 

that has reduced the number of such events. 

I also cited in my testimony a study published just in June by 

AECOM for FEMA and it suggested in forward-looking way that 

this trend of increased flood plains, as Senator Carper suggested, 

is pretty clear. Their estimate is that the flood plain areas are 

going to increase by 45 percent in this Country, the 100-year flood. 

So, the data does reflect the real world experience. It is not academic research. And, in fact, you would look at the kind of, the oscillation changes in hurricane patterns reflecting the fact that 

there is a natural variability in the climate that is probably reflected in some of the analysis by some of the other witnesses. 

But indeed you really need to look at this on a forward looking 

basis, not just a historic basis. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And what kind of money do you have 

riding on getting this right in your industry? 

Mr. NUTTER. Well, I can give you a number. The reinsurance industry has $312 billion of insurance coverage in place as we speak 

for natural catastrophe risk on a global basis. The number is the 

United States is probably $150 billion of that. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Can you think of any incentive that anybody has in your industry to fake or gimmick this data? 

205 

Mr. NUTTER. Absolutely not. Our industry is a risk assessment, 

risk pricing industry. Our financial success is dependent on getting 

it right. And we are science-based. We are really dependent upon 

the scientific assessment that comes from people looking at this on 

a truly nonpartisan basis. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. We turn to Senator Sessions next. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. 

I just noticed that NOAA’s report on hurricanes, major hurricanes, for example, per decade show by far the highest number was 

41 to 50, with 10 in the last 40 years. The average is 5 major hurricanes a year and the previous 40 years averaged 8 major hurricanes a year. Do you dispute that, Mr. Nutter? 

Mr. NUTTER. I would not dispute it if it is hard science. I certainly do not dispute that. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, exactly right. You ask, people talk about 

we have had more storms and I do not think that is accurate. 

Senator BOXER. Can he answer? Could you let him answer, 

please? 

Senator SESSIONS. All right. 

Mr. NUTTER. Senator Sessions, I think that everyone would say 

that in fact what you have is the CATO oscillations in hurricane 

activity where you have warm periods and less warm periods. So, 

in the mid–1900’s, you clearly had more hurricane activity and 

then a period without that and now you have a greater hurricane. 

Senator SESSIONS. So, in the 1950’s, we had clearly greater hurricane activity. I am glad you have indicated that. With regard to 

tornadoes, this is Dr. Cullen’s written testimony, tornado data do 

not reveal any obvious trends in tornado occurrence or death that 

would suggest a clear link to global warming. That is your quote, 

is it not, Dr. Cullen? 

Ms. CULLEN. Yes. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I just think when you change, when 

your temperature numbers do not hold up, like the models do, we 

go to things that start, every time there is a drought on the Weather Channel somebody complains about that. We are going to have 

testimony from a witness in the next panel that pretty much discounts all of those storm data and weather change data as being 

significantly impacted by the temperature. 

So, Senator Vitter asked you about the President’s comment and 

quote. He has repeated it twice. On May 25th he said we also know 

that the climate warming, that the climate is warming faster than 

anybody anticipated five or 10 years ago. Do any of you support 

that statement? 

All right. The Economist recently stated ‘‘The temperatures have 

not risen over the past 10 years.’ The Economist also stated ‘‘Over 

the past 15 years, air temperatures at the earth’s surface have 

been flat.’ The BBC reported ‘‘Since 1998, there has been an unexplained standstill in the heating of the earth’s atmosphere.’ 

Now, this chart shows this and the reason, I do not suggest that 

there is no global warming and the numbers might not go back up 

next year. I do not know where the numbers are going. What I 

want to point out is the that the red line averages is the average 

of the models and what they predict and have been predicting for 

206 

the last 15 years instead of surging upward like the red line says 

it has been basically flat as the Economist and the actual temperature data shows. 

So, any of you want to comment on that? I think it is an important question. Are the models that we are investing in correct or 

not? 

Senator BOXER. Dr. Cullen wanted to answer and then we are 

going to move on. 

Ms. CULLEN. Thank you. 

Senator Sessions, it is an important point. And I just want to 

point out with respect to that prop that you show in the background, first of all, the warming has continued. The rate of increase has slowed and what you are showing with the red line is 

the average of 44 models. And I think it is really important to 

make the point that while we have seen this slow down in warming 

in the past 15 years, the warming increases, it is still increasing, 

and it is going into other parts of our climate system. 

And so, to make a statement about the climate models here, it 

is important to say that there are many climate models that still 

capture what we have witnessed over the past 15 years. It is the 

lower end of the warming, but it is not to say that the models have 

been incorrect. Those are two very different things. So, the warming has, indeed, continued. 

Senator SESSIONS. For the past 15 years the earth temperatures 

have been flat, they have not continued to increase. 

Ms. CULLEN. Atmospheric temperatures have—— 

Senator BOXER. I am sorry to cut you both off but we must move 

because we have a vote at 12:15. 

We are going to turn now to Senator Cardin. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Madam Chair, and let me thank all 

of the witnesses for participating in this hearing. 

I stepped out for a moment to take a phone call. It was from 

someone from Baltimore who informed me that the heat index 

today in Baltimore is 104 degrees for those who might be interested. 

I understand that there may be some who question of the negative impact of global warming, that there could be some positive effects from warmer climate, fewer blankets that we need in the wintertime. But let me just point out what is happening in the Chesapeake Bay because of warming is real. 

The loss of sea grasses by warmer water is affecting the ecology 

of the Chesapeake Bay. Rising sea level is creating a security problem for us as we are losing more and more of our shoreline. It is 

going to cause a problem for national security, the Naval Academy 

and other facilities that are located along the water. It is also affecting the safety and security of our Country. 

So, I know we can debate the impact of global climate change, 

but it is happening. The question is what impact are we having on 

that global climate change? 

Let me just ask Dr. Cullen, if I might, Senator Sessions talked 

about the number of hurricanes. I want to talk about the extreme 

weather conditions and whether we are seeing an increase in extreme conditions. We have had hurricanes that seemed to be of 

207 

greater intensity that I ever can remember. We are having 

droughts. We are having floods. 

Can you just tell us what impact the rising temperature is having, average temperature is having, on extreme weather conditions, 

whether they are extremely cold, extremely wet or extremely dry? 

Ms. CULLEN. Thank you, Senator Cardin. It is such an important 

point to just begin to explain how the warming makes its way into 

the kinds of extremes that we experience every day. 

So, you warm the planet about 1.5 degrees, which is what we 

have seen. We then can expect to see more heat extremes, which 

we have observed, more heavy downpours because there is now 

more moisture in the atmosphere being evaporated from the oceans 

so storms rain down heavier. So, more heat extremes we have observed, more heavy downpours we have observed. 

In the North Atlantic Basin, we have seen an increase in hurricane intensity. We are seeing an increase in flood magnitudes specifically in the Northeast and Midwest, and in the Southwest we 

have seen an increase in droughts and wildfires, an increasing 

trend. 

So, the average temperature’s warming is indeed having in impact on extremes that we experience right now. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, I think that is an extremely important 

point. People say, oh, 1 degree, what does that mean? But when 

you see the types of storms that we have seen and the damage that 

is has caused, you see the type of moisture and lack of moisture, 

globally. 

We are involved, I serve on the Senate Foreign Committee with 

Senator Boxer and others on this Committee, and we look at our 

development assistance and we look at parts of the world where 

people are fleeing because of the weather causing refugees because 

of, what we call weather refugees. They have to leave because it 

is not safe for them to be, their lands are being flooded, their lands 

are drought, etcetera. 

Is the global climate change having an impact globally on vulnerable communities from the point of view of sustainability? 

Ms. CULLEN. We absolutely see that those populations that are 

most vulnerable, and that is true here in the United States as well, 

are being disproportionately impacted by this warming. So, we 

need to think about it as a global problem. And there was recent 

report that came out by the National Academy that showed that 

we have to prepare for more climate surprises. Climate change, ultimately, it increases our odds of being unlucky. So, we can begin 

to see these extreme events happen at the same time all over the 

world which leads us back to Mr. Nutter’s point about the incredible costs of these events. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. 

So, here is where we are. If it is OK with the panel, these will 

be our last three speakers no matter who walks in the door because 

we need to move on to the oceans panel. So, if it is OK with everyone, we will go to Senator Fischer, then we will go to Senator 

Hirono, Senator Wicker, Senator Sanders, and then we will go to 

the next panel. 

208 

Is that OK with everyone? OK. So, we will now turn to Senator 

Fischer. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Dr. Murphy, in your testimony you discussed the domestic versus 

the global social cost of carbon and you note that the working 

group neglected clear OMB guidance to report costs and benefits 

from a domestic perspective. This is significant. It is not a wonderland moment. Because Americans are suffering the full costs of 

complying with new regulations in the name of reducing carbon 

emissions while only receiving a small portion of the supposed benefits. 

Do you believe this issue is being manipulated so that regulations will appear to pass the cost benefit test when they do not actually confer benefits on Americans? 

Mr. MURPHY. Well, what I can say is that the working group 

itself acknowledged in its report saying OMB’s guidance says you 

should report it from a domestic perspective, that is mandatory, 

and if you want, report your cause benefit from a global, and then 

they went on to say but we are not going to do that. 

So, to answer your question, my guess would be yes, that if they 

did report because they themselves say only multiplied by 7 to 23 

percent if it were to be a domestic calculation. So, what that means 

is that they justify a regulation and it passes the global cost benefit. In effect, Americans would be suffering the full compliance 

costs whereas they would only be capturing 7 to 23 percent of even 

the alleged benefits. 

Could I just very briefly talk about the, very quickly, some were 

suggesting that perhaps these ideas of benefits from warming are 

outlying estimates and so forth. Everything I said in my testimony 

is coming just from me explaining what the working group itself 

says in its reports. The model is showing benefits up through about 

2.7 degree Celsius of warming. That was the fund model chosen by 

the working group. So, that is not me speculating. I am just reporting what their own figures show. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you, Doctor. And Dr. Furchtgott-Roth, 

when you talked about the green jobs and creating green jobs, what 

way does that end up costing Americans? You talked about, I took 

it as manipulating numbers. And yet, what are the benefits from 

that? 

Ms. FURCHTGOTT-ROTH. Right. So, the important thing is that is 

used as a justification for increases in employment that would 

occur from using, for example, more solar power, more wind power, 

whereas really, the higher costs of these energies reduces employment in the United States. 

And in my testimony I mentioned a CBO study called How Policies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions Could Affect Employment and CBO said while the economy was adjusting to the emissions reduction program, a number of people would lose their jobs 

and some of these people would face prolonged hardship. And the 

CBO says in cases where a shrinking industry was the primary 

employer in a community, the entire community would suffer. 

So, there are clear negative employment effects from raising a 

factor for the cost of the factor of reduction. And since the United 

States in only responsible for 17 percent of global greenhouse gas 

209 

emissions, and greenhouse gas emissions are shrinking in the 

United States but they are rising elsewhere, we would put these 

measures in place, we would not impact global climate change. 

To impact global climate change, we need to get China and India 

to change their emissions which we could do perhaps by persuading 

them to use different technology, nuclear plants, natural gas powered, electricity generating plants. That would be a far more effective use of funds and it might have an effect in reducing global 

greenhouse gas emissions. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you very much. And I did appreciate the 

examples that you gave where we may take a different direction 

that would have an impact. Thank you. 

Ms. FURCHTGOTT-ROTH. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. We will go to Senators 

Hirono, Wicker and Sanders. Senator Hirono. 

Senator HIRONO. Thank you. Well, regardless of the cause and effect of these extreme weather changes and changes to our ecosystem based on temperature changes, it is happening. We know 

this. But we obviously have a very strong difference of opinion as 

to what we ought to do to prevent, mitigate, adapt to these 

changes. 

So, one thing that struck me was Mr. Nutter’s testimony because, Mr. Nutter, you represent an industry that is highly, highly 

sensitive to any events that occur that will cause the insurance 

companies to have to pay out claims based on events. And you 

clearly say that there is a trend, that there will be more of these 

kinds of natural disasters and that the severity will be extreme. 

That is a fact. Your industry operates on that basis. 

You charge your, you set your premiums based on that kind of 

information. This is hard-nosed decisions that your industry has 

made. So, knowing all of this, have you not already raised, in terms 

of both the property side, have insurance companies not already set 

their rates higher, especially for people who live in coastal areas? 

Is it not harder to get reinsurance for these areas? That is one. 

And then you list a number of suggestions in the last part of 

your testimony some, I do not know, 20 suggestions of Federal action. Could you talk a little bit about what you consider maybe 

your top two or three suggestions that you would ask us to pass? 

Mr. NUTTER. Certainly. Thank you, Senator. There is no question 

that the financial success of this industry is dependent upon its appropriate risk pricing and risk assessment process. And, therefore, 

the industry looks at the scientific elements of sea level rise, greater precipitation events, those kinds of things. 

There is no question that in a number of particularly coastal 

areas that insurance markets have been distressed. Consumers are 

facing higher premiums as a result of all of that and that is that 

balance between providing a financial product that is affordable for 

consumers. So, it is a difficult challenge which is why, in many 

ways, I focused as you suggest on the kinds of adaptation measures 

that perhaps would reduce the potential losses of property and life 

in these areas, a way to also mitigate the costs associated with all 

of that. 

If I were to highlight some of these, I did mention tax credits to 

individuals that take action to protect their property and their lives 

210 

as a way to provide incentives for people to do the right thing. I 

also think that Congress has an opportunity to provide incentives 

for communities to be more resilient, to prepare better and to respond better. 

So, whether it is funding incentives or whether it is conditions 

associated with disaster assistance when that is paid into these 

communities, to make certain that in any rebuilding or reconstruction or preparation that indeed the communities are provided with 

assistance that are going to improve mitigation, setbacks, better 

building codes, the kinds of things that will reduce damage from 

these increasing events. 

Senator HIRONO. Do you think that the counties that do the zoning and development decisions, that they are taking into consideration that they should very much limit, perhaps, development in 

the coastal areas? 

Mr. NUTTER. My inclination is to think that after events that 

communities do that. Before events, they do not do enough of that. 

Communities obviously are driven by tax revenue from development and real eState development and therefore there is that incentive. It creates a moral hazard and the moral hazard is that the 

risk is being created at the local level but it is really being passed 

on at the national level in disaster assistance. 

Senator HIRONO. Very much so, and the State level also because 

we experienced Hurricane Iniki in Hawaii in 1982, huge losses and 

the homeowners’ insurance companies just pulled up stakes and 

said aloha to all of the homeowners. And the State, the State had 

to step forward and create an insurance fund. 

So, this is happening more and more and more and I think that 

we all need to recognize the realities as your industry has done. 

Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. Senator Wicker. 

Senator WICKER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Let me point out in response to what Mr. Nutter said, in the second panel Dr. Pielke will reference a peer-reviewed study which he 

says is extensive and robust. The Neumayer and Barthel study of 

2011 conducted at the London School of Economics and supported 

financially by Munich Reinsurance conclude ‘‘Based on historical 

data, there is no evidence so far that climate change has increased 

the normalized economic loss from natural disasters.’ That will be 

in the second panel and for people who will be tuning out, I just 

wanted to point that out. 

Mr. Golden, you talk about climate pollution. You and other people who have spoken in the room today have talked about carbon 

dumping. Now, when we talk about that, we are talking about carbon dioxide being emitted into the atmosphere. Is that correct? 

Mr. GOLDEN. Among other greenhouse gases, yes. 

Senator WICKER. Among other greenhouse gases. And Ms. Diana 

Furchtgott-Roth, you mentioned that you are actually breathing 

out carbon dioxide as we speak. 

Ms. FURCHTGOTT-ROTH. Right. And trees emit it also, plants and 

trees emit it. 

Senator WICKER. That is right. And we are glad of that, are we 

not? 

Ms. FURCHTGOTT-ROTH. We are. 

211 

Senator WICKER. So, it would just seem, let me observe that it 

seems to me that when we talk about carbon dumping or climate 

pollution as a way to make carbon dioxide sound a little more sinister, I just think it is important to explain what we are talking 

about when we say greenhouse gases. 

Now is it true, Dr. Cullen, that carbon dioxide emissions from 

most developed countries including the United States have actually 

dropped in the past decade? 

Ms. CULLEN. As a result of the recession here in the U.S., among 

other things we saw a small tick down in the amount of CO2 being. 

Senator WICKER. OK, so that is true. You have said it is because 

of the recession. I have only got 4 minutes. So, that is actually 

true. 

I would also point out that EPA announced earlier this year that 

greenhouse gas emissions have been declining since 2007 including 

a decrease by 1.6 percent between 2010 and 2011, and again we 

are talking about the very dioxide that I am breathing out at this 

point. 

Now, Ms. Diane Furchtgott-Roth, Mr. Golden talked about an 

ounce of prevention. And what I want to ask you in my remaining 

time, is what we are talking about with the Obama administration 

really just an ounce of prevention? As I understand, what you are 

saying, these actions will be harmful to the economy, they will 

raise our energy prices, they will hurt our economy in a way that 

hits particularly hard at the people at the bottom of the economic 

spectrum. Is that correct? 

Ms. FURCHTGOTT-ROTH. Yes, yes, that is correct. And by the way, 

I meant to say plants absorb carbon rather than emit it. We emit 

it, they absorb it. So, I misspoke. 

Senator WICKER. And actually plants love it, do they not? They 

do better with more carbon dioxide. 

Ms. FURCHTGOTT-ROTH. Exactly, yes. 

But what President Obama is talking about is very wide-ranging 

regulation on our industries. That is going to effect the lowest fifth 

of the population greatest. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. Senator Sanders. 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you, Madam Chair. I note that I find 

it interesting that in this discussion of global warming the two Republican representatives admittedly tell us that they are not climatologists, they are economists. And that is fine. But I do find 

that interesting as we debate how we go forward in addressing the 

planetary crisis of global warming that neither of the Republican 

representatives here are talking about global warming. 

A second point, and this is not disparaging to either one of these 

fine panelists here, I am concerned, as you said, Madam Chair, 

that the Koch Brothers, ExxonMobil and others are pouring well 

over $100 million into organizations, including both of their organizations, trying to do what the tobacco industry did many, many 

years ago at such tremendous cost. How many people died because 

we had doctors coming to Congress raising their hands swearing 

that tobacco had no impact on cancer, et cetera. 

Ms. FURCHTGOTT-ROTH. I have no idea where my organization 

gets its funds. But I have been writing these materials way before 

I joined—— 

212 

Senator SANDERS. OK. I was not disparaging you but I am telling 

it is a fact. 

Senator BOXER. I will put that in the record, where we got that. 

Senator SANDERS. All right. We will document where the Manhattan Institute gets its money from. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

213 


95976.287
214 


95976.288
215 


95976.289
216 


95976.290
217 


95976.291
218 


95976.292
219 


95976.293
220 


95976.294
221 


95976.295
222 


95976.296
223 


95976.297
224 


95976.298
225 


95976.299
226 


95976.300
227 


95976.301
228 


95976.302
229 


95976.303
230 


95976.312
231 


95976.313
232 


95976.314
233 


95976.315
234 


95976.316
235 


95976.317
236 


95976.318
237 


95976.319
238 


95976.320
239 


95976.321
240 


95976.322
241 


95976.323
242 


95976.324
243 


95976.325
244 

Senator SANDERS. Now, in terms of temperature, Senator Sessions, among others, was raising this issue about temperature. Let 

me ask, Dr. Cullen, my understanding is that according to NASA, 

the nine warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998. Is 

that correct? 

Ms. CULLEN. That is correct. 

Senator SANDERS. Is it also correct that currently the warmest 

year on record is 2010? Including 2012, all 12 years to date in the 

21st Century, that is 2001 through 2012, rank among the 14 warmest in the 133 year period of record. Is that true? 

Ms. CULLEN. That is true. And I should say that we also set a 

global CO2 emissions record in 2012 of 35.6 billion tons. So globally 

we are setting records for carbon dioxide emissions. 

Senator SANDERS. OK, what I want to do is go to Mr. Nutter and 

Mr. Golden and ask them this. There has been a lot of discussion, 

including from our economist friends here and my Republican 

friends, Senator Wicker and others, about the costs, the costs of addressing global warming. And no one denies that it is, of course, 

expensive. To save the planet will be expensive. 

But I want to talk about the cost of inaction, inaction, if we do 

nothing. I am reading from an article appearing in a publication 

called The Examiner, I think in 2011, this is what they say. I think 

it is a Louisiana publication. Does a publication in New Orleans, 

The Examiner, ring a bell? 

Mr. NUTTER. No, it does not. 

Senator SANDERS. OK. All right. This is what it says. It says rising seas are expected to wipe out a significant portion of Louisiana’s wetlands and the Mississippi River Delta Plain. Our wetland 

loss is already among the highest in the world. The city of New Orleans has historically depended on these wetlands for protection. 

Loss of Louisiana’s coastal wetlands will also hurt economic sectors 

such as fishing, timber, agriculture, tourism and recreation along 

with devastating the Port of New Orleans. 

Now, it is not just clearly New Orleans. What do rising sea levels 

mean economically to Louisiana, to New York, to Florida, to major 

great American cities in low coastal areas? Who wants to answer 

that? Mr. Nutter? 

Mr. NUTTER. I would certainly offer a comment that Superstorm 

Sandy is a good example of the impact of rising seas because storm 

surge was, in fact, probably the major cause of the damages associated with all of that. And certainly that is the kind of pattern one 

would see going forward in areas of, low lying areas, whether it is 

the State of Florida or the Gulf Coast, particularly without the natural habitat that has historically been an inhibitor—— 

Senator SANDERS. Everything being equal, is it possible we will 

see billions of dollars of damage? 

Senator BOXER. Sorry to cut you off. I really am. I have to do 

that. I have to be fair. 

So, we want to thank this panel. You have been, every one of 

you, terrific. And we are going to leave the record open until 10 

a.m. because people may have more questions. I am going to send 

one to the two economists on the panel, the Republican witnesses, 

about the tremendous job growth we have seen in California reVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:34 Nov 13, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00250 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\95976.TXT VERN
245 

lated to our alternative energy. So, I want to see you talk about 

why you think it is, in fact, a growth industry or not. 

We thank you. As you, you should know how appreciative we are, 

all of you. 

We are going to ask the new panel to come up. I am going to 

hand the gavel over to a real leader on the oceans issues and someone who really asked us to do a panel on oceans, Senator 

Whitehouse. And he is going to start right now. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. [Presiding.] Thank you, Chairman. Let me ask the next panel to 

come forward. What is our vote schedule at this point? 

Senator BOXER. The vote begins at 12:15 but we do not have to 

leave here until 12:30. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And then just the one? 

Senator BOXER. Just the one. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. All right. Let me thank the various witnesses who are here, with a particular welcome to Dean Leinen 

who, before she went to Florida Atlantic University, was the Dean 

of the Graduate School of Oceanography at the University of Rhode 

Island. Welcome here. 

Let me just say a moment about where we are from a parliamentary point of view. There is a vote that will begin on the Senate 

floor at 12:15. So, there may be a certain amount of swirling about 

as we allow everybody to go and take that vote. I may choose, depending on who is here, to recess the Committee briefly so that we 

can get that vote done and then return. But, in the meantime, why 

don’t we proceed with the testimony of Dr. Francis. We welcome 

you here. 

STATEMENT OF JENNIFER FRANCIS, RESEARCH PROFESSOR, 

INSTITUTE OF MARINE AND COASTAL SCIENCES, RUTGERS 

UNIVERSITY 

Ms. FRANCIS. Thank you very much and good afternoon. Thank 

you for inviting me to participate in this hearing here today. 

I am an atmospheric scientist and over my about 25 year career 

my research has focused primarily on the changing Arctic system 

and how it connects with the global system. And as a scientist and 

a mother of two teenagers, I would like to tell you about the top 

five things that keep me awake at night. 

The first, and we have heard some of this already today, is, in 

the past year we, as a global humanity, have broken two momentous records. First, we have, by burning fossil fuels at a very fast 

rate, we have emitted the most carbon dioxide into the atmosphere 

we have ever seen before. This has led to our carbon dioxide levels 

in the atmosphere being the highest they have been in at least 

800,000 years, probably more like 2.5 million years. And we know 

that the last time carbon dioxide levels were this high in the atmosphere, global temperatures were several degrees warmer and 

sea levels were tens of feet higher. 

So, why has this started to happen already? Well, we know why. 

It is because it takes a long time for that heat to be conveyed into 

the ocean. The ocean has a very high heat capacity. It takes a long 

time to warm it up. The ocean is the flywheel in the climate system. 

246 

And we have added this carbon dioxide so fast that it just has 

not had time to catch up yet. But it is starting to. According to a 

new U.N. report that was released last month, this past decade of 

the 2000’s was the warmest on record, not only in the record of digital temperatures or thermometers, but also going back probably 

2,000 years of proxy records. 

We have heard many times already this morning that the air 

temperature, the surface air temperature, has slowed down in its 

increase over the last 15 years. But we know why. Here is the real 

data and the real facts. There are natural fluctuations in the 

oceans circulation that modulate this increase in temperature over 

time. Things like El Nino, for example, we know, tends to increase 

the global average temperature whereas La Nina has the opposite 

effect. 

Over the last 15 years, we have a great number of La Ninas. 

This has tended to cause the surface temperatures globally averaged to decrease somewhat. But we know this is going to rebound 

because there will be El Ninos again and we will see that heat that 

Dr. Cullen talked about returning to the atmosphere from the 

ocean. The heat is there and the warming has not slowed down. 

The second thing is that all this extra heat that was trapped is 

causing all of the forms of permanent ice in the Arctic to disintegrate. For example, let me just talk about sea ice. The other things 

would be permafrost and ice sheets and so forth. The sea ice, as 

of last summer, was three-quarters gone. Three-quarters of it is 

gone in just 30 years and the only explanation is the increase in 

greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. 

The third thing is that the pace of sea level rise is accelerating. 

We know this is due to the warming oceans and when the oceans 

warm they expand. We also know that it is because of these disintegrating permanent forms in the Arctic adding mass to the 

oceans. 

As the oceans warm, they also allow more evaporation into the 

atmosphere, about 7 percent over the last 30 years. This provides 

more fuel for storms because when it condenses it releases heat 

and also for the heavier precipitation events that have been observed over the Northeast. 

The fourth thing is that the Arctic has warmed two to three 

times faster than the rest of the Northern Hemisphere. This is due 

to sea ice loss and also this water vapor increase. That temperature 

difference between the Arctic and areas farther south drives what 

we call the Jet Stream. This is the high level river of air over our 

heads that creates weather, steers weather and, as the Arctic 

warms faster, it is decreasing this temperature difference and it is 

causing the West-East winds of the Jet Stream to slow down. This 

has been measured. 

As that Jet Stream slows down, it takes on a wavier path as it 

travels around the Northern Hemisphere. We can measure this as 

well. Those waves cause the weather than we experience here on 

the surface. And if those waves get bigger, which we see that they 

are, they tend to move more slowly from West to East, along with 

the weather than they create. So, this is increasing the likelihood 

of extremes that are caused by slow-moving weather patterns. 

247 

And finally, No. 5 is what I call climate misleaders. These are 

people who are deliberately ignoring and misconstruing the science 

in an attempt to convince you all and the public that even humancaused climate change is not happening or that there is nothing to 

worry about. 

And my time is almost up. But what I want to say is that we 

know they rely on models and they are picking specific variables 

from models and illustrating that they are not working right. We 

know that the models are not perfect. And we know also that they 

are mostly right. The sign that they are telling us is correct and 

we can depend on that being crystal clear. 

And I would agree that we have no more time to wait. We have 

to start to act. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Francis follows:] 

248 


95976.118
249 


95976.119
250 


95976.120
251 


95976.121
252 


95976.122
253 


95976.123
254 


95976.124
255 


95976.125
256 


95976.126
257 


95976.127
258 


95976.128
259 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much, Dr. Francis. 

Dr. Doney, welcome. You are from a neighboring State and a 

competing ocean science facility, but we are delighted to have 

Woods Hole represented here. Proceed. 

STATEMENT OF SCOTT C. DONEY, PH.D, WOODS HOLE 

OCEANOGRAPHIC INSTITUTION 

Mr. DONEY. Thank you Senator Whitehouse, Ranking Member 

Vitter and other members of the Committee. 

My name is Scott Doney. I am a Senior Scientist at the Woods 

Hole Oceanographic Institution. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak with you today on climate change, the oceancarbon cycle and ocean acidification. 

Over the past two centuries, human activities have resulted in 

a traumatic and well-documented increase in atmospheric carbon 

dioxide to more than 40 percent above pre-industrial levels. Atmospheric levels would be even higher today if it were not for the 

ocean which provides a critical service by removing from the air 

roughly one-quarter of the carbon emissions from fossil fuel burning and deforestation. 

The extra carbon dioxide in the ocean causes well-understood 

changes in sea water chemistry in a process termed ocean acidification. Today’s surface ocean is almost 30 percent more acidic than 

it was in pre-industrial times. Over the next few decades, the level 

of acidity of the surface ocean will continue to rise without deliberate action to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and stabilize atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. 

Increasingly, ocean acidification will cause major problems for 

many marine organisms like shellfish and corals that build shells 

and skeletons from calcium carbonate. Other marine life will be impacted indirectly by losses in their food supply and habitat. Together with climate change, acidification will put further pressure 

on critical living marine resources such as fisheries and coral reefs 

that we depend upon for food, tourism and other economic, cultural 

and aesthetic benefits. 

Scientific observations show that ocean acidification is already 

occurring around the globe and is amplified in some coastal regions 

by changing ocean circulation, pollution and land management 

practices. Many coastal waters are experiencing a combination of 

stresses, acidic conditions, low oxygen and excess nutrients. 

Recent near-collapses of the oyster fishery in the Pacific Northwest, directly attributed to changing sea water chemistry, had substantial negative impacts on local jobs and local economies. In 

Washington State, shellfish farming has an estimated total annual 

economic impact of $270 million. And shellfish growers directly and 

indirectly employ more than 3,200 people. Across the Nation, shellfish account for about 20 percent of the value of domestic fishery 

landings. Recreational shell fishing is also important to many 

coastal communities. 

Ocean warming and acidification could also threaten the estimated $385 million that Hawaiian coral reefs provide annually in 

goods and services as well as put at risk subsisted fisheries in the 

Pacific Island communities. Over the past decade, Northwestern 

Hawaiian Islands experienced several mass coral bleaching events, 

260 

the result of higher sea surface temperatures. Acidification may 

make corals more susceptible to this thermal bleaching. 

Acidification is independent of climate warming but the two are 

connected through the underlying cause of elevated atmospheric 

carbon dioxide. Ocean warming is causing substantial changes in 

marine ecosystems. For example, commercial fish stocks are already moving and diseases that attack corals, abalones, oysters, 

fish and marine mammals are becoming more intense and happening in more places. 

We have an opportunity now to limit the negative impact of 

ocean acidification in the future. Key elements include curbing 

human carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere, improving control of local pollution sources, reducing coastal habitat destruction 

and better preparing coastal human communities to withstand the 

amount of ocean acidification and climate change that is unavoidable because of past human emissions. Adaptation administration 

and mitigation strategies are being developed for ocean acidification at the State and local level already. 

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to address the Committee and I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Doney follows:] 

261 


95976.129
262 


95976.130
263 


95976.131
264 


95976.132
265 


95976.133
266 


95976.134
267 


95976.135
268 


95976.136
269 


95976.137
270 


95976.138
271 


95976.139
272 


95976.140
273 


95976.141
274 


95976.142
275 


95976.143
276 


95976.144
277 


95976.145
278 


95976.146
279 


95976.147
280 


95976.148
281 


95976.149
282 


95976.150
283 


95976.151
284 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Dr. Doney, and Dean Leinen, 

welcome. Please proceed with your testimony. 

I think given the timing, we will take a recess at the conclusion 

of your testimony then return once the voting is complete. It takes 

us five or 6 minutes for us to get over there, vote, and get back. 

Dean Leinen. 

STATEMENT OF MARGARET LEINEN, PH.D, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF HARBOR BRANCH OCEANOGRAPHIC INSTITUTE, 

VICE PROVOST FOR MARINE AND ENVIRONMENTAL INITIATIVES, FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIVERSITY 

Ms. LEINEN. Chairwoman Boxer, Senator Whitehouse, a great 

advocate of the oceans, and distinguished members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. 

My name is Margaret Leinen and I am the Executive Director of 

Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute. I would like to focus on 

the ecosystems that are affected by climate change. 

The East Coast, from North Carolina to Maine, accounts for 30 

percent of the $5.3 billion U.S. Fisheries landings. There is a typo 

in your written testimony that says $5.3 trillion. Fisheries are important, but not quite that important. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. LEINEN. A 2009 study of 40 years of fishing research vessel 

survey data, including some of our most important commercial species, Atlantic cod, haddock, winter and yellowtail flounder, Atlantic 

herring, showed that about half of the 36 species included have 

shifted northward over the last four decades as ocean temperatures 

in the region increased during the same 40 years. 

Half of the stocks moved north, some expanded their range, some 

moved deeper, but the temperature at which each stock was centered did not change with time, suggesting that the fish are moving 

to remain within their preferred temperature range. Some of the 

stocks nearly disappeared from U.S. waters as they moved further 

offshore. 

Studies completed last year show that this northward shift has 

continued. This means that fishers who adapt their vessels and 

their techniques for one species or group of species may have to 

travel further to catch those fish, expending more fuel. And when 

stocks move out of U.S. waters, our fishers must compete with 

other countries for fish they used to have exclusive access to. Remember that this area from North Carolina to Maine is a $1.7 billion a year landings industry. 

Coral reefs comprise some of the most beautiful and diverse ecosystems on earth. They also spur nearly $17 billion in tourism 

spending and $250 million a year in commercial fishing. They also 

provide coastal protection from strong ocean currents, waves and 

hurricanes. 

Small algae live inside corals and provide food and energy for the 

corals through photosynthesis. When these microbes are stressed 

by heat, they often die and are expelled, leaving corals to starve. 

For the last 30 years, detailed surveys of this process, called coral 

bleaching, have been accompanied by surface and satellite temperature data. Using these data, researchers track the conditions 

that lead to coral bleaching. In Florida and U.S. Caribbean reefs, 

285 

those closest to my home, heat stress has nearly doubled during 

the last decade, accompanied by severe coral bleaching events. 

Sea surface temperature increases of 2 degrees Fahrenheit per 

decade have been accompanied by losses of viable coral reef between 5.5 percent and 9.2 percent per year. Western Atlantic reefs 

have the highest percentage affected by bleaching of any reefs 

worldwide. 

Humans are part of the ecosystem as well. Florida is very flat 

and low. Our 9 million population is heavily concentrated along our 

coasts. Miami, the seventh largest city in the Country, the Florida 

Keys, coastal and inland portions of Broward County, the Florida 

Everglades and Fort Lauderdale are all less than two feet in elevation. 

In the last 50 years, Florida has seen between five and eight 

inches of sea level rise. Our civic infrastructure, roads, storm sewers, water supplies, power grids, is already seeing the impact of sea 

level rise. Drainage systems are not working in many areas during 

lunar high tides and during storms. The streets of Miami Beach 

are now routinely flooded during peak high tide. 

During storm surges, sea water moves into storm sewer systems 

and pushes water inland, actually causing sea water fountains up 

to a mile inland. Future sea level rise of only six more inches, forecast as early as 2030, would cripple half of the areas flood control 

infrastructure. It is a major economic impact. 

But the sea level rise problem in Florida is not restricted to inundation. As the sea level rises, it intrudes into our very porous limestone and pushes fresh water up and out. Right now, many wells 

for South Florida communities are close to the current boundary of 

salt water intrusion and cities are already spending millions to upgrade their storm water systems and to moving their drinking 

wells westward. This will only be a temporary solution as sea levels rise. 

Members of the Committee, these impacts are already affecting 

our economy substantially and will continue to do so. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Leinen follows:] 

286 


95976.152
287 


95976.153
288 


95976.154
289 


95976.155
290 


95976.156
291 


95976.157
292 


95976.158
293 


95976.159
294 


95976.160
295 


95976.161
296 


95976.162
297 


95976.163
298 


95976.164
299 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much, Dean Leinen. 

The Committee will stand in recess for five, 7 minutes subject to 

the call of the Chair, shall we say, while we go and do our vote. 

And then we will reconvene. 

[Recess.] 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. 

[Presiding] The hearing will return to order. 

We now have Dr. Roger Pielke. I have pronounced it correctly, 

I see, by your head nodding. 

Mr. PIELKE. You got it. That is correct. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And then, after that, Dr. Spencer. 

Please proceed, Dr. Pielke. 

STATEMENT OF ROGER PIELKE, JR., PROFESSOR, CENTER 

FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY RESEARCH, UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO 

Mr. PIELKE. Thank you to the Senators and to the Committee for 

having me give this testimony today. 

I started working on extreme weather and climate in 1993 at the 

National Center for Atmospheric Research when I started a postdoc position. I am currently Professor of Environmental Studies at 

the University of Colorado. 

Now, I am going to give you seven what I call take home points. 

And it is important to emphasize that each of these points are consistent with what has been reported by the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change, the U.S. Global Change Research Program and the broader peer-reviewed literature. In fact, I find is 

fascinating that I am the ninth witness out of 10 and I am the first 

one to invoke the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change at 

a hearing on climate change. 

Here are my seven points. 

First, it is misleading and just plain incorrect to claim that disasters associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods or drought have 

increased on climate time scales either in the United States or 

globally. It is further incorrect to associate the increase in costs of 

disasters with the emission of greenhouse gases. 

Second point. Globally, weather-related losses have not increased 

since 1990 as a proportion of GDP. They have actually decreased 

by about 25 percent. And insured catastrophe losses have not increased as a proportion of GDP since 1960. 

Hurricanes, point three, hurricanes have not increased in the 

U.S. in frequency, intensity or normalized damage since at least 

1900. The same holds for tropical cyclones globally since at least 

1970 when we have good data. 

Fourth, floods have not increased in the U.S. in frequency or intensity since at least 1950 and, remarkably, flood losses as a percentage of U.S. GDP have dropped by 75 percent since 1940. 

Fifth, tornadoes have not increased in frequency, intensity or 

normalized damage since at least 1950 and there is some evidence 

to suggest they have actually declined. 

Sixth, drought has, and here I quote the IPCC, for the most part 

become shorter, less frequent and covered a smaller portion of the 

U.S. over the last century. Globally, and I quote from a recent 

300 

paper in Nature, there has been little change in drought over the 

past 60 years. 

Seventh, now this, these trends being the case, it is nonetheless 

a fact that the absolute costs of disasters will increase significantly 

in coming years no matter what you think about climate change or 

the human role in it simply due to greater wealth and populations 

exposed in locations that are prone to extremes. So, disasters will 

continue to be an important focus of policy irrespective of how climate change evolves. 

Now, let me say I have a few statements in addition to these 

kind of factual scientific ones and, as we have seen this morning, 

because the issue is so deeply politicized, there are a few points to 

make so that my testimony is not misconstrued. 

First, humans do influence the climate system in profound ways 

including through the emission of carbon dioxide from the combustion of fossil fuels. And I would point you to the first working group 

report from the IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change, for discussion of that. 

It is true that researchers have detected and in some cases attributed a human influence in measures of climate extremes that 

go beyond those few that I just mentioned, specifically surface temperatures and precipitation trends. 

The inability to detect and attribute changes in hurricanes, 

floods, tornadoes and drought does not mean that human-caused 

climate change is not real or of concern. It does mean, however, 

that some activists, politicians, journalists, corporate and government agency representatives and even scientists who should know 

better have made claims that are just unsupportable based on evidence in research. 

It is my view that such false claims undermine the credibility of 

arguments for action on climate change and, to the extent that 

these false claims confuse those who are making decisions related 

to extreme events, they could, in fact, lead to poor decisionmaking. 

Now, a considerable body of research projects that in the future 

various extremes may, in fact, become more frequent or intense as 

a direct consequence of the human emissions of carbon dioxide and 

other greenhouse gases. There are exceptions. The IPCC suggests 

that winter storms may become less likely. 

Our research, and that of others, suggests that assuming that 

these projections are correct, just taking them as true projections 

of the future, it would be many decades, perhaps longer, before the 

signal of human-caused climate change can be detected in the statistics of hurricanes. Now, to the extent that the statistical properties of other phenomena like floods, tornadoes and droughts are 

the same, that conclusion will hold. 

Let me conclude by emphasizing that what I have reported to 

you today is consistent with what has been reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. And in my written testimony, I have included direct quotes from that. This is mainstream 

science. It should not be controversial. It is supported by peer-reviewed research and I hope that it is of some use. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pielke follows:] 

301 


95976.165
302 


95976.166
303 


95976.167
304 


95976.168
305 


95976.169
306 


95976.170
307 


95976.171
308 


95976.172
309 


95976.173
310 


95976.174
311 


95976.175
312 


95976.176
313 


95976.177
314 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Dr. Pielke. 

And finally, we will turn to Dr. Spencer. I will say, Dr. Spencer, 

that I know that Senator Sessions very much wanted to be here 

and introduce you, U.S. Senator from your home State, and because of the vote and scheduling mishaps, I think it looks like he 

would not be able to do that. 

But I think he would want me to let you know that he was very 

eager to do that, had asked my permission to do that and was 

ready, willing and able to do that. So, you will have to go forward 

without his introduction but I am sure he wishes you his best. 

STATEMENT OF ROY W. SPENCER, PH.D, PRINCIPAL RESEARCH SCIENTIST IV, EARTH SYSTEM SCIENCE CENTER, 

THE UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA IN HUNTSVILLE 

Mr. SPENCER. Thank you, Senator, and thank you for the invitation, to you and the Committee and to Chairman Boxer. 

First of all, given everything that has been said today, and following on Dr. Pielke’s excellent testimony right now, I want to put 

everything we have been talking about into a little broader climate 

context. And this is a chart that will be submitted as part of the 

record tomorrow and at least a few members of the Committee will 

be able to see it. 

The point here, which I will reState orally, is that yes, we are 

unusually warm right now, just like we were 1,000 years ago during the Medieval Warm Period and 2,000 years ago during the 

Roman Warm Period. Now, those previous warm periods could not 

have been our fault. The point is, climate varies naturally. 

I know the title of today’s hearing something like climate change 

it is happening today or something like that. Well, yes, and it has 

always changed. The question is, so what? How much of that 

change is due to humans? That is a question which I believe I am 

the only witness today who has actually actively researched and 

published on. 

For instance, we have a new paper that has just been accepted 

for publication which looks at not only the warming we have seen 

in the atmosphere over the last let us say 50 years but also the 

warming we have seen in the oceans. Dr. Cullen mentioned the importance of not just focusing on the atmosphere but also looking at 

the warming in the oceans. And she is very correct. And we have 

done so. 

And when we take into account how much the deep oceans have 

warmed since the 1950’s, and take into account the effect of El 

Ninos and La Ninas and increasing carbon dioxide and all of the 

other forcing mechanisms that the IPCC uses in their climate 

model runs, we find that the climate system is relatively insensitive, consistent with the big graphic that was shown earlier where 

it showed that we are not warming nearly as fast as the IPCC climate model suggests we should have been warming. 

So, the point is a lot of evidence now is being amassed which 

suggests that the climate system is simply not as sensitive to our 

addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere as most scientists 

think it is. 

I also want to say since we are talking about most scientists, I 

have heard 97 percent, 98 percent, there is a recent paper by John 

315 

Cook and co-authors who looked at thousands of research papers 

which have been published in a scientific literature to see what 

fraction support the scientific consensus on global warming. 

Well, it turns out that the 97 percent consensus that they found 

I am indeed a part of. And Senator Sessions mentioned that he 

would agree with it to. And my associate, John Christy, he agrees 

with it. In fact, all skeptics that I know of that work in this business, all are part of that 97 percent because the 97 percent includes people who think humans have some influence on climate. 

Well, that is a fairly innocuous statement and that is something 

that continually annoys me as those of us that are called deniers, 

it is never actually, I think the d word was actually used by the 

Chairman today, it has never actually been pointed out. What is 

that we deny? 

Also, this 97 percent, what does the 97 percent consensus mean? 

What do all of those people agree to? Well, they agree to something 

fairly innocuous and it is something that most of agree to, that humans must have some influence on climate. The question is, how 

much? And how much influence makes all of the difference in the 

world if you are going to be basing policy decisions, carbon taxes, 

regulations, legislation, whatever on them, it makes all the difference in the world exactly how much warming we can expect due 

to human activities. 

I am going to leave it at that, I think, just to point out that some 

of the statistics that have been given today, I think, are only giving 

half the story. For instance, Jennifer Francis has talked about the 

decrease in the Arctic sea ice. And I know something about that 

because I am the lead scientist on NASA’s best instrument for 

monitoring that decrease in Arctic sea ice. But what she did not 

mention is that Antarctic sea ice, over that same 30 year period 

that we have been monitoring, has been increasing. 

So, there are a lot of half truths in this business. You can point 

to some of areas that are changing, some areas that are changing 

in one direction, some that are changing in another direction. At 

some point we have to ask ourselves, is all of this just mostly part 

of what the climate system does naturally? 

With that, I will end my testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Spencer follows:] 

316 


95976.193
317 


95976.194
318 


95976.195
319 


95976.196
320 


95976.197
321 


95976.198
322 


95976.199
323 


95976.200
324 


95976.201
325 


95976.202
326 


95976.203
327 


95976.204
328 


95976.205
329 


95976.206
330 


95976.207
331 


95976.208
332 


95976.209
333 


95976.210
334 


95976.211
335 


95976.212
336 


95976.213
337 


95976.214
338 


95976.215
339 


95976.216
340 


95976.217
341 


95976.218
342 


95976.219
343 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much, Dr. Spencer. 

Let me begin my questioning, I think we have time to either expand the rounds or have two rounds. How do you want to handle 

this, David? 

Senator VITTER. Could I have two rounds? Because I may have 

to go. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. OK, we will have two rounds so that I 

may move quickly on. 

Let me start with Dr. Pielke. I take from your testimony that we 

actually have a fair amount in common. As I understand it, we 

agree that climate change is happening, correct? That is a yes? 

Mr. PIELKE. Yes. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And we agree that we should both mitigate and adapt in response to that change. 

Mr. PIELKE. Yes. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And we both find the IPCC reports credible? 

Mr. PIELKE. Yes. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Yes. Can we also agree that a body of 

credible research projects that extreme weather events could increase in frequency and intensity due to manmade carbon dioxide 

emissions? 

Mr. PIELKE. Yes. That is certainly the case. And if you look at 

the literature, you will find many such projections. And I would encourage you take a look at my testimony where we actually took 

climate model output and we asked the question, let us assume 

that it is true. When would we be able to detect that signal in, we 

looked specifically at North Atlantic hurricanes? 

And the answer, much to our surprise, and it has been replicated 

now by Kerry Emanuel at MIT with different assumptions, it said 

it is many decades to centuries before we can say ah hah, we have 

seen that signal. 

Now, that does not mean that climate change, we can forget 

about it. What it means is that we have to be very careful making 

strong statements about attribution today because they just rest on 

a very weak foundation. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And if you are being a prudent actor and 

looking forward to protecting your children, your grandchildren and 

so forth, it is possible that there could be a point, particularly with 

this issue where we are already outside of the bounds that have 

been, our species boundaries for at least 800,000, we have been between 170 and 300 parts per million for at least 8,000 centuries 

and now, poof, we are suddenly out, we are at 400 parts per million, it is climbing. Is there a point at which it might be wise to 

anticipate behavior rather than wait for its signal to emerge? 

Mr. PIELKE. Absolutely. I have written on adaptation for an 

awful long time. And there is a lot of talk now about we are entering a new normal. If you take a close look at the statistics that I 

showed you today, one of the concerning things is that we are not 

even at the old normal, the tornadoes of the 1950’s or the hurricanes of the 1920’s or drought of the 1930’s and 1950’s. We are not 

prepared for the old normal. So, I think there are a lot of reasons 

to adapt. 

344 

What I would suggest is, I agree entirely with your comments 

about being prudent and acting on energy policy and de-carbonizing, but there are much, much better justifications for that action 

than invoking extreme events. For a group of climate, people who 

want action on climate, to invoke the importance of science and 

then very quickly leave that behind and say, this latest disaster, 

that and so on, they undermine their own efforts to advocate for 

action because it is just not supportable. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. We do know a few things, though, as I understand it. We do know that warmer oceans create stronger 

storms because of the extra heat that is thrown up into the atmosphere off the warmer oceans. Is that accepted phenomenon? 

Mr. PIELKE. Yes. I mean that, independently, is true but at the 

same time there are countervailing forces like wind sheer. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I understand. But at least part is true. 

Mr. PIELKE. Yes, that is absolutely true. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And it also true that warmer oceans and 

warmer air carry more moisture and therefore can lead to more severe precipitation. That is a known scientific proposition. Correct? 

Mr. PIELKE. Yes, that is absolutely true. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. So, when you start to put some of those 

things together, you can start to draw reasonable conclusions that 

if the Gulf of Mexico is considerably warmer and it is on the hurricane track, you might want to be careful. 

Mr. PIELKE. Absolutely correct. But again, we cannot detect that 

scientifically for decades. My thing is we note that, identify it as 

a risk, and then we move on to talking about other basis for action. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And it is interesting that a lot of the focus 

of the hearing has been on atmospheric models. I had actually 

hoped to focus on oceans issues and it is not your fault that you 

guys were selected as the Republican witnesses, but the other panelists bring a lot of oceans experience and so if I am taking you outside of your level of expertise, then just let me know. 

But it does strike me that when you compare the atmospheric 

data, you really do have to get into issues of climate modeling and 

people can pick apart the modeling issues. When it comes to rising 

sea levels, when it comes to warmer ocean temperatures and when 

it comes to ocean acidification, we are not talking about modeling 

we are talking about measurement. Is that not correct? 

Mr. PIELKE. Yes. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. So, I mean we know that Newport, Rhode 

Island, 10 inches higher in sea level since the 1930’s. We know that 

has consequences. We know that Narragansett Bay is four degrees 

warmer, mean water temperature, than it was 30 or 40 years ago. 

We know that has caused a lot of valuable fish to move out and 

affected our fisherman in a very unfortunate way. 

Some of these things, once you look at the oceans, become much 

clearer and the signal problem begins to dissipate. Do you not 

agree? 

Mr. PIELKE. Yes. I think it is important to separate out looking 

for a signal of climate change, and I would agree with many of the 

witnesses today who said it is unequivocal that there is humancaused climate change, from trying to find that signal in extreme 

events. 

345 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Understood. 

Mr. PIELKE. We do not look at extreme events to show climate 

change. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I am over my time, so I will come back as 

we will have another round with the time pressure off but I do 

want to yield to the Ranking Member and be courteous. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Senator, and thanks to all of our 

panelists. And I want to really continue this discussion because I 

do think it is important that we bring some rigor to the discussion 

and that we be precise. And that also dovetails with Dr. Spencer’s 

comments. 

On the one hand the title of the hearing is Climate Change: It’s 

Happening Now. Well, I mean, if we take a vote in Committee 

about how many people agree with that, we take a vote among the 

witnesses how many people agree with that, everyone will raise 

their hand, myself included. 

But the suggestion which was in fact stated several times by the 

Chair, by some witnesses, one of the big themes, one of the big narratives, is that extreme weather events are dramatically increasing 

as a direct result of human-related carbon emission. So again, I 

think it is important to be precise. So, let me focus on that because 

that is a huge narrative in the last several years. 

So Dr. Pielke, since you have focused on that, is there evidence 

that statement is true, extreme weather events are dramatically increasing recently for any reason and that if they are it is related 

to carbon and climate change? 

Mr. PIELKE. Unfortunately, the phrase extreme weather is slippery and general enough to encompass many things and people can 

invoke that statement and imply something that maybe is not supported. 

The reality is that with respect to heat waves, as we heard earlier, and what has been called extreme precipitation, which is a scientific term and often is not what most people would think of as 

extreme precipitation, yes, there has been a documented increase 

in those phenomena and there have been attribution that link it to 

increasing greenhouse gases. 

But when it comes to the most costly visible disasters, hurricanes, floods, drought and tornadoes, as I discussed, there is not 

presently attribution or even detection of increasing trends with respect to those phenomena. There may be in the future, but there 

is not presently. 

Senator VITTER. OK. And that directly relates to pictures of 

Superstorm Sandy, discussion of Hurricane Katrina, etcetera. 

Let me bring up these charts again because they are yours. The 

data is not yours, but they are from your testimony. And if you 

could just briefly walk us through what each chart represents and 

what do you think it says. So, heat waves. 

Mr. PIELKE. That one is not from my testimony. 

Senator VITTER. Oh, sorry, I thought it was. This is, let me comment on this. This is EPA data with regard to heat waves over 

many decades. Let us go to the next one. Drought. 

Mr. PIELKE. That one also is not from my testimony. I do refer 

to drought but since the IPCC in 2007 came out with its report, 

the community has recognized that the phenomena of drought is 

346 

more complicated than was originally thought and there are trends 

in some places of increasing drought and in other places of decreasing drought. But overall, over the planet, the conclusion has been 

that over 60 years there has been no trend one way or the other. 

Senator VITTER. OK. Next chart is wildfires. 

Mr. PIELKE. Yes, this one does not appear in my testimony either. It is very plausible that there could be a signal of humancaused climate change in western wildfires in particular. There is 

a number of causal steps in that chain that need to be connected 

and it is logical. 

But doing convincing attribution is made complicated because 

humans have been so deeply interfering with the western ecosystems that, according to a recent study and proceedings of the 

National Academy of Sciences, climate and societal behavior and 

fire have all been decoupled over about a century. 

Senator VITTER. OK. And hurricane landfalls in the U.S.? 

Mr. PIELKE. Yes, this does come from my testimony. And remarkably, over a century, there has actually been a slight decrease in 

the number of hurricane landfalls. Presently, we are in the longest 

stretch with no Category III or stronger hurricanes making landfall 

in the U.S. ever recorded. Now, that goes back to 1900 and the 

data before that is even less. The State of Florida is in the longest 

stretch without being hit by a hurricane. 

So, the idea that we are in some sort of enhanced hurricane regime sets the stage for setting the false expectations. We are not. 

We have actually been pretty lucky in recent years. 

Senator VITTER. And this is the global equivalent, global cyclone 

landfalls, which is basically hurricanes, typhoons, global landfalls, 

is it the same story basically? 

Mr. PIELKE. Yes. That is a study we did where we added up all 

of the landfalls globally and the data is good in 1970 and there is 

no trend globally either. 

Senator VITTER. OK. Thank you very much. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Let me ask if any of the other witnesses 

would care to respond to those charts and that data? Starting over 

here at the left. Dr. Francis, do you want to share your views? 

Ms. FRANCIS. Sure. There is a lot of information presented there. 

But I think I wanted to reiterate something that Dr. Cullen said 

and that is when you are looking at trends like heat waves and 

droughts and floods, you cannot take an area the size of the United 

States, average over the entire area, and then present trends based 

on that because there are huge regional differences. And so, if you 

average over the East being wetter and the West being drier, you 

get no signal. So, what I saw there was an average over the United 

States. Again, that trend does not reflect what is really happening 

on a regional basis. 

In terms of the hurricanes, I am not a hurricane expert. But I 

think focusing on land falling hurricanes also is a rather not quite 

realistic way to go about it because, for example, the last 2 years 

there have been a large, many more hurricanes than in a typical 

year, over the last two summers in the Atlantic, and for whatever 

reason, very few of them actually made landfall in the United 

States. But there were way more hurricanes than normal. So, I 

347 

think the statistics as presented there present a rather misleading 

picture. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Let me turn to Dr. Spencer and let me 

first ask a kind of unrelated question, Doctor. Do you believe that 

the theory of creation actually has a much better scientific basis 

than the theory of evolution? 

Mr. SPENCER. And why are we going in this direction? 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Because it is something that you have said 

and I just wanted to see if you still believe it. 

Mr. SPENCER. I believe that evolutionary theory is mostly religion. It is naturalistic. But my faith is not strong enough to believe 

that everything happened by accident. I mean, there is a lot of 

work out there that has shown that you cannot statistically combine all of the elements that are contained in a DNA molecule by 

chance over however many billions of years you want to invoke or 

over how many, how much known universe there is with all of the 

matter in it. 

So what I am saying is some areas of science deal a lot more 

with faith than with known science. And so, I am open to alternative explanations. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And do you still believe that the theory of 

creation actually has a much better scientific basis than the theory 

of evolution, to be specific? 

Mr. SPENCER. I think, I think I could be put into a debate with 

someone on the other side and I think I could give more science 

supporting that life was created than they could support with evidence that life evolved through natural, random processes. So, yes. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. OK. In your testimony, you have a graph 

that I think we have seen a lot of versions of during the course of 

the day which shows an average trimmed line, the black line, that 

is the average of all of the other lines which are various climate 

models. 

Mr. SPENCER. Yes, those are 73 of the latest IPCC climate models. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And then you have your own balloon and 

satellite data sets which are indicated by the various marks running below. 

Mr. SPENCER. Yes. Those big blobs are the observations. There 

is a total of six data sets there, one of which is ours. The other five 

are not ours. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And they all come from the tropical midtroposphere? 

Mr. SPENCER. Yes, this is all tropical mid-troposphere. That is 

right. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. So, they are all from the tropics and they 

are all from above 5,000 roughly? 

Mr. SPENCER. Well, it is actually a deep layer of the atmosphere 

from the surface to, let us say, 10 or 12 kilometers altitude. So, it 

is a bulk measure of the tropical atmosphere. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. OK. Let me show you a second graph 

which looks rather similar to it, other side, upside down, and was 

presented to this Committee by Dr. John Christy who, I believe, is 

a collaborator and co-author of yours. Do you recognize that? 

Mr. SPENCER. Yes. 

348 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And that shows what appears to be the 

same data set going along the bottom line, the same average, but 

it also shows an additional data set in the middle which includes 

surface temperature readings. 

Mr. SPENCER. Yes. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And it would appear to me that the surface temperature readings, when you add them, are far closer to 

the average than the data set that you selected. 

Mr. SPENCER. Yes, the surface temperatures appear to be closer. 

The reason why we emphasize deep tropospheric temperatures is 

because they are not subject to certain kinds of errors, for instance 

urban heat island effects. Also, our satellite measurements are the 

only truly global measurements. That is for global. Ours are the 

only truly global measurements because they sample all of the 

global atmosphere. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And then let me show a third graph which 

I think is fairly common in the literature on this that I believe was 

produced by Ed Hawkins at the University of Reading that is a 

common display, I gather, in the scientific community. And that 

shows from an even broader set of data sources the match between 

observed and modeled projections. Have you seen that before? 

Mr. SPENCER. I have not seen this one. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. OK. But it is certainly apparent that, as 

you go through those sets, the data set that you have selected is 

the one that is most divergent from the model data and that as you 

add further observations, the trends close rather than separate. 

Correct? 

Mr. SPENCER. Oh, Senator, I can turn that around and tell you 

that usually what we see from the IPCC are comparisons which are 

the closest and it takes someone like me to come along and say all 

right, you are not showing all of the data. So, we are just trying 

to give some equal time to the other half of the story that is not 

being told. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. But you will concede that in this graph 

there is more data than in the data sets, the six data sets that you 

incorporated in your testimony? That is just factual. Correct? 

Mr. SPENCER. More data? No, I would not concede that. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. All right. Can I ask Dr. Francis to comment on this? Or, I do not know who else would like to. 

Ms. FRANCIS. Sure. I will take a stab at it. So, we who have used 

model output for many years for various things are as aware as 

anyone that they are not perfect. We know they are not perfect. 

But they get the general sense of change correct. Some of them do 

a darned good job and there are variables that, in fact, they project 

are changing slower than the real world. So, in fact, they are more 

conservative than the actual change that we observing in the real 

world. 

This sea ice loss is a classic example. Most of the models have, 

when they are run in hind cast, models looking back at the real 

world and what has happened are not able to capture the speed of 

change of the sea ice loss in the Arctic. 

So, I think it is very possible to look through the model output 

and find problems. But overall the models do an amazingly good 

job of simulating what is an incredibly complex system, this cliVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:34 Nov 13, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00354 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\95976.TXT VERN
349 

mate system that involves the oceans and the atmosphere and the 

ice and the biosphere and the soil moisture and coming up with 

very close representation of what the real world has undergone 

and, of course, into the future there are so many assumptions 

about what is going to happen in terms of future emissions of carbon dioxide and future technologies and things like that. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Now, there has been testimony here that 

we are, and I have said it, I think it is fairly commonly knowledge, 

that we are outside boundaries of carbon concentration in our atmosphere that have persisted for somewhere between 800,000 and 

many millions of years. A minimum of 800,000 years. 

So, if carbon pollution has forced us outside of those boundaries 

and we are now in unknown territory for our planet without going 

back into geologic times, certainly unknown territory for our planet 

while it has been inhabited by our species, it is foreseeable that 

there is going to be some uncertainty about the modeling. We have 

never been here before, have we? 

Ms. FRANCIS. That, it is very possible although the models are 

based on physics, the laws of physics, and the laws of physics are 

not changing. We understand what happens to the earth when you 

increase greenhouse gases. That has been known for a hundred 

years. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Generally. 

Ms. FRANCIS. Generally. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. But if there was a specific short-term cooling trend that is driven by changes in the ocean and by the changing patterns of the ocean and the current flows and the increasing 

absorption, that is something that 10 or 15 years ago would have 

been a pretty tough thing to try to model exactly. 

Ms. FRANCIS. You cannot model it exactly. The models have those 

kinds of variability built into them but to have the changes happen 

in the ocean exactly the same year in the model as they happen 

in the real world, you know that to create these model graphs like 

this they run the same model many times to create what they call 

ensembles because the models have natural variability in them just 

like the real world does. So, each of those runs of the model does 

not necessarily correspond to what the real world has done because 

we only have one run of the real world to compare to those. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. OK, let me interrupt. I see Senator Sessions here. I went ahead with Dr. Spencer’s testimony but I did let 

him know that you had wanted to be here when his time came to 

introduce him and I will yield to you the time. 

Senator SESSIONS. The 11, or 10 minutes, that you used. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Well, there was nobody else here so I figured I was not inconveniencing anybody. 

Senator SESSIONS. That is all right. But somebody else is here 

now. 

Well, if you just look at that chart it shows that is dropping 

down below the modeling levels. Dr. Spencer, let us look at this 

chart and let us get clear about what the chart says. 

The red line does not represent one or two models, does it? 

Mr. SPENCER. It represents the average of all of the IPCC models 

included. And I want to emphasize the reason why the average is 

350 

important. The IPCC based its bottom line conclusions basically on 

that average. 

Senator SESSIONS. OK. 

Mr. SPENCER. But the red line represents what the IPCC predicts 

for the future. 

Senator SESSIONS. So, back in 1995 our, well, in recent times the 

models were predicting a rather continuing increase in temperature because CO2 continues to increase in the world and whatever 

other factors they use. That made sense to those computer models. 

Mr. SPENCER. Well, even Kevin Trenburth who is on the other 

end of the spectrum from me has admitted that we do not know 

why it stopped warming and it is a travesty that we do not know. 

If I can return to the chart that Senator Whitehouse presented 

as evidence of supposed agreement between the observations, the 

one behind you, Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. This one over here? OK. 

Mr. SPENCER. Would you admit that chart shows that the observations are now approaching the bottom of the full range of climate 

model projections? 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I think the chart speaks for itself and, like 

this chart, it continues to show rising temperatures, maybe not at 

the level of the average, but that clearly is not a flat line from 

where they depart upwards. It has, it is well above the 0.2, it is 

more than halfway to 0.4, that, to me, is an increase, not a decrease. 

Mr. SPENCER. And I do not think anyone has claimed that there 

is a zero change. But there is a big difference between a tiny 

change and a huge change. And since we have policies that are 

being discussed that are going to be based on that red line, I think 

we need to consider the possibility that we need to go back and figure out what is wrong with the models before we start basing policies on models which produce at least two times as much warming 

as we have observed in nature and possibly three times as much 

warming. 

Senator SESSIONS. Dr. Spencer, you and Dr. Christy, by utilizing 

satellite data, has that not gained respect worldwide as a more accurate, a lot of scientists agree that is the best way to identify global temperature change? 

Mr. SPENCER. Well, we need all of these data sets. We need the 

satellite data set, partly because it is the only truly global data set. 

It also measures up where we can see other things happening. 

We think what is going on in the upper atmosphere is that is it 

not warming as fast because something called positive water vapor 

feedback is not happening. Now, these models amplify warming, at 

least twice the warming that occurs in all of these climate models 

is because they increase water vapor throughout the whole atmosphere in response to the warming and it about doubles the warming. And this lack of warming up in the free atmosphere to us suggests that, on these climate timescales, there is not positive water 

vapor feedback or that it is very weak. 

So that is one reason why, another reason why, we use the satellite data. It tells us more about the climate system than just the 

surface. The surface is just a thin layer six feet above the surface 

and there are so many things that can affect that, wind and things. 

351 

This is a bulk measurement of the heat content of the atmosphere 

that we think has more physical meaning for understanding the 

climate system. 

Senator SESSIONS. Just to get this straight, the Economist said 

over the past 15 years air temperatures at the earth’s surface have 

been flat. Is that disputed? Or is that generally accepted today? 

Mr. SPENCER. I think it depends on the surface temperature data 

set that they are talking about. There are different, just like there 

are different satellite data sets, there are different weather balloon 

weather sets, there are different surface temperature data sets and 

I think one or more of the surface temperature data sets show in 

the last 10 or 15 years a temperature change which is not statistically different from zero. 

Maybe there is a light warming, or a slight cooling depending on 

the data set. I am not an expert on all of those. But we are mincing 

words when what we should be emphasizing is we are not getting 

anywhere near the warming that the models have predicted. To 

me, that is the take-home message. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, thank you for that. I think it should give 

us cause to analyze and think about that. 

It is pretty obvious also that there are long-term variations in 

temperature that have occurred naturally over the centuries. Is 

that correct? 

Mr. SPENCER. Wait. While you were not here, I asked to enter 

into the record this plot of temperatures over the last 2,000 years 

which suggests that previous warm periods that our current warm 

period may not be exceptional compared to the Medieval Warm Period or the Roman Warm Period. In other words, global warming 

and global cooling happens almost every century. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, they happen for some reason and we 

may be finding that CO2 will impact global temperatures. But they 

have been occurring without huge increases in CO2, it seems to 

me. 

Mr. SPENCER. Well, I just find it very unscientific for scientists 

to claim that there are these past periods of warming which, well, 

we really do not know what caused them. They obviously were not 

due to people, but the current period of warming we know is due 

to increasing CO2. It just logically does not make sense. 

Now theoretically I can admit I do expect some warming from 

CO2. But as I have mentioned, my primary area of research is trying to determine exactly how much. And right now the State of 

that science is, I do not think we can say how much of our current 

warmth is due to human CO2 emissions versus natural processes. 

Senator SESSIONS. In one of our last hearings, I do not know if 

you have these numbers in your mind or at hand, but earlier the 

question, the statement was made that we have had record high 

temperatures in the last few years and an unusual number of 

record high temperatures. 

As I understand the data, there are quite many more record temperatures during the Dust Bowl times of the 1930’s. Is that correct? 

Mr. SPENCER. Yes, that chart was shown, maybe while you were 

not here, that shows that by far most of the high temperature 

records that were in the United States were set in the 1930’s. And 

I do not know what we are doing today so far in Washington, DC, 

352 

but I do not think we are going to hit 103 degrees today, which is 

the record high for this date in Washington, which was set in 1887. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, one of the things that is confusing us a 

bit is they use the Heat Index and the Humidity Index and it 

makes the numbers go up and the Weather Channel’s ratings go 

up. We hear all about storms because we hear about every one of 

them. 

But Dr. Pielke, you have just demolished this idea, it seems to 

me, from your research that we are having extraordinary increases 

in storms of all kinds, floods, droughts. I remember that Kingston 

Trio song, they are rioting in Africa, they are starving in Spain, the 

whole world is full of strife and Texas needs rain. 

So, what is it, would you comment a little further on your finding 

objectively with regard to storms? I just had the numbers from 

NOAA that shows there has not been an increase but really a decline in hurricanes and Dr. Cullen’s own statement to us that there 

is no evidence to indicate that EF4, EF5 tornadoes, like the ones 

that devastated a large swath of Moore, Oklahoma in May, are becoming more frequent or more severe. Do you have any comments 

on that? 

Mr. PIELKE. Yes. I will just say that this is one area of research 

and science that really should not be controversial because, I mean, 

hurricanes, you do not miss them. They are big and you count 

them up. It is just math. 

And I said earlier and I will repeat this, if one wants to invoke 

the importance of science in these debates, you are not allowed to 

say, well, I like this science but I do not like that science. And the 

fact of the matter is, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change did a big report, reported out in 2012, it looked globally at 

extreme events, and summarized these data. 

Now, looking forward, there are projections there may be more 

extreme events. But the good news is, we are monitoring, we are 

detecting, and simply statistically one of the last places you would 

want to look to see the signal of climate change is extreme events 

because they are rare, they do not occur all the time, and so it 

takes a long time to understand the statistics. 

To the extent there is large variability, that makes it even more 

difficult. So, I would say that images of Katrina and the like, they 

get a lot of attention and the media focuses on it, but it takes the 

scientific community down a path where pretty quickly they depart 

from what you can say based on data and analysis. And that does 

not help the discussion and it does not help, certainly, claims that 

are supposed to be grounded in science. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just say I 

appreciate Dr. Spencer coming and to the extent to which he believes this is a created universe, we share that common belief. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I am delighted that the witnesses were 

here and I want to thank them for their testimony. 

I do believe that NASA stands by its data that shows that the 

12 warmest years on record since 1880 all happened in the last 15 

years. I was not here for the Dust Bowl but certainly it happened 

after 1880 and 12 out of 15 is pretty serious information. And I 

tend to believe that NASA knows what they are talking about, parVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:34 Nov 13, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00358 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\95976.TXT VERN
353 

ticularly when they are driving a rover around on the surface of 

Mars. That is not a small achievement. 

And I would close by noting one other thing which is that the 

discussion in this panel from the Republican side has largely been 

about the atmospheric issues and has largely been about the modeling of atmospheric issues and particularly looking at tropical tropospheric atmospheric data. And the focus of the hearing, I had 

hoped, was to be on oceans, because once you get into the oceans, 

a lot of modeling issues go away. 

We actually measure ocean acidification. We actually measure 

ocean temperatures. We actually measure sea level rise. And if all 

of the focus is on areas of technical dispute and we are blind to 

what is visibly and measurably happening all around us, I think 

we are going to miss the most important signal. 

So, let me pay a particular thank you to the oceans experts who 

came in today and if the other side wants to being oceans witnesses 

at some point, I would be delighted to continue this discussion. 

But we really are having two panels. We have got an oceans 

panel, which seems to be pretty unanimous, and we have atmospherics and economics panel and I think to me, I am from the 

Ocean State, and it matters a lot to Rhode Island when the sea 

level is 10 inches higher than it was in our last big, big, big 

crusher hurricane. When we get our next one, that is going to 

make a big difference. 

It makes a big difference to me when fishermen cannot catch 

winter flounder any longer in Narragansett Bay because it has 

moved offshore and our lobstermen have to drive twice as far, as 

I think Dr. Leinen mentioned. When these fishermen have to drive 

farther to find their catch, it is not just a fuel burn. It is not just 

an expense. It is not just time. Fishermen have a dangerous job. 

They go out into a dangerous place. And the more time they have 

to spend for their time out on the ocean, the more at risk they are. 

So, it is really, really important to Rhode Island that we get this 

right and that we listen to the signals to the ocean. 

Senator SESSIONS. Can I say one thing in regard to Dr. Spencer’s 

background? He was Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at 

NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center. During his tenure at the 

center, he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for developing innovative methods for 

precise monitoring of earth temperatures via earth orbiting satellites which is regarded as a major advancement in our ability to 

monitor climate fluctuations. And he has been engaged in a lot of 

other important scientific endeavors. 

Thank you. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. The Chairman has already announced 

that the hearing record will close at 10 a.m. tomorrow but further 

questions can be in for the usual EPW 2 weeks. 

So with that, I thank the witnesses, I thank those who attended 

and adjourn the hearing. 

[Whereupon, at 1:25 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

354 


95976.220
355 


95976.221
356 


95976.222
357 


95976.223
358 


95976.224
359 


95976.225
360 


95976.232
361 


95976.233
362 


95976.234
363 


95976.235
364 


95976.236
365 


95976.237
366 


95976.238
367 


95976.239
368 


95976.240
369 


95976.241
370 


95976.242
371 


95976.243
372 


95976.244
373 


95976.245
374 


95976.246
375 


95976.247
376 


95976.248
377 


95976.249
378 


95976.250
379 


95976.251
380 


95976.252
381 


95976.253
382 


95976.254
383 


95976.255
384 


95976.256
385 


95976.257
386 


95976.258
387 


95976.259
388 


95976.260
389 


95976.261
390 


95976.262
391 


95976.263
392 


95976.264
393 


95976.265
394 


95976.266
395 


95976.267
396 


95976.268
397 


95976.269
398 


95976.270
399 


95976.271
400 


95976.272
401 


95976.273
402 


95976.274
403 


95976.275
404 


95976.276
405 


95976.277
406 


95976.278
407 


95976.279
408 


95976.280
409 


95976.281
410 


95976.282
411 


95976.283
412 


95976.284
413 


95976.326
414 


95976.327
415 


95976.328
416 


95976.329
417 


95976.330
418 


95976.331
419 


95976.332
420 


95976.333
421 


95976.334
422 


95976.335
423 


95976.336
424 


95976.337
425 


95976.338
426 


95976.339
427 


95976.340
428 


95976.341
429 


95976.342
430 


95976.343
431 


95976.344
432 


95976.345
433 


95976.346
434 


95976.347
435 


95976.348
436 


95976.349
437 


95976.350
438 


95976.351
439 


95976.352
440 


95976.353
441 


95976.354
442 


95976.355
443 


95976.356
444 


95976.357
445 


95976.358
446 


95976.359
447 


95976.360
448 


95976.361
449 


95976.362
450 


95976.363
451 


95976.364
452 


95976.365
453 


95976.366
454 


95976.367
455 


95976.368
456 


95976.369
457 


95976.370
458 


95976.371
459 


95976.372
460 


95976.373
461 


95976.374
462 


95976.375
463 


95976.376
464 


95976.377
465 


95976.378
466 


95976.379
467 


95976.380
468 


95976.381
469 


95976.382
470 


95976.383
471 


95976.384
472 


95976.385
473 


95976.386
474 


95976.387
475 


95976.388
476 


95976.389
477 


95976.390
478 


95976.391
479 


95976.392
480 


95976.393
481 


95976.394
482 


95976.395
483 


95976.396
484 


95976.397
485 


95976.398
486 


95976.399
487 


95976.400
488 


95976.401
489 


95976.402
490 


95976.403
491 


95976.404
492 


95976.405
493 


95976.406
494 


95976.407
495 


95976.408
496 


95976.409
497 


95976.410
498 


95976.411
499 


95976.412
500 


95976.413
501 


95976.414
502 


95976.415
503 


95976.416
504 


95976.417
505 


95976.418
506 


95976.419
507 


95976.420
508 


95976.421
509 


95976.422
510 


95976.423
511 


95976.424
512 


95976.425
513 


95976.426
514 


95976.427
515 


95976.428
516 


95976.429
517 


95976.430
518 


95976.431
519 


95976.432
520 


95976.433
521 


95976.434
522 


95976.435
523 


95976.436
524 


95976.437
525 


95976.438
526 


95976.439
527 


95976.440
528 


95976.441
529 


95976.442
530 


95976.443
531 


95976.444
532 


95976.445
533 


95976.446
534 


95976.447
535 


95976.448
536 


95976.449
537 


95976.450
538 


95976.451
539 


95976.452
540 


95976.453
541 


95976.454
542 


95976.455
543 


95976.456
544 


95976.457
545 


95976.471
546 


95976.472
547 


95976.473
548 


95976.474
549 


95976.475
550 


95976.476
551 


95976.477
552 


95976.478
553 


95976.479
554 


95976.480
555 


95976.481
556 


95976.482
557 


95976.483
558 


95976.484
559 


95976.485
560 


95976.486
561 


95976.487
562 


95976.488
563 


95976.489
564 


95976.490
565 


95976.491
566 


95976.492
567 


95976.493
568 


95976.494
569 


95976.495
570 


95976.496
571 


95976.497
572 


95976.498
573 


95976.499
574 


95976.500
575 


95976.501
576 


95976.502
577 


95976.503
578 


95976.504
579 


95976.505
580 


95976.506
581 


95976.507
582 


95976.508
583 


95976.509
584 


95976.510
585 


95976.511
586 


95976.512
587 


95976.513
588 


95976.514
589 


95976.515
590 


95976.516
591 


95976.517
592 


95976.518
593 


95976.519
594 


95976.520
595 


95976.521
596 


95976.522
597 


95976.523
598 


95976.524
599 


95976.525
600 


95976.526
601 


95976.527
602 


95976.528
603 


95976.529
604 


95976.530
605 


95976.531
606 


95976.532
607 


95976.533
608 


95976.534
609 


95976.535
610 


95976.536
611 


95976.537
612 


95976.538
613 


95976.539
614 


95976.540
615 


95976.541
616 


95976.542
617 


95976.543
618 


95976.544
619 


95976.545
620 


95976.546
621 


95976.547
622 


95976.548
623 


95976.549
624 


95976.550
625 


95976.551
626 


95976.552
627 


95976.553
628 


95976.554
629 


95976.555
630 


95976.556
631 


95976.557
632 


95976.558
633 


95976.559
634 


95976.560
635 


95976.561
636 


95976.562
637 


95976.563
638 


95976.564
639 


95976.565
640 


95976.572
641 


95976.573
642 


95976.574
643 


95976.575
644 


95976.576
645 


95976.577
646 


95976.578
647 


95976.579
648 


95976.580
649 


95976.581
650 


95976.582
651 


95976.583
652 


95976.584
653 


95976.585
654 


95976.586
655 


95976.589
656 


95976.590
657 


95976.591
658 


95976.592
659 


95976.593
660 


95976.594
661 


95976.595
662 


95976.596
663 


95976.597
664 


95976.598
665 


95976.599
666 


95976.600
667 


95976.601
668 


95976.602
669 


95976.603
670 


95976.604
671 


95976.605
672 


95976.606
673 


95976.607
674 


95976.608
675 


95976.609
676 


95976.610
677 


95976.611
678 


95976.612
679 


95976.613
680 


95976.614
681 


95976.615
682 


95976.616
683 


95976.617
684 


95976.618
685 


95976.619
686 


95976.620
687 


95976.621
688 


95976.622
689 


95976.623
690 


95976.624
691 


95976.625
692 


95976.626
693 


95976.627
694 


95976.628
695 


95976.629
696 


95976.630
697 


95976.631
698 


95976.632
699 


95976.633
700 


95976.634
701 


95976.635
702 


95976.636
703 


95976.637
704 


95976.638
705 


95976.639
706 


95976.640
707 


95976.641
708 


95976.642
709 


95976.643
710 


95976.644
711 


95976.645
712 


95976.646
713 


95976.647
714 


95976.648
715 


95976.649
716 


95976.650
717 


95976.651
718 


95976.652
719 


95976.653
720 


95976.654
721 


95976.655
722 


95976.656
723 


95976.657
724 


95976.658
725 


95976.659
726 


95976.660
727 


95976.661
728 


95976.662
729 


95976.663
730 


95976.664
731 


95976.665
732 


95976.687
733 


95976.688
734 


95976.689
735 


95976.690
736 


95976.691
737 

Æ 


95976.692