U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

62–520 2010

THE ADMINISTRATION’S VIEW ON THE STATE 

OF CLIMATE SCIENCE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SELECT COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY INDEPENDENCE 

AND GLOBAL WARMING 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

DECEMBER 2, 2009 

Serial No. 111–13 

( 

Printed for the use of the Select Committee on 

Energy Independence and Global Warming 

globalwarming.house.gov 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
(II) 

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE 

AND GLOBAL WARMING 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts, Chairman 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut 

HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, 

South Dakota 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin, Ranking Member 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

GERARD J. WALDRON, Staff Director 

ALIYA BRODSKY, Chief Clerk 

THOMAS WEIMER, Minority Staff Director 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Edward J. Markey, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, opening statement .................................................... 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 3 

Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Wisconsin, opening statement .............................................................. 5 

Hon. John Salazar, a Representative in Congress from the State of Colorado, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 9 

Hon. John Shadegg, a Representative in Congress from the State of Arizona, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 13 

Hon. Candice Miller, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, opening statement ....................................................................................... 14 

Hon. Jay Inslee, a Representative in Congress from the State of Washington, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 15 

Hon. John Sullivan, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oklahoma, opening statement .................................................................................... 16 

Hon. Earl Blumenauer, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oregon, prepared statement .................................................................................... 17 

Hon. Marsha Blackburn, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Tennessee, prepared statement .......................................................................... 62 

WITNESSES

John Holdren, Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive 

Office of the President ......................................................................................... 19 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 22 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 73 

Jane Lubchenco, Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, Administrator 

of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce ......................................................................................................... 33 

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

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 80 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

THE ADMINISTRATION’S VIEW ON THE STATE 

OF CLIMATE SCIENCE 

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2009 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE

AND GLOBAL WARMING, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in room B– 

318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward J. Markey 

(chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Markey, Herseth Sandlin, Salazar, Inslee, Sensenbrenner, Shadegg, Miller, Sullivan, Capito, and 

Blackburn. 

Staff Present: Ana Unruh Cohen, Jonah Steinbuck. 

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning, and welcome to the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. 

For many Members of Congress and the public, the concern 

about global warming may seem like a relatively new development. 

In fact, scientists, including those advising the U.S. Government, 

have issued warnings about the rising concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere throughout the last four decades. 

After a report from his science advisory committee, President 

Lyndon Johnson noted in a 1965 special address to Congress that, 

quote, a steady increase in carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil 

fuels has altered the composition of the atmosphere. 

In 1978, Robert White, the first administrator of the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, warned that carbon dioxide emissions can have consequences for climate that pose a considerable threat to future society. More recently, the National Academy of Sciences found in a 2001 report requested by President 

Bush that, quote, global warming could well have serious adverse 

societal and ecological impacts by the end of this century. 

In a report issued earlier this year, U.S. science agencies concluded that climate changes are underway in the United States and 

are projected to grow. Administration scientists once predicted the 

impacts of global warming. Now they can confirm them. And unfortunately, families from New Orleans to Alaska are living with the 

harsh consequences. 

Given the upcoming international climate conference in Copenhagen, and the continuing work on domestic clean energy legislation in Congress, an update on the administration’s view of the 

state of climate science is timely. In 2007, the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change found in their comprehensive assessment 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
2 

that global warming is unequivocal and that this warming is primarily due to human activities. 

This decade has been the hottest in recorded history, with all of 

the years since 2001 being in the top 10 hottest. This summer, the 

ocean was the warmest in NOAA’s 130-year record. The extent of 

Arctic summer sea ice for the past few years has shrunk dramatically compared to the previous two decades, with the reduction 

roughly three times the size of Texas. 

We must be aware that as the climate system warms, we risk 

passing certain tipping points of rapid and irreversible change. In 

the United States, the effects are evident. Daily record high temperatures are being broken twice as often as daily lows. Our farms 

are threatened by rising temperatures, water scarcity, and pests. 

In the Northeast, extreme rainstorms and the risk of flooding have 

increased. In Alaska, villages are finding the land they call home 

literally melting out from underneath them as the permafrost 

thaws. In the West, the shrinking mountain snow pack and increasing droughts strain our water resource system. 

Fortunately, after decades of warnings, President Obama is 

partnering with Congress to realize a new vision for America, an 

America freed from dependence on foreign oil and thriving as a 

leader of the new clean energy economy. The American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act included more than $80 billion for clean energy investments to jump-start our economy and generate new 

clean energy jobs. The Cash for Clunkers program took gas guzzlers off the road. Fuel economy standards were raised for model 

year 2011 cars and trucks, saving drivers money and spurring companies to develop more efficient, affordable vehicles. 

In June, the House passed the Waxman-Markey Clean Energy 

and Security Act. This is legislation that will put us on a pollution 

cutting path and, at the same time, create millions of new jobs, 

making America the global leader of the clean energy economy. The 

act will also create a National Climate Service that will provide decision makers with vital climate science information. 

As we move forward, we must continue to stay abreast of the 

most recent findings and to ground our policy in the latest climate 

science. 

Our witnesses today, Dr. John Holdren, the President’s science 

adviser, and Dr. Jane Lubchenco, administrator of the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, will help us do that. 

Now I would like to turn and recognize the ranking member of 

the committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Sensenbrenner. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Markey follows:] 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
3 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 8 here 62520A.001
4 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 9 here 62520A.002
5 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And what we have just heard from the Chairman is a case of denial on what has happened recently. Sound science depends on 

sound policy—or sound science policy depends on sound science. 

When the science itself is politicized, it becomes impossible to make 

objective political decisions. Scientific policy depends upon absolute 

transparency. As policymakers, we should all be concerned when 

key climate scientists write in private correspondence that they 

found a trick to hide the decline in temperature data documented 

in climate studies. 

Less than 2 weeks ago, some 160 megabytes of data, containing 

over 1,000 e-mails, including one from today’s witness, Dr. John 

Holdren, and 2,000 other documents from the Climate Research 

Unit at the University of East Anglia in the UK were posted on the 

Internet. While the e-mails don’t undermine everything we know 

about climate change, their contents are shocking. And in the 

words of Clive Cook, senior editor of the Atlantic Monthly, a columnist for National Journal, and a commentator for Financial 

Times, the stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering. The 

temperature records from the climate research are one of only 

three major data sets which considerably overlap and which have 

been used as the bedrock for the assessments by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the United States Global 

Change Research Program. 

The data set in question is the basis for virtually all peer-reviewed literature. The documents show systematic suppression of 

dissenting opinion among scientists in the climate change community, intimidation of journal editors and a journal who would deign 

to publish articles questioning the so-called consensus, manipulation of data and models, possible criminal activity to evade legitimate requests for data and the underlying computer codes filed 

under Freedom of Information Acts, both in the U.S. and in the 

United Kingdom, and demonstrates that many climate scientists 

and proponents of climate change legislation have vested interests, 

a clear conflict of interest. 

Those with the most to gain from climate change have tried to 

dismiss these e-mails as out of context. So I am going to read a few 

examples. 

From Kevin Trenberth, quote, the fact is that we can’t account 

for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty we 

can’t. The series data shows that there should be even more warming, but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate, unquote. 

From Phil Jones, quote, I have just completed Mike’s nature 

trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 

years—that is from 1981 onwards—and from 1961 for Keith’s to 

hide the decline, unquote. 

From Andrew Manning, quote, I am in the process of trying to 

persuade Siemens Corporation to donate me a little cash to do 

some CO2 measurements here in the UK. Looking promising. So 

the last thing I need is news articles calling into question again observed temperature increases. I thought we had moved the database beyond this, but it seems like the skeptics are real diehards, 

unquote. 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
6 

From Keith Briffa, quote, I tried hard to balance the needs of the 

science and the IPCC, which are not always the same. I worried 

that you might think I give the impression of not supporting you 

well enough while trying to report on the issues and uncertainties, 

unquote. 

From Phil Jones, quote, I am getting hassled by a couple people 

to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you 

three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act, 

unquote. 

From Michael Mann, quote, this was the danger of always criticizing the skeptics for not publishing in the peer-review literature. 

Obviously, they found a solution to that. Take over a journal. So 

what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we 

should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community 

to no longer submit to or cite papers in this journal. We also need 

to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board, unquote. 

From Phil Jones, quote, if anything, I would like to see climate 

change happen so the science could be proved right regardless of 

the consequences. This isn’t being political; it is being selfish, unquote. 

Now, these e-mails show a pattern of suppression, manipulation, 

and secrecy that was inspired by ideology, condescension, and profit. They read more like scientific fascism than scientific process. 

They betray economic and ideological agendas that are death to 

disconforming evidence. 

Hopefully, this scandal is the end of declarations that the science 

is settled, and the beginning of a transparent scientific debate. The 

seriousness of this issue justifies additional consideration. 

The majority did not permit us to invite a witness to this morning’s hearing, and therefore, I am requesting a minority day of 

hearings and am filing with the Chairman a letter signed by all six 

of the Republican members of this Select Committee, pursuant to 

rule 11 J 1 of the House of Representatives to have a minority day 

of hearings. 

And I yield back the balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman very much. 

The hearing today is for the purpose of hearing from administration witnesses. In my 34 years here, whether it be a Democrat or 

Republican administration, I had no memory of another witness 

sitting with administration officials at the time of their testimony. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Would the gentleman yield? 

The CHAIRMAN. I will be glad to yield. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. When I was Chairman of Judiciary Committee I did not allow anybody to sit with Cabinet-level or Cabinetrank level witnesses, but there were other people who sat with administration witnesses and, in many cases, contradicted them, including witnesses that were proffered by the Democratic majority 

on the Judiciary Committee. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, in the 15 years that I have chaired a committee here in the House, I have always offered as a courtesy to 

the Reagan administration, to the first Bush administration, and 

to the second Bush administration the courtesy of having their adVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:04 Dec 14, 2010 Jkt 062520 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A520.XXX A520

jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
7 

ministration officials sit and make their presentation. And that is 

how I have conducted myself since 1981, chairing committees. And 

I extended that courtesy through three Republican administrations. 

So that is my own personal history. 

And I did not think it was appropriate to have another witness 

sitting with these representatives of President Obama, since I did 

not allow that to happen with President Reagan or the two Bush 

presidencies. 

But I will be more than willing to discuss future hearings with 

the gentleman and the minority if they would like. 

Let me now turn and recognize the gentlelady from South Dakota. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don’t have 

an opening statement. I will reserve for questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Then let me recognize the gentleman 

from Colorado. 

Mr. SALAZAR. Well thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good morning. I am looking forward to hearing the testimony 

today. We have a complex problem before us today. And I am interested to hear where we are in the science. I also want to know 

what we can do better to adapt our communities and practices to 

prepare for the anticipated climate changes. 

The information found in the recently released report entitled, 

‘‘Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States,’’ is quite 

comprehensive. However, I am glad to see that both of you in your 

testimony say that we need more regional-specific information to 

help decision makers plan in the future. 

Colorado and the Third Congressional District has rich agricultural resources and millions of acres of forest. We also depend in 

large part on a limited amount of water for our survival. I am concerned about how we can effectively prepare for the changes you 

predict. As I mentioned, water is one of the natural resources my 

district heavily depends on. While we have a lot of snow in the 

mountains, the valleys see very little water. 

I am very proud of the $5 million appropriation for the Arkansas 

Valley conduit that was approved this year. That is the first round 

of conduit funding, which will be used for the environment analysis 

and planning and design. The Arkansas Valley conduit is designed 

to provide clean drinking water to approximately 40 cities, towns, 

and water providers in the low Arkansas Valley. These communities are in dire need of a source of water that will help them comply with the Clean Drinking Water Act in a manner that they can 

afford. Every community that will receive water from the conduit 

is currently rated below the 85 percent level of average household 

income. 

The roots of the Arkansas Valley conduit stretch back to 1962, 

when the conduit was authorized by Congress as part of the 

Fryingpan-Arkansas project. And the reason that I bring this up is 

it took over 45 years, close to 47 years, to get the funding for this 

critical project. And if it takes that long for something this critical, 

we need to better prioritize the needs and support for our communities. 

I am a farmer. Agriculture is the cornerstone of my life and also 

the district that I represent. In my district, we produce wheat, poVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:04 Dec 14, 2010 Jkt 062520 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A520.XXX A520

jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
8 

tatoes, barley, beef, and many other crops. Agriculture is one of the 

top three economies in the district. The demand to produce more 

food will only increase as the population increases. And according 

to the report I mentioned before, climate change has the potential 

to negatively affect growth and yield of many crops, as well as increase the populations and vigor of a variety of weeds and insect 

species. If this is true, how soon do we anticipate these changes 

and how do we accommodate them? 

We have already seen the effects of warmer weather and drought 

in our forests. Over 2 million acres of forest in Colorado are dead 

because of the mountain pine beetle. This epidemic will change the 

landscape of Colorado for decades. We need to manage our forests 

for resiliency in the future so that they can withstand the changes 

in weather. 

So I do look forward to your testimony today, and I want to 

thank you for being with us. I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Salazar follows:] 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
9 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 18 here 62520A.003
10 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 19 here 62520A.004
11 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 20 here 62520A.005
12 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 21 here 62520A.006
13 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Shadegg. 

Mr. SHADEGG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I apologize. I have 

another hearing, so I will have to leave for a portion of my time 

here. But I want to begin by noting something that I think everyone in the room knows, but nobody wants to acknowledge. It is that 

there is an elephant, a large elephant sitting in the middle of this 

room. You can ignore if you like. Members of the minority can ignore it if they like. Members of the majority can ignore it if they 

like. Members of the staff or the press or the audience can ignore 

it if they like. But that elephant is the credibility of the entire scientific community, which has told us that the science behind manmade global warming is resolved, make no mistake about it. 

When you read in the e-mails, which have been made public recently, that that science was politicized, that its proponents were 

unwilling to release their data, that they were unwilling to have 

their theories tested, that they were threatened by anyone and everyone who dared to challenge them, when you realize they were 

that insecure, then you have to understand that their credibility, 

the entire credibility of the theory is placed on the line. 

Now, that does not mean it cannot be rehabilitated. But it is interesting to me, those who have not simply accepted the claim of 

manmade global warming, man-caused global warming have been 

called deniers. I would suggest that when the White House reads 

of these e-mails and the Press Secretary for the White House steps 

forward and says they mean nothing, the science is already resolved, maybe the term deniers best applies to those in that position. 

Public policy is a difficult business. It is hard for those of us who 

sit on this side of the dais to make decisions and to make those 

decisions in the best interests of the Nation. At times we are asked 

to call upon our citizens to sacrifice, to pay more in taxes, to lose 

jobs, to give up lifestyles, to pay more for energy. We simply cannot 

do that when the evidence we are supposed to be basing our decisions upon has been clearly politicized, when there is a grave question about its credibility. 

Until we address the evidence—I am sorry, until we address the 

elephant in the center of this room and resolve the questions raised 

by the appalling e-mails which have been made public, it is impossible for this Congress to set public policy in this area and to make 

the people of America accept and give of the sacrifices they will 

have to give to make the changes called for by the legislation that 

is before this Congress. 

Anyone who thinks that those e-mails are insignificant, that they 

don’t damage the credibility of the entire movement, is naive. We 

cannot expect people in a free society to make sacrifices on anything other than hard evidence. Here that hard evidence has to be 

hard evidence that in fact global warming is caused by man and 

that the sacrifices called for in the legislation are necessary. These 

e-mails repeatedly have shown that the scientists involved and who 

authored them, the scientists who are behind global warming or 

the argument that global warming is caused by manmade factors, 

the e-mails demonstrate that they are afraid to reveal the facts, 

that they have been unwilling to have their theories tested, that 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
14 

they have been unwilling to provide their data, and they are unwilling to have their theories openly challenged. 

Now because their own defenses and justifications for hiding 

these facts and their data has changed so many times, we now 

learn that maybe the data does not even exist. It is critical for this 

Congress to find out and to get to the bottom of the question of 

what the elephant in the room is and what the real science is and 

whether money and politics has eroded the credibility of that 

science. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Sullivan. 

Excuse me. I did not see the gentlelady from Michigan. 

The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Michigan, Mrs. Miller. 

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I appreciate you having this hearing. I think it is an interesting 

title of the hearing. The state of the climate science I think is particularly interesting in light of what is happening. And I would like 

to associate myself with the remarks made by the ranking member 

and the others on the minority side here of the panel. 

I come from the State of Michigan. We have the highest unemployment in the Nation. Everybody is well aware of that. As well, 

we derive about two-thirds of our electricity from coal. And for 

these reasons and others, I really looked very closely at the capand-trade legislation and finally decided that it would just be so 

devastating for Michigan’s economy and our Nation that I could not 

support it. 

But you know, we had been told that we had to pass this legislation because the debate was over; the science was absolute; the 

science is incontrovertible about climate change, and regardless of 

what it means economically to us, we need to do this to protect our 

environment and our very way of life. And you know, particularly 

hard hit with the cap-and-trade would be States like Michigan. 

In fact, the Detroit News editorialized that the cap-and-trade legislation, as they said, would be a dagger through the heart of 

Michigan’s economy. So when I saw this notice, this committee 

hearing notice, I was very enthusiastic because I thought we were 

going to be able to talk this morning about what many people are 

calling Climategate, which I think is an appropriate analogy, because it is totally a coverup, what is happening. 

And the ranking member, I won’t go through you any of the emails, I have a list of them here as well, but he certainly has articulated many of them already. But I thought we were going to 

have a hearing about that. And if we are not, I would mention that 

I had also respectfully sent a letter earlier this week to the chairman and the ranking member to ask this committee to have a 

hearing. I think it is important that the committee investigate 

these e-mails and what has happened in Climategate. 

I think transparency is the most appropriate thing. And I think 

it is very important that we have transparency and that we look 

at these things, because certainly the central argument about manmade—manmade—climate change is certainly in question. I think 

the science is not settled, and the debate is raging around the 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
15 

United States and around the globe right now, particularly on the 

eve of Copenhagen. 

And I would simply just mention one other thing, if I could, Mr. 

Chairman. We did have a hearing just a couple months ago about 

a dozen fraudulent letters that were sent during the cap-and-trade 

legislation. And I thought that was an appropriate thing. But certainly if we could have a hearing about a dozen fraudulent letters, 

we could have a hearing in this committee about Climategate. 

And thank you, and I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington State, Mr. 

Inslee. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. 

I understand that those people who have been refusing to accept 

science for years are enjoying their moment talking about language 

from some e-mails that were taken out of context. I understand 

their enjoyment to continue to deny obvious facts. 

And if you could take those e-mails and chop them up and put 

them in a C–130 and sprinkle them over the Arctic and stop the 

Arctic from melting, that would be a good thing, but that won’t 

happen. If you could take those e-mails and chop them up into 

fairy dust and sprinkle them over the Greenland ice cap and stop 

the accelerated melting going on there, that would be a good thing, 

but that won’t happen. And if you could take those e-mails and 

chop them up and sprinkle them over the oceans and stop the incredible ocean acidification that is so damaging, that would be a 

wonderful thing, but that won’t happen. 

The fact of the matter is plain and clear for anyone who is willing to dispassionately look at the evidence. And I would encourage, 

for those who want to look at the most recent evidence on this, to 

take a look at a group called the Copenhagen Diagnosis. They are 

found at www.Copenhagendiagnosis.com. It is an update of the 

IPCC information. And the update is, since 2007, the sequela of 

both ocean acidification and global climate change have been either 

accelerating or at least worse than was predicted in the IPCC report. 

The global deniers are right; the 2007 IPCC report was not entirely accurate. It was not entirely accurate because this problem 

is worse than the last IPCC report indicated. Surging greenhouse 

gases are worse than predicted. Recent global temperatures demonstrate human-based warming. The acceleration of melting ice 

caps in the Arctic is worse than expected. The rate of decline in 

glaciers is worse than expected. The disappearance of the Arctic 

summer ice is worse than expected. The current sea level rise estimates are worse than expected in the IPCC 2007 report. So the 

point of the current science is that what we had in 2007 is indeed 

out of date; this problem is worse than expected. 

And I will just comment on one thing that I learned. Sometimes 

you can learn things from silence as well as people talking. I was 

at my old school at the University of Washington last week, and 

we were talking about this issue. And this young man stood up, 

and he was a global climate change denier. And he was having a 

field day with some e-mail language that he thought showed some 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
16 

massive conspiracy by the Trilateral Commission or something to 

take over the earth. 

And I just said, look, if you are right and if there is no global 

warming, if you are so right, what are you going to do about ocean 

acidification? What do you say about that? And he was silent. And 

that silence speaks volumes. If people over here want to deny clear 

science about global warming, they cannot deny the fact that the 

oceans are becoming acidified, that no reputable science anywhere 

in the world recognizes it is happening caused by CO2 going into 

the atmosphere and going into solution and acidifying our oceans, 

so I would just say the science is clear. I wish it was otherwise. 

Life would be easier. But this is the challenge of the ages. Thank 

you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Sullivan, is recognized. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I appreciate you holding this hearing today, but unfortunately, 

we were not allowed a minority witness. 

Yesterday I was pleased to sign onto a letter by Ranking Member 

Sensenbrenner and my Republican colleagues on this committee requesting a day of hearings to consider the scientific evidence for climate change; the observed and anticipated impacts of climate 

change; and the key areas of further research. I hope you will 

honor this request, as we are on the eve of the Copenhagen climate 

conference. 

In light of the recent disclosure of e-mails between several prominent climatologists revealing possible deceitful manipulation of important climate data uncovered at the world’s leading climate 

change unit at the University of East Anglia in England, I think 

it is imperative that we launch an investigation into this issue and 

reexamine all the scientific evidence surrounding climate change. 

With the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen set to begin in less than a week, we need to have all the 

facts before us as we consider whether this is in the United States’ 

best interests to agree to a binding international climate treaty. 

For the record, I am opposed to any climate treaty that does not 

recognize the right of every country to protect its own national energy interests and would place the United States at a competitive 

economic disadvantage worldwide. 

I am interested in learning from our panel today whether or not 

they would support an independent investigation into the climate 

change unit e-mails and whether or not these e-mails raise concerns about the integrity of the scientific process. 

I yield back my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Great. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

All time for opening statements from the members has been completed. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Blumenauer follows:] 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
17 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 31 62520A.007
18 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 32 62520A.008
19 

The CHAIRMAN. We will now turn to our very distinguished witnesses. 

STATEMENTS OF THE HONORABLE JOHN HOLDREN, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT; AND THE HONORABLE 

JANE LUBCHENCO, UNDER SECRETARY FOR OCEANS AND 

ATMOSPHERE, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

The CHAIRMAN. Our first witness is Dr. John Holdren. He serves 

as assistant to President Obama for science and technology. He is 

the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology 

Policy, and cochair of the President’s Council of Advisers on Science 

and Technology. He was a professor at Harvard. He was the director of the independent nonprofit Woods Hole Research Center. He 

is a member of the National Academy of Sciences. He has received 

the MacArthur Foundation prize, the Genius Award. 

We welcome you, sir, before our committee. 

Whenever you are ready, please begin. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I would request that the 

witnesses be sworn before they testify today. 

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will stand in brief recess. 

[Recess.] 

The CHAIRMAN. The ranking member of the committee has made 

a request to have the witnesses sworn in. 

The Chair has a right to, at his discretion, to make that determination. And I do not think it is necessary. I think that the administration is going to testify truthfully before our committee 

today. And we will operate under that premise. 

And we will begin the hearing with the testimony of Dr. Holdren, 

the President’s science adviser. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN HOLDREN 

Mr. HOLDREN. Thank you, Chairman Markey, Ranking Member 

Sensenbrenner, members of the committee. 

I do thank you for inviting me to testify on this timely and important topic today. I had planned to summarize in my brief oral 

statement the written statement that I provided to the committee 

addressing current and projected impacts of climate change, and 

also climate science research activities, needs, and products, as the 

letter of invitation requested. 

But given the emphasis in some of the opening comments on the 

e-mails, I am going to divert from that program and say a few 

words about the e-mails, and then finish with the concluding part 

of my original oral statement. 

The e-mails are mainly about a controversy over a particular 

data set and the ways a particular small group of scientists have 

interpreted and displayed that data set. It is important to understand that these kinds of controversies and even accusations of bias 

and improper manipulation are not all that uncommon in science, 

in all branches of science. The strength of science is that these 

kinds of controversies get sorted out over time as to who is wrong, 

who is right, and how much it matters by the process of peer reVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:04 Dec 14, 2010 Jkt 062520 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A520.XXX A520

jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
20 

view and continued critical scrutiny by the knowledgeable community of scientists. 

Of course, openness in sharing of data and methods is very important to this process. And as I think you all know, this administration is a strong proponent of openness in science and in government. And Administrator Lubchenco will have some things to say 

about public access to the climate data maintained by her agency 

and maintained by other agencies in the United States. 

In this particular case, the data set in question and the way it 

was interpreted and presented by these particular scientists constitute a very small part of the immense body of data and analysis 

on which our understanding of the issue of climate change rests. 

The question being addressed by these data was, have there been 

natural periods of warming in the past, in the last 1,000 or 2,000 

years in particular, that have been stronger than the episode now 

being experienced? That is an interesting question. And because of 

the controversy around it at the time most of these e-mails were 

written, that is in the early 2000s, the National Academy of 

Sciences undertook a thorough review of all of the relevant data 

sets and all of the methods of analysis, not just the data set used 

by these particular authors or the methods used by these particular 

authors. 

The National Academy’s report on this matter was published in 

2006, and it concluded that the preponderance of available evidence 

points to the conclusion that the last 50 years have been the warmest half century in at least the last 1,000 years and probably much 

longer. 

There is and there will remain after the dust settles in this current controversy a very strong scientific consensus on the key characteristics of the problem. Global climate is changing in highly unusual ways compared to long experienced and expected natural 

variations. The unusual changes match what theory and models 

tell us would be expected to result from the very changes in the 

atmosphere that we know have been caused by human activities, 

above all burning fossil fuels and tropical deforestation. 

Significant impacts on human well-being from these changes in 

climate are already being experienced. And continuing with business as usual in the fossil fuel burning and tropical deforestation 

activities that are the largest contributors to these changes in the 

atmosphere is highly likely to lead to growth of the impacts to substantially unmanageable levels. The details in support of those 

propositions are in my written testimony. 

Let me turn to the closing part of my remarks. I have tried to 

indicate in the written testimony, and here, that we in fact know 

a great deal about global climate change, what its causes are, how 

it works, what its impacts are and are likely to become. But of 

course, there is more to learn. And the Federal Government is 

doing a lot in support of the research needed to learn more and its 

translation of that research into products our society can use to 

better cope with climate change. But there again, we need to do 

more. 

With that said, I emphasize again that, in my judgment and that 

of the great majority of other scientists who have seriously studied 

this matter, the current state of knowledge about it, even though 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
21 

incomplete, as science always is, and even though controversial in 

some details, as science almost always is, is sufficient to make 

clear that failure to act promptly to reduce global emissions to the 

atmosphere of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping substances is 

overwhelmingly likely to lead to changes in climate too extreme 

and too damaging to be adequately addressed by any adaptation 

measures that can be foreseen. 

The United States, as the largest contributor to the cumulative 

additions of anthropogenic, that is human-caused, greenhouse 

gases to the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, and still today the second largest emitter after China, and 

as the world’s largest economy and preeminent source of scientific 

and technological innovation, we have the obligation and the opportunity to lead the world in demonstrating that the needed emissions reductions can be achieved in ways that are affordable and 

consistent with continued economic growth; that create new jobs; 

and that bring further co-benefits in the form of reduced oil import 

dependence and improved air quality. 

President Obama is going to Copenhagen to underline that his 

administration is fully committed to assuming this leadership role. 

The administration obviously will need the support of the Congress 

in delivering on this promise. 

And I would like to thank you, Chairman Markey, and this committee for your own leadership in this critically important domain. 

I thank you as well for your attention. 

[The statement of Mr. Holdren follows:] 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
22 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 40 62520A.009
23 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 41 62520A.010
24 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 42 62520A.011
25 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 43 62520A.012
26 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 44 62520A.013
27 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 45 62520A.014
28 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 46 62520A.015
29 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 47 62520A.016
30 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 48 62520A.017
31 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 49 62520A.018
32 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 50 62520A.019
33 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Holdren, very much. 

Our second witness is Dr. Jane Lubchenco. Dr. Lubchenco is the 

Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, and the 

administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. She has been a distinguished scholar on these issues. She 

is one of the most highly cited ecologists in the world, a member 

of the National Academy of Sciences, and similarly a recipient of 

the MacArthur Fellowship, as was Dr. Holdren. 

We welcome you, Dr. Lubchenco. And whenever you are ready, 

please begin. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JANE LUBCHENCO 

Ms. LUBCHENCO. Thank you, Chairman Markey, Ranking Member Sensenbrenner, members of the committee. 

I greatly appreciate the opportunity to testify today. I appreciate 

your interest in the science of climate change and the spectrum of 

climate sciences and services needed in this country and abroad to 

make critical decisions for now and for the future. 

As President Obama said to the National Academy of Sciences, 

science is more essential for our prosperity, our security, our 

health, our environment, and our quality of life than it has ever 

been before. 

As head of NOAA, one of the Nation’s premiere science service 

and stewardship agencies, with responsibilities for both oceans and 

atmosphere, I strongly support a focus on science-based decisionmaking. Science can help inform the understanding of opportunities and challenges presented by climate change. 

Through sustained Federal and extramural partnerships and collaborations, the Nation has made very significant progress in our 

understanding of climate change. The core capabilities needed to 

understand the state of the climate and make projections about future climate and associated impacts include integrated and comprehensive observing systems on land and the oceans, the atmosphere and space; research into the physical system and its interconnectedness to the human ecological and biogeochemical systems, 

modeling from intra-seasonal to multi-decadal to centennial time 

scales; and a means to assess and communicate the climate information about current and future impacts. 

Three entities, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 

the IPCC, the U.S. Global Change Research Program, and the National Academy of Sciences have all published several peer-reviewed syntheses of the latest climate science findings and associated impacts. NOAA scientists have played a significant role in all 

of these assessments. For example, NOAA played a lead role in the 

development of the USGCRP’s Global Climate Change Impacts in 

the United States report, a landmark assessment report that Dr. 

Holdren and I proudly announced just this last June. And NOAA 

scientists made up 73 percent of the Federal authors in the IPCC’s 

Fourth Assessment Report for working group one, the basis of the 

physical understanding of climate. Since the IPCC process began in 

the late 1980s, a wealth of global scientific information has cumulatively provided stronger and stronger evidence that the earth is 

warming and that humans are primarily responsible. 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
34 

As stated in the Global Change Impacts 2009 report, global 

warming is unequivocal and is primarily human induced. This 

warming can be seen in increases in global average surface air and 

ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, rising sea 

levels, and changes in many other climate-related variables and 

impacts. Most of the observed increases in global temperatures 

since the mid-20th century are due primarily to human-induced 

concentrations in heat-trapping greenhouse gases. 

When I served on the very first National Academy of Sciences 

study on policy implications of global warming in the 1980s, we 

talked about what human-induced climate change might look like 

at some point in the future. Today we know that it is happening 

now. We are already seeing the effects of climate change on our 

landscapes, our neighborhoods, our farms, as well as our forests, 

oceans and mountains. We are able to measure these changes 

through significant advances in our observing systems over the last 

20 to 30 years, many of which are the result of NOAA’s responsibility and innovation, and through collaborative global and national 

efforts to provide systematic and widespread monitoring of the climate system and associated environmental and social changes. 

As a result, we have a much better understanding of present and 

expected impacts of climate change. Widespread climate change impacts are occurring now and are expected to increase. I emphasize 

that climate change is not a theory. It is a documented set of observations about the world. 

A key element of the U.S. Global Change Research Program emphasizes the importance of multiple independent analyses and data 

sets to quantify uncertainties. And therefore, we have the benefit 

of this policy when it comes to global change analyses. The NOAA 

data used in the IPCC report are openly available. They are used 

heavily in the IPCC results of temperature change similar to other 

major global data sets maintained by other U.S. agencies, such as 

NASA, and that maintained by other countries, such as the United 

Kingdom. 

So what do these data sets, what do these observations tell us 

about climate change? What do we know with certainty about 

trends to date, and what do we think is highly likely in the future? 

Global average surface temperature has risen by 1.5 degrees 

Fahrenheit since 1900 and is projected to rise another 2 to 11.5 degrees by 2100. The current atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is estimated at about 385 parts per million, which is higher 

than the highest point in the last 800,000 years. Temperatures in 

the next couple of decades will be primarily determined by past 

emissions of greenhouse gases, but increases thereafter will be primarily determined by future emissions. 

Current observed global emissions of carbon dioxide emissions 

are beginning to exceed even the upper range of the 2007 IPCC 

scenarios. There is strong agreement and much evidence that with 

current climate change mitigation policies and related sustainable 

development practices, global greenhouse gas emissions will continue to grow over the next few decades. 

As we continue to learn more about the climate system, I would 

like to reiterate the importance of looking at the earth system holistically, and understanding the interconnected nature of the 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
35 

ocean, atmosphere, and terrestrial systems. In particular, I would 

like to emphasize the importance of continuing our work to better 

understand the oceans and the potential impacts of climate change 

on them. 

I believe we have been championing the notion that we do not 

have, but urgently need, a strong focus on ecosystem-based science 

to inform decisions about adapting to climate change. An ecosystem-based approach also provides a broad array of potential 

tools for adaptation to climate change. Climate change interacts 

with and exacerbates other changes, ranging from overfishing to 

nutrient pollution to invasive species and habitat destruction. Removing one or several of these stresses is likely to enhance the resilience of the system to other stresses. 

Equally important is the need to acknowledge that we are likely 

to see surprises as human actions disrupt many fundamental biogeochemical and ecological processes. The now routine appearance 

of dead zones, areas of low or no oxygen on the coasts of Oregon 

and Washington during the summertime, is an example of an unanticipated change with possibly serious consequences. 

What does managing with the expectation of surprises look like? 

These are rich areas for future research and management alike. 

And finally, ocean acidification, which I call the equally evil twin 

of climate change, provides yet another major threat to coastal and 

ocean ecosystems. Getting a better handle on rates of change in 

ocean chemistry and the consequences to marine biota are high priorities. The seemingly persistent hypoxic events off the Pacific 

Northwest coast and this increasing corrosiveness of the water because of acidity are two examples of potential consequences from 

increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. 

In addition, climate change can exacerbate other human-induced 

stresses to aquatic systems, such as those caused by nutrient-loading invasive species and overfishing. As water resources are 

stressed, coastal areas are at increasing risk from sea level rise, inundation, and storm surge. North Atlantic fish populations are 

shifting north due to warmer oceans. And the threat to human 

health increases due to heat stress, air quality, and water-borne 

diseases. 

We must continue to enhance our scientific capacities, including 

research, observation, modeling, predictions, projections, and assessments to ensure that we are providing policy and decision makers, planners, and the public with the best possible science-based 

information to take on the challenges and opportunities posed by 

climate change. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to provide 

you with this review and update of the climate change science and 

ocean acidification. NOAA looks forward to continuing to provide 

national and international leadership, in collaboration with our 

partners, to ensure the solid foundation of climate science and service necessary to inform critical decisions about our future as a Nation and a global society. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Now I know you want to give us a brief demonstration of the 

science. And if you would like, could you please do that at this 

time? And then we will go to questions. 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
36 

Ms. LUBCHENCO. Okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. 

What I would like to do is just start here briefly and then move 

over and describe what I would like to share with you. I greatly 

appreciate the opportunity to not only present the oral testimony 

that I did but to provide a demonstration of some basic scientific 

concepts of ocean acidification. 

Ocean acidification is a global scale change in the basic chemistry of the oceans that is underway now as a direct result of the 

increases of CO2 in the atmosphere. We are just beginning to understand the impacts of ocean acidification on life in the ocean. The 

moniker osteoporosis of the sea gives you a hint about some of its 

impacts. 

The basic chemistry of ocean acidification is understood and is 

not controversial. Here are three basic concepts: Number one, the 

chemistry of the oceans is dependent upon the chemistry of the atmosphere. More CO2 in the atmosphere means more CO2 in the 

ocean. Number two, as CO2 from the air is dissolved into the ocean, 

it makes the oceans more acidic. The resulting changes, number 

three, in the chemistry of the oceans disrupt the ability of plants 

and animals in the sea to make shells and skeletons of calcium carbonate. And those chemical changes also dissolve shells that are already formed. 

So who in the oceans is affected by this? Any plant or animal 

that has a shell or a skeleton made of calcium carbonate. The hard 

parts of many familiar animals, such as oysters, clams, corals, lobsters, crabs such as those on this table, and those on the posters, 

are made of calcium carbonate. Many microscopic plants and animals at the base of the food chain also have calcium carbonate 

shells or skeletons. Some of these microscopic plants and animals 

are so abundant that when they die, they form massive deposits as 

they accumulate on the sea floor. The famed White Cliffs of Dover 

are a familiar example of calcium carbonate or chalk deposits, the 

skeletons of microscopic organisms. 

More acidic ocean water is corrosive to all of these calcium carbonate shells and skeletons, but let me focus on two quick examples. Number one, corals, that provide the fundamental structure 

for the world’s treasured coral reefs, make their skeletons with calcium carbonate. More acidic ocean water makes it harder for corals 

to make their hard parts. If the ocean becomes too acidic, coral 

reefs may well disappear. 

Pteropods, number two, also called sea butterflies, are smallshelled animals about the size of a lentil bean. They occur in the 

millions off the coast of my home State of Oregon, but also 

throughout the world’s oceans. They are a key or the primary 

source of food for juvenile salmon and many other fish around the 

world. Pteropods are particularly susceptible to increasingly acidic 

ocean water, as you will see in a moment. And I mention them in 

part because they illustrate the broader consequences of disruption 

of one part of the ocean ecosystem reverberating throughout other 

parts of the system, potentially affecting jobs, food security, tourism, and more. 

The severity of ocean acidification’s impacts is likely dependent 

in part on the interaction of acidification with other environmental 

stresses, such as rising ocean temperatures, overfishing, and polluVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:04 Dec 14, 2010 Jkt 062520 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A520.XXX A520

jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
37 

tion from the land. Early evidence suggests that some species are 

better able to thrive in increased acidity, but the adaptability of 

most organisms to increased acidity is unknown. 

While our understanding of ocean acidification’s impacts are still 

unfolding, the basic science of how the ocean is acidifying and the 

effects of increased acidity on some marine organisms is well 

known. And I would like to now demonstrate two of the basic concepts that I just mentioned. The ocean does a great service by absorbing tremendous amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. And in fact, the oceans have absorbed already about a third 

of the carbon dioxide that humans have contributed to the atmosphere over the last two centuries. This greatly reduces the impact 

of these heat-trapping pollutant gases on the earth. 

But the carbon dioxide that is absorbed by oceans changes the 

chemistry of sea water, making it more acidic and more corrosive. 

When carbon dioxide dissolves in water, it forms carbonic acid, 

making the water more acidic. And to illustrate how this occurs, 

I brought a vessel of water, some common laboratory blue dye that 

changes color as the acidity in the solution changes, and some dry 

ice, which is simply compressed, frozen carbon dioxide. So I will 

first squirt some of this dye into the pitcher of water, swirl it 

around a little bit. Actually, I was going to do that in this, wasn’t 

I? I will put it in here. Okay. I am just going to add a little more 

dye here. So this dye—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Why don’t you move that microphone over? 

Ms. LUBCHENCO. Do we need the microphone? Can I project without it? So I squirted a little bit of this dye into the water. You can 

see the blue color, which indicates this solution is a neutral level 

of acidity. And to demonstrate that the water absorbs carbon dioxide and that it then becomes more acidic, I am just going to drop 

a few chunks of this dry ice, frozen carbon dioxide, into the water. 

And you can see that the water changes color from blue to yellow, 

telling you that it has become more acidic. 

I have used tap water to demonstrate this concept, but the same 

phenomenon happens with sea water as with tap water. As it absorbs carbon dioxide, the carbon dioxide changes into carbonic acid 

and becomes more acidic. Over the last two centuries, the oceans 

have now become 30 percent more acidic because of the CO2 that 

they have absorbed from the atmosphere. 

The second demonstration that I want to do for you involves— 

I am just going to set this aside. Thank you—illustrates another 

very important principle. And that is that calcium carbonate, which 

is the basic building block of all of these calcifiers, oysters, clams, 

mussels, oysters, those are all made of the same stuff as chalk. 

Now, chalk in the olden days when I was growing up, most chalk 

that we would use in school was pretty pure calcium carbonate. 

Today other substances have been added to it to make it less dusty, 

less breakable, et cetera. So if you want to try this at home, you 

need to get almost pure chalk, which is what this is. 

What I am going to do is to show you what happens to chalk or 

other types of calcium carbonate when it is in regular water, when 

it is in water; half water-half vinegar solution, which is more acidic. As you know, vinegar is a weak acid. So I have combined water 

and vinegar there. And in this container, this is all vinegar. And 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
38 

so we have an increase in the amount of acidity from normal water; 

half water-half vinegar; and pure vinegar. 

And what I want you to notice is that when we put calcium carbonate, chalk, into the water, the same would happen if you put 

it into sea water, nothing happens. This is the way the ocean has 

been for a long time. Shells are fine in water. They don’t dissolve. 

If you put chalk into half water-half vinegar, you can see some 

bubbling start to happen. That is the calcium carbonate that is beginning to dissolve in the weak acid and releasing carbon dioxide, 

bubbles of carbon dioxide. 

And if we put the chalk into pure vinegar, you can see that it 

starts bubbling much more quickly, much more rapidly, and is in 

fact dissolving much more rapidly. So here we have just a couple 

simple demonstrations that illustrate some very basic principles of 

what happens in oceans as they absorb the carbon dioxide that we 

have put into the atmosphere. 

I want to be crystal-clear here: The ocean will never be as acidic 

as vinegar is. I have used it here simply as a visual demonstration 

of what happens when you increase the level of acidity in a solution, what happens to calcium carbonate shells. 

To show you what actually happens in seawater, the seawater 

that is projected to be affected by increased CO2 by the end of this 

century, I have a video clip. And I want to tell you a little bit what 

it shows and then start the clip. 

The first 10 seconds will show you a living, swimming pteropod, 

one of these small animals that I spoke of earlier. It is a beautiful 

creature about the size of a lentil bean. It is incredibly important 

as a food source for juvenile salmon, for mackerel, for pollock, for 

herring. They are very, very abundant in oceans throughout the 

world. After that, you will see what happens to a pteropod in seawater that is the same chemically as seawater that is projected by 

the end of the century. 

So let’s start the video clip, if we could, please. 

And you will see first, once we get to it, impacts of ocean acidification. This is a swimming pteropod, a sea butterfly, swimming 

through the ocean. It is a small-shelled mollusk. This is the way 

it looks naturally. This is a pteropod shell that you will see timelapse photos of what happens to the shell in seawater after 45 days 

projected for the year 2100. 

And, finally, this last clip is an animation illustrating from the 

year 1765 to 2100 the effect of increasing ocean acidity on the 

availability of the calcium carbonate mineral that pteropods, corals, 

and other organisms need to create their shells and skeletons. This 

is under a business-as-usual emissions scenario. And the change in 

color from purple to blue to yellow to red indicates increasing ocean 

acidity and decreasing availability of the calcium carbonate that is 

needed for shells and skeletons. 

Ocean acidity has increased by 30 percent since the beginning of 

the Industrial Revolution just over 200 years ago. This increase is 

100 times faster than any change in acidity experienced by marine 

organisms for at least 20 million years. 

By the middle of this century, it is expected that coral calcification rates will decline by a third. And, at that point, erosion of 

corals will outpace new growth, making many coral reefs 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
39 

unsustainable. And by the year 2100, vast areas of the ocean, ultimately shown here in red, will have reached levels of acidification 

where pteropods, corals, and other important marine species will 

likely be severely compromised. 

So, in conclusion, our understanding of the impacts of ocean 

acidification is relatively new. Roughly two-thirds of the published 

research has come to light since 2004, which is why you probably 

haven’t heard a lot about this issue. 

Thanks to Congress’s action in passing the Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring Act, more attention will be given 

to this subject, particularly by scientists at NOAA and our partners 

at the National Science Foundation and in academia. 

Nonetheless, our fundamental scientific understanding of the 

basic chemistry of ocean acidification is sound. More CO2 emitted 

into the atmosphere will increasingly lead to more CO2 being absorbed by oceans. That will make oceans more acidic. 

And we are now beginning to understand the ocean’s very capacity to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere is being degraded by ocean 

acidification. These mechanisms can only be addressed by decreasing the amount of CO2 that enters the atmosphere. The dramatic 

impacts that ocean acidification can and will have on marine ecosystems are clear. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The statement of Ms. Lubchenco follows:] 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
40 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 66 62520A.020
41 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 67 62520A.021
42 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 68 62520A.022
43 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 69 62520A.023
44 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 70 62520A.024
45 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 71 62520A.025
46 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 72 62520A.026
47 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 73 62520A.027
48 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 74 62520A.028
49 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 75 62520A.029
50 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Lubchenco, very much. 

I think you all brought us back to our sophomore and junior 

years in high school with some of these elemental explanations of 

how our planet works. 

And I think, to a very large extent, you have explained to us why 

just about everyone under the age of 25 wants us to do something 

about this problem, because they have recently been in science 

classes, in high schools, grammar schools, colleges all across the 

country. So they might be a little bit more familiar with this than 

people who are a little bit older. But I think that is why we call 

them the green generation, because they are reflecting the science 

that is being taught them today across our country and across the 

planet. 

So let me begin by recognizing myself for a round of questions, 

and I will begin with you, Dr. Holdren. 

Reconstruction of global temperatures over the last millennium 

show a dramatic rise over the course of this century. That has produced a so-called ‘‘hockey stick’’ graph, which is being questioned 

in some circles. 

Can you clarify for us the evidence that supports the significant 

rise in temperatures over the past century? 

Mr. HOLDREN. Sure. 

When one talks about reconstruction of past temperatures, one 

is talking about using a variety of indicators of what the temperature of the Earth was in the period before we had adequate thermometer measurements to meaningfully determine the average 

surface temperature of the Earth. Those methods include the analysis of bubbles in ice cores, analysis of tree rings, of fossil pollens, 

of sediments, and a variety of other so-called paleoclimatological indicators. 

The hockey-stick metaphor came about when an analysis of the 

last 1,000-plus years of temperature, based on a variety of reconstructions available at that time from these different proxies—the 

ice cores, the tree rings, the sediments, the fossil pollens, and so 

on—came out with a temperature trace that, with some bumps, 

was relatively flat for most of the last 1,000 years and then rose 

rather sharply in the 20th century, indeed, then, extremely sharply. So the thing had the shape of a hockey stick: a long relatively 

flat section and then a steep rise. 

This was the particular graphic that led to a considerable 

amount of controversy at the end of the 1990s and the beginning 

of the 2000s as to whether the particular approaches to developing 

that graph used by the group of scientists who did it and published 

it in the journal Nature in 1998 were absolutely correct. There was 

a flurry of activity at that time, a flurry of controversy about 

whether their statistical methods were right, whether they had 

used the right proxies, whether they had interpreted them correctly. 

It is important to understand that there were a variety of other 

research groups around the world doing proxy analyses and getting 

similar results—with some variations, because proxies are difficult 

to interpret. The different proxy measures typically relate to different specific areas in the world where the proxy indicators have 

been preserved. And you need to merge them together in a way 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
51 

that ultimately makes sense and is scientifically rigorous, and that 

is very challenging. 

But, in the end, as I mentioned before, the effective resolution of 

the controversy was when the National Academy of Sciences conducted a major study looking at all the proxy data sets, all the 

methods that had been used to interpret them. Their results, published in 2006, led to the conclusion which I mentioned before. In 

fact, it was even a little stronger than the conclusion I mentioned 

before. They said it was highly likely that the temperature increase 

of the 20th century was unprecedented in the last 2,000 years. 

There was some greater degree of bumpiness in some of the 

proxy records than the 1998 Nature publication had included. So 

it was kind of a warped hockey stick, but still a hockey stick. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. Thank you, Dr. Holdren. 

And, Dr. Lubchenco, there has been a, kind of, a series of stories 

going around, making the rounds, that the planet is actually not 

warming but cooling, and that evidence over the past decade indicates that we are in a cooling period and not in a warming period, 

historically. 

What would your response to that be? 

Ms. LUBCHENCO. If you look carefully at the climate records, the 

warming that has occurred is not gradual, it is jerky. And you get 

periods of time where there are steep increases and other times 

where it is relatively flat, other times where there are slight dips. 

And the key point here, I think, is to really understand global 

trends you need to look at long enough periods of time that you get 

a clear signal. It is quite possible to have a decade in which you 

see very little change, but if you look at the entire century, you see 

some remarkable changes. 

And, in fact, if I could have the slide that I brought—I was hoping someone would ask this question, so thank you, Mr. Chairman, 

for doing so. And what you will see on this slide are the actual temperature data from, if it will boot, from—thank you. 

You see here, on the far right, data from the last decade— 

whoops, that is not what it was supposed to do. Can we do that 

again? 

Okay. So what I wanted to do—yes, okay. So let’s just do—yes, 

stop right there. Can you go back one? There you go. 

Okay. So this is the most recent data trend. And if you take just 

that period of time, there is no discernible, no obvious trend in 

that. If you then go and take a longer interval of time—next one, 

please—and keep going back through time, you see more and more 

information that gives you a better sense of what the actual, real 

overall trend is. 

And so, in that entire record, it is possible to have some ups and 

some downs. The point is that the overall record is an upward trajectory. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Lubchenco, very much. 

My time has expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 

Wisconsin. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to go back to the e-mails that ended up being placed in 

the public record. And I don’t want to get to whether or not they 

were legally placed in the public record; the question is whether or 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
52 

not they were accurate. Because if they were accurate, it is profoundly disturbing, and it does end up putting into question all of 

the science of climate change. 

Now, the data from the Climate Research Unit at the UEA in 

England is one of only three major data sets, but they considerably 

overlap. And they have been used as a basis for the IPCC report, 

as well as the U.S. Global Change Research Program. And that 

means that these two booklets that were passed out this morning, 

you know, at best, need to have a thorough review in the light of 

this information that has been disclosed. And, at worst, it is junk 

science, and it is a part of a massive international scientific fraud. 

Now, Dr. Holdren, you have been in the middle of a lot of this. 

And I have a couple of questions based upon your statements before you joined the Obama administration. 

You gave an interview in August of 2006 with BBC News in the 

UK. And you said that a sea-level rise of up to 13 feet was in the 

realm of possibility. However, that is 11 feet higher than what the 

IPCC has estimated over this period of time, which is somewhere 

between seven and 23 inches. 

Now, with respect to the hockey-stick theory, which the chairman 

has referred to, that has been pretty much discredited in the scientific community. And yet, in your October 13th e-mail, which is 

now in the public record, you aggressively attacked the two scientists that put this together, a Dr. Willie Soon and a Dr. Sallie 

Baliunas, for that. 

Now, I think it is pretty clear that, in both cases, you were 

wrong. And I guess I would like to know if you are concerned, now 

that you are in the White House and representing all of the public, 

whether you are concerned about the misrepresentation of the state 

of science with respect to global warming. 

And I would also like to know if you still support the principal 

critic of those who trashed the hockey-stick theory, and that is a 

Dr. Michael Mann, knowing of his efforts now to hide his data and 

to encourage his colleagues to shut out journals like Climate Research to publish works contrary to his own bias. 

Mr. HOLDREN. Congressman, let me try to take those in the 

order you asked them. 

And the very first part of your statement, with respect I would 

disagree with you that this current uproar calls into question all 

of climate science. I do not believe that it remotely does that—— 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Well, sir, I didn’t say that. I said it ought 

to be looked at again. And, you know, there is increasing evidence 

of scientific fascism that is going on. And I think, as policymakers 

who are making decisions about the state of the American economy 

for the next several generations, that we ought to have accurate 

science. And it appears there is enough question on whether the 

science we have is accurate. That has to be resolved, and I wish 

we could have done it in this hearing, but the chairman wouldn’t 

let us. But go ahead. 

Mr. HOLDREN. I very much agree that we need to resolve the current issue. It is important to understand what has really gone on 

here, to get to the bottom of it. As I indicated before, that has been 

one of the strengths of science over the years, the capacity to get 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
53 

to the bottom of the controversies that emerge. And I believe we 

will get to the bottom of this one. 

But the key point is, however this particular controversy comes 

out, the result will not call into question the bulk of our understanding of how the climate works or how humans are affecting it. 

You mentioned an interview of mine a few years ago in which I 

talked about the possibility of a sea-level rise in this century as 

much as 13 feet. That was based upon scientific, peer-reviewed 

publications that appeared in the early 2000s that indicated that, 

over geologic time in periods of natural climate change, there had 

been episodes in which the rate of sea-level rise increased by as 

much as two to five meters per century, and that this could not be 

ruled out at the temperatures for which we were heading in the 

21st century as a result of our activity—— 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. But you are still 11 feet above what the 

IPCC is recommending. 

Mr. HOLDREN. Sir, if you will—— 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. My time is almost up, and I would just like 

to, you know, say that there is an awful lot of scientific McCarthyism, meaning name-calling, going on. Because I quote from your 

e-mail of October 13th, 2003, saying, ‘‘Doing this will reveal that 

Soon and Baliunas are essentially amateurs in the interpretation 

of historical and paleoclimatology records of climate change.’’ 

You know, you are not dealing with their issue, you are calling 

them names. And I think we ought to get to the bottom of this 

without having the name-calling. And I wish that you, as the President’s science advisor and a former employee of one of the most distinguished universities in the world, would be able to get beyond 

the name-calling and get to it. 

My time is up, and I yield back. 

Mr. HOLDREN. I would be happy to answer all of the congressman’s questions, if I am allowed. 

The CHAIRMAN. You will be given enough time, but let me turn 

right now and recognize the gentleman from Washington State, Mr. 

Inslee. 

Mr. INSLEE. It is continually stunning to me that people can sit 

and watch the evidence before their eyes of what the seas are going 

to look like in a century that might melt pteropods and somehow 

blow that off and be more interested in e-mails from London. It is 

interesting to me. 

And the only way I have been able to understand is it is that 

some people believe there is a massive global conspiracy that is intent on world domination associated with phonying up information 

about pteropods and the fact that the Arctic is melting. 

So I just want to ask you if you are part of that massive international conspiracy. Are either one of you members of the Trilateral Commission, SPECTRE, or KAOS? I just need an answer. 

Mr. HOLDREN. Congressman Inslee, I am not a member of any 

of those organizations, and I do not believe that there is a conspiracy. 

It would be an amazing thing, indeed, if the academies of science 

of virtually every country in the world that had one and if the 

Earth and planetary sciences departments in every major university that had one around the world were all engaged, together with 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
54 

the United Nations Environment Programme, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and all the other bodies that 

have reviewed this matter, in a conspiracy. 

That really defies imagination, that the great bulk of the scientific community all around the world looking at these matters 

has come to the same conclusion. 

Mr. INSLEE. Well, I will just tell you how I look at this. The National Academy of Sciences has looked at this in great detail, in 

great summary, from a wide variety of data sets, not just from the 

individuals who wrote the e-mails but, in fact, from a wide variety 

of data sets, including information generated by NASA and NOAA 

and a whole host of United States agencies. And they concluded 

that, in fact, both there are changes in the atmospheric climate and 

that there is increasing acidification, or at least NOAA has, associated with CO2. If that is true, isn’t it fair to categorize, as much as we want to 

get people to use the right language in their e-mails, that this is 

a tempest in the teapot coming out of England? Isn’t that a right 

characterization of this? 

Mr. HOLDREN. Well, I think we need to wait until all the facts 

are in to find out exactly what some of these e-mails mean, in 

terms of how the scientists in question behaved. I mean, I would 

point out that scientists are human, and, from time to time, they 

experience frustration, anger, resentment. And, from time to time, 

they display defensiveness and bias and even misbehavior of some 

kind. They are like any other group of human beings, they are subject to human frailties. 

I think the facts are not entirely in on this particular case as to 

how much and what kinds of frailty might have been displayed 

here. 

But the key point is that, when we get to the bottom of it, no 

matter how it comes out, the great bulk of the data on which our 

understanding of the climate system rests will not have been affected. And our basic understanding of where we are, where we are 

headed, and by how much we would need to change course to avoid 

really unfortunate consequences will not have changed. 

Mr. INSLEE. And let me ask you, is there anything about these 

e-mails that affect ocean acidification at all, Dr. Lubchenco? 

Ms. LUBCHENCO. Congressman, I haven’t read all of the e-mails, 

but I have seen nothing in them, in those that I have read, about 

ocean acidification. It really is not an area that is something that 

that particular research group was focused on. 

And, in my view, the e-mails really do nothing to undermine the 

very strong scientific consensus and the independent scientific 

analyses of thousands of scientists around the world that tell us 

that the Earth is warming and that the warming is largely a result 

of human activities. 

Mr. INSLEE. So, let me, if I can—I have some concerns about the 

state of our science that are reflected in the fact that everything 

that I am reading suggests that the predictions were not sufficiently dire as to what we are experiencing. 

Now, I am not a scientist, as you are, but it seems to me the evidence that I am seeing come in—I am looking at this Copenhagen 

Diagnosis report I made reference to in my opening statement— 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
55 

that the Arctic ice sheets are melting much more fast in the summer than we anticipated, that there has been a 40 percent greater 

than average ice sheet melt than predicted in the IPCC report in 

2006, that we have seen an increasing rate in sea rise than was 

expected. 

And, to me, just my lay approaches, the evidence seems to be 

coming in, in the last 24 months, either on the direst end of the 

spectrum that was considered or outside of that spectrum. Is that 

a fair characterization of a huge data set, or what are we to make 

of this? 

Mr. HOLDREN. Well, let me, Congressman, take the opportunity 

of this particular question to answer part of Congressman Sensenbrenner’s, because he referred to the IPCC’s finding in its fourth 

assessment report about sea-level rise. 

In that report, the IPCC made clear that they were only considering the thermal expansion of seawater and a small contribution 

from the melting of mountain glaciers in their sea-level rise estimate for the 21st century, leaving out deliberately the mechanism 

thought to have caused the more rapid rises in sea level that have 

occurred from time to time in the geologic past. 

And the reason they left out those mechanisms that are capable 

of causing more rapid sea-level rises, they explained in their report, 

was that we do not yet understand those mechanisms well enough 

to model them and arrive at the sort of quantitative conclusion that 

the IPCC was emphasizing. And, in addition, we didn’t know at 

that time, we didn’t have enough data to know whether, on balance, the Antarctic ice sheet, the larger of the two, was gaining 

mass or losing mass. 

Since that IPCC report, there has been a great deal of additional 

work on these questions. We now know that both the Antarctic and 

the Greenland ice sheet are losing mass. We know that the rate of 

sea-level rise today is more than twice the rate of sea-level rise 

averaged over the 20th century. 

And the current best estimates of the peak sea-level rise to be 

expected in this century are one to two meters. That is not as high 

as my number from 2006. The advancing science has ruled out the 

high end of that range. But it makes me wrong in 2006 by about 

a factor of two. And it makes the IPCC wrong by a much larger 

factor, by which their numerical estimate understated the possible 

rise of sea level in the century we are now in. 

Mr. INSLEE. Doctor. 

Ms. LUBCHENCO. Congressman, let me just add to that that the 

scientific assessment process that the IPCC uses or that National 

Academy of Sciences uses are inherently conservative. And scientists are, by and large, fairly reluctant to make statements that 

they can’t back up without good data. 

And I think the sea-level rise example is a classic case in point. 

Scientists knew when they were projecting a 23-inch sea-rise increase by the end of the century that there were important factors 

that they couldn’t account for, but they couldn’t include them because they didn’t understand them well enough. And so they erred 

on the side of caution. 

And I think we see this over and over in many of the IPCC conclusions. They are inherently conservative. And so, when the reVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:04 Dec 14, 2010 Jkt 062520 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A520.XXX A520

jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
56 

ality plays out, it is sometimes more than what was predicted because of that need to have agreement and levels of certainty. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Great. The gentleman’s time has expired. The 

Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Michigan. 

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And I have listened very closely. I think it is all very interesting 

listening to you all and some of the other questions, as well, from 

members of the panel here. 

I am not a scientist, but I don’t question that the Earth climate 

is changing. You know, we used to have dinosaurs, and there is 

still a lot of debate about what happened to the dinosaurs. Then 

we had the Ice Age; there was a lot of debate about what happened 

during the Ice Age. 

I was noticing an article in one of our papers just the other day. 

They are doing some studies in Lake Superior along the Pictured 

Rocks, and they are indicating that they think a couple of thousand 

years ago the water levels there could be anywhere as much as 50 

or 60 feet higher than they are currently. 

So the climate of the world is never static. It is never going to 

be static. The climate is going to change. And, for me, the question 

is, as you say, the science is—I am paraphrasing what Dr. 

Lubchenco said—that the science is incontrovertible, that it is unequivocal, that the climate change is human-induced or human-produced. And that is the question that I am struggling with. 

That is why I think all of these e-mails coming out are very interesting. I think it is unfortunate that anybody that questions the 

ideology, the absolute science that man is creating all of this is 

somehow—that we don’t care about the planet, I mean, it is ridiculous. And I think it is unfortunate that that happens. But, whatever. 

I do think that the question, as I say, for me is whether or not 

it is human-induced, particularly when this Congress has been 

travelling down a path with cap-and-trade legislation that is going 

to, in my opinion, decimate the American economy and that of my 

State. 

I think that we look at these e-mails—and, you know, it is an 

attempt, in many cases, just to silence any dissent, which I think 

is very unfortunate. And I will just read one. I am not sure if the 

ranking member read this previously. 

But here is one. You know, there weren’t e-mails during the Dinosaur Age, by the way, either, or the Ice Age. But here is an email saying, ‘‘I think we need to stop considering the Climate Research journal as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. And perhaps 

we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to or cite papers in this journal.’’ 

How ridiculous. How unfortunate that here is this Climate Research journal that, if they question the incontrovertible science, 

that they are, you know, just dismissed and made to feel as though, 

you know, they can’t even question this. I think it is a travesty. 

And I do recognize that the e-mails are an inconvenient truth, 

perhaps are an embarrassment, particularly on the brink of Copenhagen. But I think one of the most important jobs of the Congress 

is to exercise its oversight responsibilities. And because of these eVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:04 Dec 14, 2010 Jkt 062520 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A520.XXX A520

jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
57 

mails, because, in my opinion, there is at least a debate, a debate 

on whether or not climate change is human-induced or man-produced—for instance, I was just reading the other day that, in Indonesia, where the peat moss is naturally composting, that that is the 

third-largest producer of carbon dioxide in the planet, more so than 

many other kinds of things. I am not sure how our cap-and-trade 

legislation is going to address that. You know, as I say, the climate 

is never going to be static. 

So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I guess I would just use my time 

here again to ask that this committee consider a hearing into this 

climate-gate debate that is exploding around us. 

And I would also ask of Dr. Holdren, who made a comment—you 

said that you thought that the uproar should be resolved. And I 

guess I would just ask you, how? Do you think we could do that 

without completely being dismissive of anyone that would ask such 

a question, in light of all of these e-mails? And how would you 

think it could be resolved with the best transparency and with the 

interests of the American people and our economy, certainly, at 

heart? 

Mr. HOLDREN. Absolutely, I think it can be resolved. And I think 

it can be solved without name-calling and without being dismissive. 

Notwithstanding occasional exceptions, there is a long history of respectful and civil debate among scientists who have differing views 

on many of the details of virtually any issue. 

In this particular case, one already sees a very substantial 

amount of activity of scientists who are going to be looking at these 

data, who are going to be looking to try to understand what the emails are really saying, who are going to reexamine the questions 

that were at issue then. 

I think there is no question that this will happen whether or not 

this committee or any other holds a hearing on the subject. That 

is the way the science community works. When results are called 

into question, scientists flock to the scene, as it were, in order to 

figure out what was really going on there and what the best approximation to the truth we can get at at the current state of understanding is. 

And that is current constantly changing. One needs to understand that, as new information becomes available, anybody who is 

a good scientist looks at the new information in the context of the 

old information and tries to develop a better picture of what is happening. I believe that that will happen here. 

Ms. LUBCHENCO. Congresswoman, may I offer a comment? 

Mrs. MILLER. Certainly. 

Ms. LUBCHENCO. Could I draw your attention to page 6 of this 

document? There is a figure here that I think addresses the very 

important question that you asked earlier. And that is, what is the 

human contribution to global climate change, and how do we know 

if humans are having an influence? 

You are absolutely correct that climate has changed a lot in the 

past. We have good evidence of that. We have been able to model 

those changes and understand more through time about what the 

natural changes are and what factors are influencing them. 

This particular figure shows what the climate would be doing 

without the additional carbon dioxide that humans have put into 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
58 

the atmosphere, along with other greenhouse gases. And that is 

what is shown in this blue—the dark blue band. This is 1900 to 

2000. 

Mrs. MILLER. If I could, I know my time has expired. Let me just 

ask you, does that graph take into consideration what is happening 

in Indonesia? And do you consider what is happening in Indonesia 

man-induced? 

Ms. LUBCHENCO. There are many sources of carbon dioxide, some 

of which are natural and some of which are a result of changes in 

land-use practices, so they are affected by human activities, as well 

as burning of fossil fuels. 

And these kinds of analyses take into account our current understanding of the sum total of emissions from multiple sources. And 

they tease apart what is the human contribution from what would 

be happening naturally. And there is clear evidence that what is 

happening now is strongly influenced by human activities. 

Mrs. MILLER. I am not sure if that was a yes or no, but my time 

has completed. Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Sullivan. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you both for being here. 

I was going to ask first about the e-mails too. Do you think the 

scandal—and there seems to be a culture of corruption in the scientific community right now on these e-mails and manipulation of 

data, for a purpose to get their own results, do you see that as a 

problem, yes or no? 

Ms. LUBCHENCO. Congressman, I don’t believe that the exchanges that you saw are typical of the broader scientific community. 

Mr. HOLDREN. I would add that I, too, do not believe that these 

e-mails are remotely sufficient to demonstrate a culture of corruption in the scientific community. They are e-mails from a relatively 

few people involved in a particular controversy that was attended 

by a good deal of frustration and anger. And as to exactly what 

went on in the way of manipulation of data, I think that remains 

to be seen. 

To the extent that there was manipulation of data that was not 

scientifically legitimate—and I emphasize that scientists manipulate data all the time in order to make them comprehensible and 

consistent. But if there was manipulation of data that was not scientifically legitimate, yes, I regard that as a problem, and I would 

denounce it. 

And I think, again, that the merit of the scientific system is that, 

over time, it tends successfully to unearth those kinds of instances, 

to unmask them, and to correct them. That is what I assume will 

happen here. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, since we do now know that some people are 

manipulating data and are trying to pervert the system for this 

final analysis, do you both support an independent investigation 

into this? 

Mr. HOLDREN. I am not sure an independent investigation, if you 

mean by the Congress of the United States, is the right way to get 

at scientific truth. I think the scientific community has well-estabVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:04 Dec 14, 2010 Jkt 062520 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A520.XXX A520

jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
59 

lished mechanisms for doing that, and I believe they have already 

been set in motion by these disclosures. 

We will find out what went on there. It is not clear, at this 

point—I haven’t read all the e-mails either. It is not clear, at this 

point, what some of them mean. I would point out, for example, 

that the term ‘‘trick’’ is often used in science to describe a clever 

way to get around a difficulty that is perfectly legitimate. The use 

of the word ‘‘trick’’ does not, in itself, in science demonstrate that 

there was manipulation. 

I think we need to hear all sides of the story before we decide 

what happened there. If it turns out there was improper manipulation, again, I would denounce it, and I would be grateful that the 

scientific process had run its course and disclosed it. If this committee or others want to have hearings that end up calling as witnesses people, scientists who are involved in trying to sort that out, 

I think, of course, that is fine. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Now, both of you are scientists. What is the—we 

were talking about manmade and natural causes of CO2. If you 

could just, really quickly, simply break down how much is manmade and how much is natural, percentage-wise? 

Mr. HOLDREN. Well, first of all, what you need to understand is 

the natural flows of carbon dioxide in and out of the atmosphere— 

out of the atmosphere by photosynthesis and by absorption in the 

oceans, back into the atmosphere from outgassing from the oceans 

and by the decomposition or combustion of organic matter—have 

largely been in balance for a long time. 

They are currently in the range of something like seven or eight 

times the human input. But the problem is that the natural input 

and uptake has been in balance and the human input has driven 

the system out of balance and is leading to an accumulation of additional carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. 

This is extremely well-understood scientifically. Nobody disputes 

this particular point in science. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. But it is at least seven or eight times greater than 

the manmade cause. 

Mr. HOLDREN. Yes, but it is in balance. It is in and out. And so, 

the fact that the flows are greater—— 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Here is one on these sea creatures and everything. It says that the ocean absorbs approximately 25 percent of 

the CO2 to the atmosphere from human activity each year. So if 

seven or eight times more is naturally caused, if you eliminate the 

human beings from the Earth and all human activity, would ocean 

acidification still occur? It wouldn’t? 

Mr. HOLDREN. It would for the time required to take the excess 

out of the atmosphere that has accumulated there. In other words, 

the oceans are not yet in equilibrium with what we have done to 

the atmosphere, but they will get there. 

Ms. LUBCHENCO. Congressman, I think what you are asking is, 

if humans were not putting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, wouldn’t the oceans already be absorbing some? And the answer is yes, but they would also be using some of the carbon dioxide, and it would be in balance. 

What is different now is that humans have contributed now 

about 30 percent of the carbon dioxide that is in the atmosphere. 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
60 

And some of that has been taken up by oceans, making them more 

acidic. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. But isn’t one of the ocean one of the biggest 

emitters? 

Ms. LUBCHENCO. The oceans and the land both release CO2 and 

take it up. And that process has been in balance over millennia, 

and that continues. What is happening is that humans are adding 

more to the atmosphere and more to the oceans. So the total 

amount of CO2, it is being redistributed because of our activities. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. So if 97, 96 percent of the emissions are natural 

and 4 percent are manmade, we have a responsibility for that 4 

percent. But even if we eliminated it, isn’t it a little arrogant to 

think that we could manipulate the entire process? 

Ms. LUBCHENCO. We have manipulated the entire process. I 

think that is the point. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Oh, I know you have, on the numbers and stuff. 

Ms. LUBCHENCO. So human activities have—— 

Mr. SULLIVAN. You have said that you guys can make any data— 

I know that. I see it in my opponents with polling data. I know how 

that works. But—— 

Ms. LUBCHENCO. These are not data that somebody has pulled 

out of the air or out of their heads. They are measurements. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. You also have said that fish have moved to warm 

spots, and they are moving—it is in the Atlantic. You said the fish 

are moving? 

Ms. LUBCHENCO. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Okay. Don’t they always move to a warmer spot? 

Ms. LUBCHENCO. What is changing in the oceans is where it is 

warm. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. But doesn’t that—it does change. I mean—— 

Ms. LUBCHENCO. Many fish move. Most fish and many other species stay in the type of water in which their physiological performance is the best. 

What we are seeing now is that, because oceans are warming 

overall, the places—if you look at a place on the coastline, for example, in California, the places that used to be a certain temperature are now warmer. And so, species that used to live there are 

moving northward to stay in the temperature zone that they would 

have been in previously. So species are moving in response to the 

changing distribution of heat in the ocean. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. And, Doctor, you said in your testimony, or you 

stated before that sea levels—— 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired—— 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. You can complete your question, if you would 

like. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Oh. At sea levels, with the data you have interpreted, will rise 11 feet by the year—— 

Mr. HOLDREN. No, I did not say that. I said that was a possible 

outcome, an upper limit on the amount of sea-level rise based on 

understanding of the processes that was available at the time. 

It is now considered that the upper limit on sea-level rise in this 

century is about two meters or a little over six feet. And that is 

what I now say because that is what the current science says. 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
61 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Six feet does sound like a very large increase in the water levels 

of the planet. 

The gentlelady from Tennessee, Mrs. Blackburn. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I want to thank each of you for submitting your testimony 

in advance. 

We have had multiple hearings this morning for the Energy and 

Commerce Committee, so I have been upstairs in a mammogram 

hearing over the controversy that came there. 

And I do have a statement, Mr. Chairman, that I will submit for 

the record. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it will be included. 

[The statement of Mrs. Blackburn follows:] 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
62 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 101 62520A.030
63 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 102 62520A.031
64 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. And since I didn’t give that, I will just take all 

of my time in questions. How is that? 

But, Dr. Holdren, I wanted to talk with you. I was delighted that 

you were here. Some of the e-mails that have come out recently 

from CRU indicate some animosity, I guess would be the best way 

to describe it, in research for the medieval warm period, the research by Dr. Soon. 

And I wanted to see if you would elaborate on your intentions 

in those e-mails. 

Mr. HOLDREN. The great bulk of scientists who have looked at 

these questions concluded a long time ago that the medieval warm 

period was a regional phenomenon and not a global phenomenon. 

The arguments by Soon and Baliunas, to the contrary, fared very 

badly in the scientific community, in terms of the rigor and validity 

of their arguments. And that is the reason that they were often disparaged in discussions of this matter, in particular because they 

continued to espouse the view that the medieval warming period 

was a global phenomenon long after evidence to the contrary became persuasive to everyone else. 

One of the characteristics one expects of scientists is to change 

their mind when data and analysis show that they were wrong the 

first time. I changed my mind about the maximum sea level possible in the 21st century when the analysis and the data changed. 

And that is what we expect from others. When that doesn’t happen, 

a degree of frustration and anger often materializes because of a 

concern that people are simply muddying the water by repeating 

discredited hypotheses. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Okay. Well, let’s apply that statement, then, 

looking at the climate change data that has been lost. And do you 

think that the climate change data has been compromised since 

there was original data lost by CRU? 

Mr. HOLDREN. Yeah, I think that is unfortunate. Whenever any 

original data are lost, that is a misfortune. It is unfortunate that 

it happened. I wish it had been prevented. 

I think the robustness of all of the data sets we have available 

to us is sufficient to survive that loss, but I do regret the loss. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Well, if further review on all of this shows that 

the IPCC report in 2007 used corrupted or tainted data, what do 

you think they ought to do about it? Should they be willing to go 

back and say, ‘‘You know, we are going to have to change our mind 

on this because we used corrupted data or we didn’t give the whole 

picture or science; if you look at the whole thing, it proves us 

wrong’’? 

Mr. HOLDREN. To the extent that it is shown that data were corrupted and influenced conclusions of the IPCC, of course those conclusions should be revised. And the IPCC, in every successive report that it produces, which is roughly every 5 years, revises a 

whole variety of conclusions it reached in the previous assessment 

because new information has become available. 

It is, of course, unfortunate if the new information that becomes 

available is that data that were previously used were corrupted. 

But, in terms of the outcome, the revision of the findings based on 

new information is the same. Scientists do that all the time. The 

IPCC does it, and they will do it. If it is determined that any conVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:04 Dec 14, 2010 Jkt 062520 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A520.XXX A520

jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
65 

clusion of the IPCC was based on data that were corrupted, you 

can be sure that those conclusions will be revised in the next assessment. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. We have done some hearings, I think it was in 

2005, we did some hearings in the Energy and Commerce Committee on the hockey-stick theory and Dr. Mann’s hockey-stick theory. And I know Dr. Wegmann and the National Academy of 

Sciences have made comments that Dr. Mann didn’t use proper statistical methods in his research on that. What is your opinion 

there? 

Mr. HOLDREN. I think there is reason to believe that some of the 

statistical methods that Dr. Mann used were not the best for the 

purpose. The Academy pointed that out. And it, nonetheless, concluded that his basic finding that the last 50 years were the warmest half-century in the last 1 to 2,000 years was nonetheless robust. 

And, again, I would point out that arguments about what are the 

best statistical techniques to use are pervasive in the scientific 

community. And it is no surprise that one has a difference of opinion. It is no surprise that a scientist may have made a mistake in 

the method chosen to analyze a particular data set. Again, the key 

thing about science is not that scientists are always right; it is that 

they fix their mistakes over time. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Well, let me ask you this. I know that some 

of the scientists who have come before us and they advocate limiting greenhouse gas emissions also have stated they think that 

maybe the global temperatures have stopped rising over the past 

10 years even though the greenhouse gas emissions have increased. 

So how do you go about explaining that discrepancy, when you 

look at what is natural, what is manmade, what is cyclical, how do 

you explain that? 

Mr. HOLDREN. Well, first of all, I think, Congresswoman, before 

you came in, Dr. Lubchenco explained a diagram that is on the 

board that actually addresses that question. 

And the key point is that the climate and the surface temperature of the Earth fluctuates all the time for a wide variety of reasons, most of them natural. What we are seeing is superimposed 

on those natural fluctuations a long-term trend of increasing global 

average surface temperature of the magnitude and of the sort expected to result, according to both theory and models, from the increases in carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping substances that 

humans have imposed on the atmosphere. 

If you look at the actual temperature data—and I have in front 

of me the NOAA data set for the global average surface temperatures through 2008—what you see is that 9 of the 10 warmest 

years in the 140-year thermometer record, the period of time since 

1880 when we have had enough thermometer measurements 

around the land and the ocean to meaningfully define a global average surface temperature, 9 of the 10 warmest years in that period occurred since 1998. 1998 itself was the second warmest year 

in the record; 2005 was the first warmest. All 15 of the warmest 

years in the 140-year record occurred since 1990. 

You look at the numbers, you do see a bump, as you see up there 

on the screen in the far right, where, in the last few years, there 

is no discernible upward trend. But this is completely consistent 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
66 

with having natural fluctuations, natural ups and downs superimposed on a long-term warming trend associated with greenhouse 

gases. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, can I ask one other part on the 

question? 

The CHAIRMAN. We will have a second round. The gentlewoman 

went 8 minutes on the—8 minutes and 15 seconds. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington State. 

Mr. INSLEE. Dr. Holdren, you have testified several times, listening to you, that, given the extensive review by the National Academy of Science and using information based from NOAA, NASA, 

and a whole host of other data sets, that there is no reason to revise their fundamental conclusion that humans are contributing to 

changing climate, and NOAA not to change a fundamental conclusion that the oceans are becoming more acidic. 

Mr. Sensenbrenner suggested that there is some scientific fascism, and that is a quote. Is there any evidence of fascism in the 

NOAA organization, of scientific fascism associated with this? 

Mr. HOLDREN. I am not even sure exactly what that term would 

mean, but I don’t—I am not aware of any cabals, conspiracies, misbehavior in the characterization and use of data in NASA or 

NOAA. 

Mr. INSLEE. Well, I tell you, it is troublesome to me the people 

who put the men on the moon, the people who discovered water on 

the moon, the people who are doing great research figuring out how 

the oceans are becoming acidic, some of whom are my constituents, 

it is disturbing to me that people would come to this chamber and 

call them fascists. I have to tell you, I have a problem with that. 

I don’t think that is right. 

These men and women are doing the best they can to provide us 

data and conclusions to the best of their ability. And they, through 

their professional work, have reached a very, very strong consensus 

on these scientific issues, who are working for Uncle Sam. And I 

think that is wrong to say that about them. 

And there is a little emotion in my voice because I have seen in 

my neighborhood what this phenomenon is doing. I would like to 

be able to catch salmon, and my grandkid—who celebrated his first 

birthday Sunday—to catch salmon that live on pteropods maybe 50 

or 60 years from now. And when people watch what I watched and 

say that this is just a big scientific fascist conspiracy that are ginning this stuff up, I have a problem with that. 

I will just ask you, Dr. Lubchenco, I was at a pier in Seattle 

about 6 months ago when a NOAA ship docked. And it had a bunch 

of NOAA scientists on it who were investigating the rate of acidification off the Pacific coast. 

And when they were explaining to me their findings, their jaws 

were kind of agape, because what they told me is that the rate of 

acidification was stunning to them, particularly in the shallow waters off our Pacific coast. They explained to me, as I understand 

this correctly, the waters are more acidic the lower in the water 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
67 

column they have been, but now very acidic levels are becoming 

very close, within 150, 200 feet of the surface. 

And this was shocking to them. And the only explanation they 

had was that CO2 was going into the atmosphere and disturbing 

the equilibrium of this process. It has been going on for eons. 

Could you tell us about what your information is about that? 

Ms. LUBCHENCO. Mr. Congressman, I think the rate of change in 

ocean acidification has surprised many people. 

And it is absolutely the case that off the west coast of the United 

States, where winds blow along the coastline and push the surface 

waters away from the coast, which pulls up cold, nutrient-rich, lowoxygen, and lower-pH water to the surface, that that is where we 

are seeing some of the greatest increases in acidity happening 

around the world. 

And it is of deep concern because those areas, as you well know, 

are historically very, very rich. Our wonderful productive fisheries 

off that area are, in large part, a consequence of this upwelling. 

Mr. INSLEE. I appreciate that. 

I want to ask, is there anybody in this room, including the two 

witnesses and my Republican colleagues and my Democratic colleague, is there anybody in this room who has information to suggest that the oceans are not becoming more acidic? Has anybody 

got information like that? Anybody? 

Has anybody got an explanation why the oceans are becoming 

more acidic, other than the fact that there is massive amounts of 

carbon dioxide going into the atmosphere? Has anybody got an explanation for that? 

I haven’t heard any, and yet people are trying to gin up this controversy because—you know why? It is not because they are not intelligent. It is because they are afraid that we can’t solve this problem. And I think if we had a little more confidence in ourselves and 

our ability to solve this problem, we would open our minds to the 

scientific information that is becoming available to us. 

And this idea of equilibrium—I will just try one more—I don’t 

know why it is so hard for people to understand the idea of equilibrium. To me, it is like this. Is this a fair metaphor? A guy goes 

to a doctor. He says to the doctor, ‘‘I gained 10 pounds.’’ ‘‘Well, have 

you changed your behavior at all?’’ ‘‘Yes. I have started eating a 

huge banana split at lunch and dinner every single day.’’ And he 

goes, ‘‘Well, it is obvious. You have been eating more food.’’ And he 

goes, ‘‘No, no, it’s not the banana split. Look at all the other food 

I have eaten. It is the other stuff. That is 85 percent of my caloric 

intake.’’ 

That is 85 percent of the CO2 that is going into the atmosphere. 

Don’t look at the banana split, don’t look at the coal-fired plants, 

don’t look at the cars. Is that kind of a metaphor for what we are 

facing here? 

Mr. HOLDREN. Not bad. 

Mr. INSLEE. Not bad, huh, for an amateur. 

Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
68 

I do appreciate Mr. Inslee’s metaphor. But let me say that the 

controversy over the leaked e-mails and their contents cannot be 

ignored, because it goes to the very basis upon which this debate 

has gone on for the last several years. And I see an awful lot of 

attempts by people in this room to shove that concern under the 

rug. I am telling you now, it will get worse rather than getting better. 

And I will define what I mean by ‘‘scientific fascism.’’ These emails trash the scientific conclusions by those who have disputed 

Dr. Mann’s hockey-stick theory. There are information in the emails that the publication, Climate Research, in which they were 

published, ought to be boycotted because they weren’t doing the politically correct thing. And I understand that the editor of Climate 

Research ended up getting fired as a result. 

Now, there is intimidation in the scientific community by people 

who wish to be contrary to what the conventional wisdom is. And 

we are being asked as a Congress to make major changes in American society in energy use and on how much the out-of-pocket cost 

is to every person in this country as a result of this debate. 

And we in Congress better get it right. The scientists may be 

able to change their story and do more research on it, but, once 

Congress passes a law, it will be as difficult to repeal the consequences of that law as putting milk back into the cow. 

We know all about cows in Wisconsin. Now, the denial has not 

stopped, because 6 weeks ago, on October 27th, Michael Mann 

wrote an e-mail that says in part, as we all know, this isn’t about 

truth at all; it is about plausibly deniable accusations. We need to 

know the truth here before we can legislate in the name of the 

American people. 

Now, Dr. Holdren, given the fact that you were involved in the 

e-mail traffic that has been released from the University of East 

Anglia in England and the discrediting of the Soon, and I am mispronouncing, Baliunas, study on the hockey stick theory, and it has 

been considerably discredited, how can you be objective on this 

when you are testifying before Congress, advising the President, 

and speaking to the American public? 

Mr. HOLDREN. First of all, Congressman Sensenbrenner, let me 

say that science is rough. Scientists are brutal in criticism. Anybody who has ever taken a doctoral exam in natural science understands that very well. So there is nothing unusual about strong 

language in criticizing results of others that one has concluded are 

deeply wrong. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. But you are defending the results of others 

that have since been proven right. 

Mr. HOLDREN. Let me finish answering the question—— 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. How can you be objective? 

Mr. HOLDREN [continuing]. If I may. We are all, when we testify, 

doing so on the basis of the best information available to us at the 

time as scientists. The notion that one cannot be objective because 

one has concluded that a particular study by particular people was 

deeply flawed, and that was my conclusion from reading the study 

by Soon and Baliunas, that it was deeply flawed, and that has been 

the conclusion of the great bulk of the rest of the community, that 

being so, I cannot be expected to be unbiased as to the merit of 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
69 

that particular study. I am biased by study. I am biased by having 

read it, studied it, and understood what is wrong with it. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. And I respect your opinion on that. But it 

seems to me that other people ought to look into this. 

Now, I want to ask you a question that you can answer yes or 

no. You are the science adviser to the President. And I would like 

to ask you to guarantee Congress that you will provide the public, 

including us, access to all documents prepared with government 

funding relating to science change. And that includes studies that 

the IPCC has either gotten or utilized, so that nobody can wiggle 

out of this by saying that the IPCC is exempt from this because 

they are an international body. Will you give us that information 

and then allow the public, including other scientists, to be able to 

see it? After all, the taxpayers have paid for it. 

Mr. HOLDREN. I am not sure what all you are asking, Congressman, but I am absolutely in support of the public and the taxpayers having access to the results of research that they paid for. 

The only constraints on that are research classified for national security reasons or research that is incomplete. It is a problem where 

people insist on the release of data that scientists have not yet 

even finished assembling, because this leads to interpretations immediately on the basis of an incomplete picture. 

But once research is complete and is published in the peerreviewed literature, or is submitted as a report for use by government policymakers, I do believe that all of the data behind that, 

all of the methods, all of the analysis should be made available to 

the Congress, the public, the taxpayers, yes. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. You will be getting a few letters from us 

to that effect. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Let me put up two charts here. The first chart is just a chart reflecting what Dr. Lubchenco and you, Dr. Holdren, have referred 

to, which is this dramatic spike which has been created in the 

amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. This seems to be an incontrovertible fact. No one actually denies this. It is measurable. And 

it correlates almost directly with the industrialization of not only 

our country, but Europe and increasingly in China and India, as 

the amount of CO2 emitted globally has increased. And in fact, in 

2009 the trend is that this will be a warmer year than last year 

was. And so the spike is going back up again, if all data up until 

the end of November continues on for the concluding month of this 

year. So we can see this trend. And it has gone unabated since the 

rise of the industrial era. 

Now I will show you another chart. This is a chart of the number 

of 40 home run hitters in Major League Baseball from 1920 until 

today. Now, the average was 3.3 players were averaging over 40 

home runs per year, from 1920 until the 1990s, which is why Ted 

Williams and Willie Mays and Babe Ruth were so famous that they 

could hit more than 40 home runs. Then, all of a sudden in the 

1990s, there was a huge spike in the number of people hitting more 

than 40 home runs. Now Major League Baseball said, well, you 

know, perhaps the players are getting stronger. Others said, well, 

perhaps the baseballs are juiced. 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
70 

But once a steroid testing program was put in place over the last 

3 years, an amazing thing has happened. There was a precipitous 

drop in the number of 40 homerun hitters back to normal levels. 

An artificial substance injected into players, a huge increase in the 

number of home runs. But once it was removed, we went back to 

normal levels again. Now, some people of course are arguing that 

the new normal was people hitting more than 60 home runs and 

70 home runs. Huh? Well, it turns out that the testing program 

brought it down dramatically once we dealt with the reality of the 

science of what was going on in baseball. 

Well, here we have the same trend, but we have yet to inject the 

solution, that is the reduction in the amount of CO2 being emitted 

by the United States, by Europe, and by other parts of the world. 

That is our challenge. It is incontrovertible. Artificial substance put 

into man or nature causes big differences. And so these spikes are 

very, very coincidental, huh? 

Now, there were deniers in Major League Baseball. They said, 

oh, no, steroids has nothing do with it. And by the way, Major 

League Baseball wanted to go along with it in the same way that 

the coal industry, the oil industry, other fossil fuel industries want 

to go along with the myth that nothing really abnormal is happening. But the consensus of the science in the world, the National 

Academy of Sciences of every country in the world is that this spike 

in CO2 is manmade and that it is causing dramatic changes in our 

oceans, to our glaciers, in the Arctic, in the villages of Alaska that 

see their permafrost melting and their villages falling into the 

ocean, and droughts being created around the world. And all of this 

evidence is basically so massive that there is no way to avoid it. 

And so what the minority has decided to do, what the deniers, 

what the oil and coal industry want to do is to use the few e-mails 

of a few people who are doubting this science, which is a consensus 

around the country, as a way of trying to cast doubt, the same way 

Major League Baseball did, on the undeniable correlation between 

the injection of these artificial sources into the atmosphere are having on our planet. 

And so, you know, we can continue this pretense and we can use 

a small number of e-mails, I suppose, to have a larger debate. But 

I think that it would be better for us to accept the science, to accept 

this curve, to basically deal with the reality that the minority has 

no answer for why it has spiked so dramatically, why it is going 

back up again this year. They sit over here using a couple of emails as a reason why we should stop all efforts to deal with this 

catastrophic threat to our planet. And so since no alternative theory has been presented—at least baseball said, well, the players 

are getting stronger, huh, that was their answer, but everyone who 

was looking at it was saying, how can they be so much stronger 

than the players just 5 years ago? Well, that is the same thing that 

is happening with this CO2 trend. Okay? There is no explanation 

for it, other than that it is manmade. 

And by the way, you can say, well, it is not that big. What is the 

difference? A degree or two. Well, a kid has a temperature of 98.6 

normally. Well, you add a couple of degrees temperature to that 

child, and they are at 100.6. The doctor says, well, you have been 

at that new normal for 14 days now, so don’t worry about it, 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
71 

ma’am, your son Joey, he is going to be fine. The new normal is 

100.6. Well, who would ever accept that as an answer because it 

was only a 2-degree change in the child ? 

Well, that is what we have got here for the planet. A 2-degree 

change in the overall temperature of our planet is just as catastrophic as it would be for a small child who had received no medical attention because the doctor had concluded, or a small number 

of doctors would say the child can live with the new normal of 2 

degrees higher. What parent would ever run that risk of not giving 

treatment to that child? And that is what we are talking about 

here. 

Yes, there is a normal temperature for the planet. But you add 

on 2 more degrees, 3 more degrees, it is catastrophic. You get the 

consensus, as Dr. Holdren is saying, that there is a 6-foot rise in 

the sea level of our planet; that is not frightening enough for the 

other side. They want to know why it is not 11 feet anymore. Well, 

6 feet has such catastrophic consequences for Alaska, for the Everglades, for Boston, for Cape Cod, for Southern California, that it is 

almost unimaginable what changes would have to take place in our 

country. Okay? 

So what is the answer? Again, we keep saying, what are you saying is the answer to why this is spiking so dramatically? Where is 

your evidence? Just by casting doubt with a few e-mails on a consensus globally and a century-wide study of this subject—— 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Would the gentleman yield? 

The CHAIRMAN. No, I will not yield at this time—is not going to 

deal with this issue. Okay? These scientists are our best people in 

our country. And they are joined by thousands of others, not only 

here but across the world, in their construction of their analysis. 

There is no alternative theory that the minority is proposing other 

than that which we know has been funded by the oil and coal and 

other industries that want to continue business as usual. 

Now, we have tried to construct in the Waxman-Markey bill an 

alternative way in which these issues could be dealt with. And they 

of course don’t want to deal with that issue because they would 

prefer their denial. 

What I am going to say to you, Dr. Holdren, if you could, is I 

would like you to go through the other points that you would like 

to make in response to the questions that were raised by Mr. Sensenbrenner in his opening question of you. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. You are a little bit over. 

The CHAIRMAN. Which I have allowed all of the minority members to do so. And it is the courtesy I have extended to each minority member, I am going to extend to myself. 

Dr. Holdren. 

Mr. HOLDREN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think actually 

we have gone through the main points in the further discussion of 

sea level rise. And I wouldn’t have anything further I feel I need 

to add. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay, thank you, Dr. Holdren, very much. 

Mr. Sullivan, do you have any additional questions? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. No, I don’t. 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
72 

The CHAIRMAN. You do not. Okay. Well, then I will allow any 

written questions that would be posed to the witnesses to be made 

by members who were not here. 

We thank our two witnesses for their testimony here today. It is 

extremely valuable at this time in our planet’s history for the two 

of you to be working for our country and for the world. It is an 

honor for us to have you here today. We thank you for your distinguished service. 

With that, this hearing is—the gentle—Dr. Lubchenco, would you 

like to be recognized? 

Ms. LUBCHENCO. The gentle doctor? Mr. Chairman, thank you 

very much for this opportunity. I especially appreciate the extra 

time to do this demonstration. And I might draw everyone’s attention to sort of the final results of the status of the chalk in the 

three different solutions just to bring the message back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Would you summarize the status in the three 

jars? 

Ms. LUBCHENCO. The chalk that is in the water only has not 

changed at all. The chalk that is in the half water-half vinegar is 

dissolving. And the chalk that is in the total vinegar has dissolved 

quite substantially, and will continue to do so. 

The CHAIRMAN. We thank the expert testimony that we received 

today. Again, there is a part of us that really needs to go back to 

sophomore and junior year in high school so we can get a briefing 

once again on the essential science that affects our planet. We 

thank you for everything that you have done here today. With that, 

this hearing—— 

Mr. HOLDREN. And we thank you, Mr. Chairman, and we thank 

the committee. 

The CHAIRMAN. We thank you. This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
73 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 123 here 62520A.032
74 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 124 here 62520A.033
75 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 125 here 62520A.034
76 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 126 here 62520A.035
77 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 127 here 62520A.036
78 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 128 here 62520A.037
79 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 129 here 62520A.038
80 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 130 here 62520A.039
81 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 131 here 62520A.040
82 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 132 here 62520A.041
83 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 133/200 here 62520A.042