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

62–590 2010

THE FOUNDATION OF CLIMATE SCIENCE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SELECT COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY INDEPENDENCE 

AND GLOBAL WARMING 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 6, 2010 

Serial No. 111–17 

( 

Printed for the use of the Select Committee on 

Energy Independence and Global Warming 

globalwarming.house.gov 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD 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

MICHAEL GOO, Staff Director 

SARAH BUTLER, Chief Clerk 

BART FORSYTH, Minority Staff Director 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Pages 

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. Jackie Speier, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 6 

Hon. John Sullivan, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, prepared statement .................................................................................. 8 

WITNESSES 

Dr. James Hurrell, Senior Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research .................................................................................................................... 9 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 11 

Answers to Submitted Questions .................................................................... 112 

Dr. James McCarthy, Professor of Biological Oceanography, Harvard University ......................................................................................................................... 31 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 34 

Answers to Submitted Questions .................................................................... 126 

Lord Christopher Monckton, Chief Policy Adviser, Science and Public Policy 

Institute ................................................................................................................ 56 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 58 

Supplement to Testimony, PowerPoint Slides ............................................... 62 

Answers to Submitted Questions .................................................................... 134 

Dr. Chris Field, Director, Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution 

of Washington ....................................................................................................... 66 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 68 

Dr. Lisa Graumlich, Director, School of Natural Resources and the Environment, University of Arizona ................................................................................ 78 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 80 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL 

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

the email exchanges of the University of East Anglia climate scientists, 

entitled ‘‘Climategate Emails.’’ ............................................................................ 85 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

(1) 

THE FOUNDATION OF CLIMATE SCIENCE 

THURSDAY, MAY 6, 2010 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE

AND GLOBAL WARMING, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:40 a.m., in room 2237, 

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward J. Markey (chairman 

of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Markey, Blumenauer, Inslee, Cleaver, 

Speier, Sensenbrenner, Shadegg, and Sullivan. 

Staff present: Ana Unruh Cohen and Jonah Steinbuck 

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning. 

Welcome to the Select Committee on Energy Independence and 

Global Warming. All eyes are focused on the economic and environmental disaster unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico. The BP oil spill 

is causing an immediate human and ecological tragedy. The spill 

is yet another dramatic example of why we must find alternatives 

to oil. 

The American people are desperate for safe, clean energy alternatives, solutions that add jobs, end our oil addiction and heed the 

warnings of climate scientists who have called for pollution reductions. Eleven people tragically lost their lives in the BP rig explosion, and for the past week, an estimated 5,000 barrels of oil a day 

have been leaking into the ocean. As a result, the Gulf Coast fishing, seafood and tourism industries are bracing for the worst. Wildlife refuges and marine sanctuaries remain in harms way. 

Congress will keep a vigilant eye on BP’s efforts to stop the leak 

and clean up this environmental mess. However, the visible oil is 

not the only carbon pollution we have to worry about. Once gasoline is burned in our cars and trucks, carbon dioxide is released 

into the atmosphere. We can see the oil slick in the Gulf from 

space, but it is the buildup of invisible carbon dioxide in our atmosphere that is preventing heat from escaping back into space. 

Even as carbon dioxide’s concentration in the atmosphere has 

been accumulating, so has our scientific understanding of its effects 

and impacts. Based on over 150 years of scientific research, a clear 

picture has emerged of rising temperatures, increased droughts, severe rain storms and an acidifying ocean. 

Those who deny global warming point to past uncertainties that 

have been refuted. They ignore the overwhelming observational 

evidence that the increased levels of heat-trapping pollution are already warming the planet. Instead of trying to understand the 

science, they use stolen e-mails about analysis of tree rings in SibeWReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

2 

ria to turn an honest discussion into a Russian tree ring circus. Or 

they manufacture a cooling trend by cherry-picking a few years out 

of a longer record of warming temperatures. 

While the deniers hope to confuse the public, the real-world consequences of inaction mount. Over the weekend, killer storms blew 

through Tennessee, Mississippi and Kentucky. In Nashville, nearly 

13 inches of rain fell in just over 2 day’s time, almost doubling the 

previous record that fell in the aftermath of a hurricane in 1979. 

These storms follow the wettest March on record in Boston. Two 

50-year storms occurred within two weeks of each other. The National Guard was mobilized. Hundreds of people were evacuated 

from their homes. The region suffered millions of dollars in damages. 

No single rain storm can be attributed to climate change, nor can 

a snowstorm disprove its existence. But the underlying science and 

the observed trends do point to more extreme weather events, especially heavy precipitation events because a warmer atmosphere can 

hold more moisture. Extreme rainfall is just one of the consequences of the carbon pollution we are releasing into the air. 

Our witnesses today will explain how science has revealed this 

unseen pollution for what it is and discuss the very real consequences of its continuing accumulation in the atmosphere. As we 

approach summer, our clean energy debate needs to acknowledge 

what many would like to deny: Our dependence on oil carries with 

it national security, economic and environmental risks. As gas 

prices rise and the oil slick spreads, perhaps we will finally acknowledge that we cannot drill our way to energy independence. 

We have 2 percent of proven oil reserves in the world. 

Perhaps we can also acknowledge the basic facts that have been 

known for decades, increasing carbon pollution in the atmosphere 

is warming the planet, and that the only way to put a halt to such 

warming is to move to a clean energy solution. 

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

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

[The prepared statement of Mr. Markey follows:] 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

3 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 8 62590A.001
4 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 9 62590A.002
5 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I thank the Chairman. 

When global warming alarmists tried to advance their agenda a 

decade ago, they pointed to a damning graph in the 2001 IPCC report that showed a sharp rise in temperatures over the past century. This graph is commonly known as the hockey stick, and it did 

a good job of scaring a lot of people, especially politicians. But the 

authors of the Hockey Stick may not have done a good job with 

their math. At least that is what a couple of enterprising researchers thought. And in double-checking the hockey stick data, Stephen 

McIntyre and Ross McKitrick showed that it wasn’t as solid as previously thought. 

Lately, a lot of people have been taking a second look at the socalled settled science of climate change. Data collected by NASA 

may not be reliable as once believed. And the Climategate scandal 

shows, at best, that some researchers did everything they could to 

prevent review of their work, and at worst, they outright sought to 

manipulate data. 

The debate on the accuracy of climate science is good for science. 

Proclamations that the science is settled are just politics. The 

shortfalls in the scientific record could have expensive consequences. Proponents of expensive regulatory reform must understand that they need more than political victories. 

The EPA’s burdensome regulatory regime must be based on 

sound scientific foundation. The EPA’s regulations will be predicated in large part on the IPCC’s most recent report. So far, the 

list of errors in that report includes: One, a sloppily sourced claim 

that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035; two, reliance on 

an unpublished study to claim the world has suffered rising costs 

due to catastrophic weather events, where the author later said 

there was insufficient evidence to support the claim; three, stating 

that 55 percent of the Netherlands is below sea level when, in fact, 

only 26 percent is; four, failing to support the claim that Africa’s 

agricultural output would be produced by 50 percent by 2020; and 

five, an unsupported claim that Bangladesh will be 17 percent 

under water by 2050. 

A citizen’s audit of the IPCC study found that 5,587 cited references, nearly a third of all the sources, were not peer-reviewed 

publications, but rather gray literature, such as press releases, 

newspaper and magazine articles, discussion papers, master’s and 

Ph.D. theses, working papers and advocacy literature published by 

environmental groups. These sources lack authoritative scientific 

rigor and are more often than not intended as propaganda. 

This week, the InterAcademy Council said that it had picked the 

12 member committee to conduct an independent review of the 

IPCC’s procedures. Hopefully the review will result in new methodologies that will give the public more confidence in the panel’s 

conclusions before it releases its fifth assessment in 2014. 

The Climategate scandal brought serious questions about the reliability of data compiled by the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. These e-mails showed a clear bias, a systematic suppression of dissenting opinion, intimidation of journal editors and journals that would publish articles questioning the socalled consensus, manipulation of data and models, and possible 

criminal activity to evade legitimate requests for data and underWReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

6 

lying computer holds filed under freedom of information acts. One 

of these e-mailers called Steven McIntyre a bozo for trying to hold 

him accountable for his work. 

Dr. McIntyre also reviewed NASA’s temperature data sets. His 

work resulted in forcing NASA to change its history of U.S. temperature data to show that 1934, not 1998, was the hottest year on 

record. Another study shows that NASA may have cherry-picked 

weather stations to favor those that would produce higher temperatures that produce a record that is warmer than truthful. Internal 

e-mails also showed that at least one senior NASA scientist raised 

questions about the accuracy of that agency’s temperature data set. 

The IPCC report relies heavily on the CRU and NASA data to 

support its conclusions. And the questions raised about these data 

sets raise even more questions about the accuracy of the IPCC’s 

study. A report issued today by the Select Committee Republican 

staff shows that the EPA is violating its own rules by relying so 

heavily on the IPCC report. Both the EPA and the Office of Management and Budget guidelines state that an agency must base 

any regulatory proposal on science that is clear and transparent. 

OMB guidelines further state that simply because a study is peerreviewed doesn’t mean that it fulfills the requirement that the results are transparent and replicable. 

I want to welcome here today Lord Christopher Monckton, the 

Chief Policy Advisor of the Science and Public Policy Institute. By 

helping to check and double-check the scientific literature, Lord 

Monckton is helping to improve the state of climate science. 

And I look forward to hearing both his perspective and the perspective of the other witnesses today. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. We thank the gentleman. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. 

Blumenauer. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I will just reserve my time for 

the inquiry. As inviting as my good friend’s—from Wisconsin—comments were, I would rather save it. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. The gentleman will reserve his time. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington State, Mr. 

Inslee. 

Mr. INSLEE. I will reserve as well. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time is reserved. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Cleaver. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Out of guilt, I will reserve as well. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. Speier. 

Ms. SPEIER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am not going to reserve. 

I am glad we are holding this hearing on the science of climate 

change. I welcome our scientific witnesses here today, and I look 

forward to relying on their expertise as we address the increasingly 

dire and challenging impacts of global warming. 

I am from the San Francisco Bay area, where our most recognizable icon is the Golden Gate Bridge. A little known fact, however, 

is just next to the bridge is our Nation’s oldest tidal gauge, a 150 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

7 

year-old station that has given us the longest continuous tide 

record in the Western Hemisphere. The gauge shows an increased 

sea level rise of 8 inches over the past century. And the rate of that 

sea level rise has increased and is expected to accelerate further. 

In fact, the area is referred to as ground zero for sea level rise. San 

Francisco airport and surrounding communities could be under 

water by the end of the century. 

We in the Bay Area live on the edge. We know the seriousness 

of this problem for our ecosystem, our infrastructure and our coastal and shoreline communities. In light of these most basic observations of our changing planet, acting on global warming in the here 

and now is just plain common sense. 

That said, the complexity of how we act on these changes demands our utmost attention. The sharp, tried and tested knowledge 

of our top scientists must be the foundation for our efforts to solve 

the climate crisis. I am pleased we have some very qualified individuals here. 

And once again, I expect to learn much more from their testimony. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

And all time for opening statements by the members has been 

completed. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sullivan follows:] 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

8 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 16 62590A.003
9 

STATEMENT OF JAMES W. HURRELL, PH.D., SENIOR SCIENTIST AND CHIEF SCIENTIST, COMMUNITY CLIMATE 

PROJECTS, CLIMATE & GLOBAL DYNAMICS DIVISION, NATIONAL CENTER FOR ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH; JAMES J. 

McCARTHY, PH.D., ALEXANDER AGASSIZ PROFESSOR OF BIOLOGICAL OCEANOGRAPHY, HARVARD UNIVERSITY; LORD 

CHRISTOPHER MONCKTON, THIRD VISCOUNT MONCKTON 

OF BRENCHLEY, CHIEF POLICY ADVISER, SCIENCE AND 

PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE; CHRISTOPHER B. FIELD, PH.D., 

DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF GLOBAL ECOLOGY, CARNEGIE 

INSTITUTION FOR SCIENCE, C-CHAIR, WORKING GROUP II 

OF THE IPCC; AND LISA J. GRAUMLICH, PH.D., PROFESSOR 

AND DIRECTOR, SCHOOL OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND 

THE ENVIRONMENT, THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 

The CHAIRMAN. We will now turn to our first witness this morning. He is Dr. Jim Hurrell. Mr. Hurrell is a senior scientist within 

the Climate Analysis Section of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. 

His research focuses on climate variability and human-caused climate change. He has contributed to the Intergovernmental Panel 

on Climate Change, the IPCC assessments. He is also actively involved in the International Research Program on Climate Variability and Predictability. Dr. Hurrell holds advanced degrees in atmospheric science from Purdue University. He is a fellow of the 

American Meteorological Society. 

We look forward to hearing your testimony, Dr. Hurrell. Whenever you are ready, please begin. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES W. HURRELL, PH.D. 

Mr. HURRELL. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Sensenbrenner, and other members of the Select Committee, I thank you for the opportunity to 

speak today on observed and likely future changes in climate and 

the contribution from human activity to those changes. 

Although uncertainties exist, significant advances in the scientific understanding of climate change now make it clear that 

there has been a change in climate that goes beyond the range of 

natural variability, and this change is almost certainly due to 

human activities. This conclusion is drawn from multiple lines of 

evidence published in thousands of thoroughly reviewed scientific 

studies by many different investigators and independently assessed 

by many groups, including the U.S. National Academy of Science. 

The fact is that the globe is warming dramatically, and this 

change is already affecting both physical and biological systems. 

Global surface temperatures today are almost 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than at the beginning of the 21st century, and the 

rates of temperature rise are greatest in recent decades: 14 of the 

last 15 years are the warmest globally since 1850. And the last decade is .4 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the 1990s. There is a 

very high degree of confidence in these numbers. Urban heat island 

effects, for instance, are real but very local, and they have been accounted for in the analysis. 

There is no urban heat effect over the oceans where warming has 

also been very pronounced at both the surface and at depth. MoreWReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

10 

over, warming ocean waters expand and thus contribute to sea 

level rise. Observed and accelerating melting of glaciers, icecaps, 

and ice sheets are also contributing by adding water to the ocean. 

Instrumental measurements of sea level indicate that the global 

average has increased over the last century and the rate of sea 

level rise is increasing. Global sea level rise is probably the single 

best metric of accumulative global warming since it integrates the 

reactions from several different components of the climate system 

and is accurately observed from satellite instruments. 

Changes in global temperature or sea level do not imply however 

that changes are uniform around the globe. Regional differences 

arise from natural variability, and these effects can be large from 

year to year or even decade to decade. For instance, a historically 

large El Nino event helped make 1998 one of if not the warmest 

year on record, while strong El Nino conditions contributed to relatively cooler worldwide conditions in 2008. Simply connecting 

these two data points in time, as was shown in the graph, has been 

done by some to misleadingly argue global warming has ceased, ignoring the fact that the longer-term temperature trend is clearly 

upward, and the years since 2000 have remained among the warmest on record. 

Because of such natural variations in the climate system, climate 

scientists expect occasional but temporary slowdowns in the rate of 

warming, even while greenhouse gas concentrations continue to increase. Climate models also predict such a behavior, and today’s 

best climate models are able to reproduce many of the observed 

changes in climate observed over the past century. 

Climate models are not perfect. Uncertainties arise from shortcomings in our understanding of climate processes and how to best 

represent them in models. Yet the best climate models are extremely useful tools for understanding and determining the factors 

that are driving the observed warming. 

And the results are clear, the surface warming of recent decades, 

along with many other changes in climate, is mainly a response to 

increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, 

which now far exceed pre-Industrial values. 

In summary, the scientific understanding of climate change is 

sufficiently clear to show that climate change from global warming 

is already upon us. Many impacts are evident, and they will grow 

larger with time. 

Uncertainties do remain, especially regarding how climate will 

change at regional and local scales. But the climate is changing, 

and the rate of changes projected exceeds anything seen in nature 

in the past 10,000 years. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to address the committee, 

and I look forward to answering any questions. 

[The statement of Mr. Hurrell follows:] 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

11 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 22 here 62590A.004
12 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 23 here 62590A.005
13 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 24 here 62590A.006
14 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 25 here 62590A.007
15 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 26 here 62590A.008
16 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 27 here 62590A.009
17 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 28 here 62590A.010
18 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 29 here 62590A.011
19 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 30 here 62590A.012
20 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 31 here 62590A.013
21 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 32 here 62590A.014
22 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 33 here 62590A.015
23 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 34 here 62590A.016
24 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 35 here 62590A.017
25 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 36 here 62590A.018
26 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 37 here 62590A.019
27 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 38 here 62590A.020
28 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 39 here 62590A.021
29 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 40 here 62590A.022
30 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 41 here 62590A.023
31 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Doctor, very much. 

Our second witness today is Dr. James McCarthy. Dr. McCarthy 

is a professor of biological oceanography at Harvard University. He 

served as co-chair of the Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability 

Portion of the IPCC report published in 2001. He was also one of 

the lead authors on the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. Dr. 

McCarthy received his Ph.D. from Scripps Institution of Oceanography. He is a former president of the American Association for the 

Advancement of Science, a fellow of the American Academy of Arts 

and Sciences, and a foreign member of the Royal Swedish Academy 

of Sciences. 

We welcome you, Dr. McCarthy. Whenever you feel ready, please 

begin. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES J. McCARTHY, PH.D. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

Good morning, Chairman Markey, Ranking Member Sensenbrenner, and other members of the committee. 

You asked us to address four questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Could you move that microphone in just a little 

closer, please? 

Okay, thank you. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. You asked that we address four questions. And 

I have done this in my testimony, and so I will very briefly run 

through my responses to those questions. 

You asked that we talk about observations. How do we know 

that the climate is changing? What evidence do we have for attribution of these changes? And what are some of the anticipated impacts? And then, finally, you asked how climate scientists should 

be furthering the understanding of climate change? 

So, I am an oceanographer. I have worked on all the oceans in 

my career. Ocean temperatures are changing in a way that could 

not have been imagined when I began my career as an oceanographer. I distinctly remember a day in 1986 when someone walked 

into my office and showed me the first graph suggesting ocean temperatures were changing. 

Now people ask, how confident are we of these changes? If we 

look at the first slide, and these are the four graphics from my testimony, this shows the array of sensing instruments that are employed in the ocean today. This is a snapshot from last month. 

There are over 3,000 buoys that have sensing devices that profile, 

move up and down in the upper ocean to depths of 6,000 feet, and 

they report their data by satellite to shore stations. So this is how 

we are tracking today the changes in ocean temperature, and are 

very confident that they are responding to the climate system. 

We know now that more than 90 percent of the heat that has 

been trapped in the atmosphere by the accumulated greenhouse 

gases is being stored in the ocean. The oceans are an intricate part 

of the climate system. 

Now I would like to say something about sea level rise, which 

has already been introduced by my colleague. In 2001, when the 

IPCC report was put to bed, it was estimated that sea level rise 

over the present century would be relatively modest, perhaps as 

small as 12 to 24 inches. But it was also not known how rapidly 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

32 

ice in Greenland and ice in the Antarctic could contribute to sea 

level rise. If you thought of a block of ice sitting on the counter and 

imagined turning up the temperature of the room, you would imagine it would melt faster; that would be true. But what we didn’t 

understand is how it could become unstable and begin to lose ice 

to the ocean, and once in the ocean, the ocean is warmer than the 

ice, it would melt even more rapidly. 

So if we look at estimates of sea level rise today, first, if you look 

at the next graph, you can see, if you go back to 1990, which is 

where the three dotted lines begin to span off to the right, these 

were the projections in 1990 of sea level rise for the IPCC. And you 

notice the red lines, which are the tide gauge data referred to earlier by Congressman Speier, we see the blue line. These are the 

data which are now available from satellites, which are tracking 

ocean elevation far more precisely for global computation than local 

estimates at tide gauge stations. And you will see that the blue line 

extends up to the upper part of this curve, and the three bounds, 

the upper, the middle, and the lower lines, or the dotted line, were 

the estimates in 1990. In other words, the IPCC underestimated 

quite starkly the rise in sea level. 

We now know data, just in the last handful of years, how rapidly 

Greenland and Antarctica are changing. And best estimates of sea 

level rise now for this century are between 2.5 and 3 feet. 

If you look at the next slide, you can see in the bars at the bottom, the lower, higher emission, and even higher emission scenarios for the IPCC, and on the left are the sea level rise that was 

projected in feet. And the circles at the top show what would be 

estimated today if you included the melt from Greenland and Antarctica. And from this, you would see this estimate I gave of 2.5 

or 3.5 feet. 

Next I would like to comment briefly on ocean chemistry. The 

carbon dioxide added to the ocean changes the balance in the mineral composition of what we call the carbonate system. Organisms 

in the ocean that make shells, whether they are snail-like animals 

that swim, there are one-celled plankton that have shells, we call 

them foraminifera and coccolithophorids, or corals; all make these 

shells out of calcium carbonate. Calcium carbonate is in a very, 

very delicate balance in the ocean. The organism is taking the dissolved constituents out of the water, making its hard shell, but the 

water is trying to pull it back in the solution and trying to redissolve it. The organism is constantly working to excrete material; 

the ocean is trying to dissolve it. As you add carbon dioxide to the 

ocean, you change the composition, change the relationship, with 

this buffering system. It becomes more corrosive. That is referred 

to as ocean acidification. 

We know now the rates at which this is changing are faster than 

any time, any time in the history that we can reconstruct over the 

last several million years. Now, just finally, I am going to say 

something about the distribution of organisms. This is very close 

to where Congressman Markey and I live, which shows in the 

lower graph how the distribution of cod would change with the 

warming that is expected. 

Let me just conclude by saying that these changes are in the scientific literature beyond all bounds of historic record. And I would 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

33 

just like to comment with an opinion, in response to your last question, that I think that climate scientists have an obligation to do 

everything we can to help convey clearly this message to the public. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. McCarthy follows:] 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

34 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 48 62590A.024
35 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 49 62590A.025
36 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 50 62590A.026
37 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 51 62590A.027
38 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 52 62590A.028
39 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 53 62590A.029
40 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 54 62590A.030
41 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 55 62590A.031
42 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 56 62590A.032
43 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 57 62590A.033
44 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 58 62590A.034
45 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 59 62590A.035
46 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 60 62590A.036
47 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 61 62590A.037
48 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 62 62590A.038
49 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 63 62590A.039
50 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 64 62590A.040
51 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 65 62590A.041
52 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 66 62590A.042
53 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 67 62590A.043
54 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 68 62590A.044
55 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 69 62590A.045
56 

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

Our third witness is Lord Christopher Monckton. 

He is chief policy advisor for the Science and Public Policy Institute. He holds a diploma in journalism from the University College 

Cardiff. He has worked as an editor at various news outlets, including the Universe, the Telegraph Sunday Magazine, Today 

newspaper, and the Evening Standard. 

From 1982 to 1986, he was an advisor to UK Prime Minister 

Margaret Thatcher and gave policy advice on a variety of issues. 

He is the founder and director of Christopher Monckton, Limited, 

which consults in public administration. 

We welcome you, sir. Whenever you are ready, please begin. 

STATEMENT OF LORD CHRISTOPHER MONCKTON 

Mr. MONCKTON. Mr. Chairman, sir, and Ranking Member Sensenbrenner, it is a pleasure to see you both again and also many 

other faces on your committee. 

Thank you for having the courtesy to ask me to testify in front 

of you. I am going to testify, not of course as a scientist, because 

I am not one, but as a policy maker. And the role of policy makers 

when confronted with scientists is to know what questions to ask. 

And I am going to raise one or two questions now about some of 

the evidence you already heard. 

If you look at the slide now before you, that slide purports but 

does not demonstrate that the rate of global warming is itself increasing. This is taken from the IPCC’s 2007 report where it appears three times, large and in full color. However, it relies on a 

bogus statistical technique which is applying multiple trend lines 

to a single stochastic data set. And if you choose your starting and 

ending points carefully enough, you can make it go in any direction 

you want. 

This graph is regularly relied upon by Mr. Pachauri of the IPCC. 

I challenged him on it recently in Copenhagen. It is also relied 

upon by the EPA. It is defective, as I shall now show. 

Next one, please. This graph is the same data, but this time with 

different trend lines on it. From 1905 to 1945, you will see that the 

temperature rose faster than from 1905 to 2005. Does this mean 

that the rate of global warming is slowing down? No, it doesn’t. But 

this graph and the previous one are bogus, but they are using the 

same technique on the same data to produce opposite conclusions. 

That is why the IPCC should not have used that first graph, which 

has been so heavily relied upon. 

Let us now see what the true position is. Next slide, please. You 

will see, in fact, there have been three periods of quite rapid warming over the last 150 years, 1860 to 1880; 1910 to 1940; and 1976 

to 2001. Those three rates of warming are exactly parallel. Recently when Senator Vitter questioned Mr. John Holdren about 

this, he tried to claim that the third rate of increase was greater 

than the other two. It isn’t. They are exactly parallel at roughly 1.6 

Celsius per century. 

Now, we can’t explain what caused the first two rapid rates of 

warming because we didn’t have the instrumentation to find out. 

However, in the satellite area, to the right of the green vertical line 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

57 

there, we are able to observe what caused most of the third piece 

of rapid warming. 

Next slide, please. 

And this is from a paper by Dr. Pinker and her colleagues in 

2005 showing a very rapid increase in what is called global brightening, the amount of sunlight actually reaching the surface of the 

earth, enough global brightening, in fact, to cause a warming of 1 

Celsius degree, though only .37 Celsius degrees was noticed over 

that 18-year period. So if anyone tries to tell you that we cannot 

explain the global warming over the last 30-years except by reference to carbon dioxide, this graph and many others like it in the 

scientific literature should suggest otherwise. 

Next slide, please. 

And if we now include that data from Dr. Pinker, together with 

the various forcings and temperature increases from the individual 

greenhouse gases, we will see that what we end up with is a fourfold overstatement of the rate of increase in global temperature 

that was actually observed if we use the IPCC’s methods to calculate what the warming would have been, a fourfold exaggeration. 

Next slide, please. And this result is confirmed most recently by 

Professor Richard Lindzen and his colleague Yong-Sang Choi in a 

paper published in 2009 and published again this year, showing 11 

models all predicting various rates of warming from 1.4 to infinity 

Kelvin if you double CO2 concentration. Next slide, please. The reality however is just .7, which is less than a quarter of what the 

UN would predict for a doubling of CO2 concentration. 

The conclusion from this is that we can explain the warming by 

other methods. Not very much warming is going to happen, and 

therefore, one should be very careful before spending money—next 

slide, please—on cap and trade, because even if we were to shut 

down the entire global economy for 23 years, all you would forestall 

is 1 Fahrenheit degree of global warming, even if the UN is right 

in estimating the amount of warming from CO2. Therefore, the correct policy is to have the courage to do nothing. You will lose nothing thereby. There are many other problems to address. I would 

recommend you address those and not this. 

[The statement of Mr. Monckton follows:] 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

58 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 75 here 62590A.046
59 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 76 here 62590A.047
60 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 77 here 62590A.048
61 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 78 here 62590A.049
62 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 79 here 62590A.050
63 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 80 here 62590A.051
64 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 81 here 62590A.052
65 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 82 here 62590A.053
66 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Lord Monckton, very much. 

Our fourth witness today is Dr. Chris Field. Dr. Field is the 

founding director of the Carnegie Institution’s Department of Global Ecology. He is also a professor of biology in environmental earth 

science at Stanford University. He was a coordinating lead author 

for the 2007 fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change. Currently he is co-chair of the Impacts, 

Adaptation, and Vulnerability Portion of the upcoming IPCC report. Dr. Field received his Ph.D. from Stanford in 1981. Among his 

many distinctions, he is a member of the National Academy of 

Sciences. 

We welcome you, Dr. Field. 

STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER B. FIELD, PH.D. 

Mr. FIELD. Thank you, Chairman Markey, Ranking Member Sensenbrenner, and other distinguished members of the committee. 

What I would like to do today is take a couple of minutes to talk 

about observed changes in the climate system. I won’t be focusing 

at all on projections, but only things that have been observed and 

are clear in the record. 

If I could have the slides, please. 

As Dr. Hurrell has said, it is very clear that during the period 

when we have had good instrumental records from weather stations, the global climate has warmed. The record you see here is 

the land temperatures from all the world’s meteorological stations. 

Since the late 19th century, the warming has been about 1.5 Fahrenheit, with all of the warmest years in the record in the last 

dozen; 2009, based on the data from the NASA Goddard Institute 

for Space Studies, was the third warmest year on record. 

If we look at the United States, next slide, please, you see a very 

similar pattern but with a lot more jumpiness, as you would expect 

for a region that represents only about 2 percent of the planet’s 

surface. 

What I would like to do is spend a couple of minutes talking 

about whether there are other ways we could infer whether or not 

the climates change. Is nature telling us how climates change? And 

the next slide, please, gives an overview of what the IPCC has concluded. 

We have a wide range of observations, now spanning many decades, on a tremendous number of physical and biological systems. 

These are things like, what are the locations of the snouts of glaciers? What are the times when buds burst or when flowers flower? 

The IPCC examined a bunch of these records and concluded that 

there were over 29,000 statistically significant changes in these 

physical and biological systems. And then it said, well, which of 

these are changing in the direction that is consistent with climate 

change being the forcing, and which are changing in the direction 

that is not consisting? The overwhelming conclusion is that the 

vast majority of these natural thermometers are indicating that 

global warming is occurring. 

Fully 94 percent of the statistically significant changes in physical systems are consistent with global warming. Fully 90 percent 

of the statistically significant trends in biological systems are consistent with global warming. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

67 

One couldn’t look at any single one of these trends and conclude 

that it is proof that the climate system is warming. But when you 

step back and look at all 29,000, there is a tremendous level of confidence in the numbers. 

Now, a lot of these trends are issues that don’t necessarily have 

a lot of traction on human systems, but I want to focus on three 

that do. Next slide, please. 

Most States in the American west get at least half of their water 

supply for summertime from snowpack. And we have seen dramatic 

changes in the water content of the spring snowpack, the April 1st 

snowpack, over the last 50 years. In the Pacific Northwest, there 

has been a decrease of about 30 percent. In the interior ranges, 

there has been a decrease of about 20 percent. This is the water 

supply that water-short regions depend on in order to make it 

through the summer, and over the last 50 years, we have seen profound decreases. 

Next slide, please. 

Another impact that is really clear from the data is that wildfires 

have been increasing across the American West and that the frequency of wildfires is strongly sensitive to temperature anomalies. 

What you can see in the plot is that the black line tracing annual 

temperature almost traces precisely the variation in the number of 

wildfires. Essentially, the risk of wildfires goes up dramatically as 

the temperature goes up. 

A third observed trend I want to talk about is in the next slide. 

And this is the trend of observed changes in the days with the 

heaviest precipitation. What you can see is that, from the middle 

of the last century, there has been a 67 percent increase in the 

days with the heaviest precipitation in New England. Over all of 

the eastern U.S., there has been at least a 20 percent increase in 

days with heavy precipitation. Heavy precipitation is essentially 

the driving force for the kinds of floods that we have seen in Tennessee recently. 

We can’t look at any single weather event and ascribe it with 100 

percent confidence to climate. But what we can see is that this 

kind of change in the climate system is increasing the risk of damaging weather events. 

You know, I think that all of us would agree that you can’t get 

in a car with a bald tire and have confidence that you are going 

to have an accident, but you can say that you would consider the 

risk unacceptable. With climate, I think it is very clear that we 

have now pushed the system to a point where it basically has four 

bald tires and a flashing ‘‘check engine’’ light. Thank you very 

much. 

[The statement of Mr. Field follows:] 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

68 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 88 here 62590A.054
69 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 89 here 62590A.055
70 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 90 here 62590A.056
71 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 91 here 62590A.057
72 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 92 here 62590A.058
73 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 93 here 62590A.059
74 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 94 here 62590A.060
75 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 95 here 62590A.061
76 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 96 here 62590A.062
77 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 97 here 62590A.063
78 

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

And our final witness today is Dr. Lisa Graumlich. 

Dr. Graumlich is the director of the School of Natural Resources 

and the Environment at the University of Arizona. Her research focuses on the interplay of global climate change and natural resources management. She has also directed the University of Arizona’s Institute for the Study of Planet Earth and Montana State 

University’s Big Sky Institute. Recently she served on the Oxburgh 

inquiry panel that reviewed the scientific work of the University of 

East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit following the release of private e-mails of some of their scientists. 

Dr. Graumlich received her Ph.D. from the College of Forest Resources at the University of Washington. She is a fellow of the 

American Association for the Advancement of Science. 

We welcome you, Dr. Graumlich. 

STATEMENT OF LISA J. GRAUMLICH, PH.D. 

Ms. GRAUMLICH. Chairman Markey and Ranking Member Sensenbrenner and the rest of the members of the committee, thank 

you so much for inviting me to speak with you today in this very 

important hearing. 

In what I am going to say today and in my written testimony, 

I have focused on the observational record of current and past climate variability. And I do that as a tree ring scientist, as a 

dendrochronologist by training. And I want to spend a moment 

talking a bit about the kind of perspective that one brings to this 

question as someone that has looked at tree ring records of the 

past. 

And I am going to take you back in time 20 years, when I was 

an assistant professor at UCLA. As a tree ring scientist, I was off 

to the Sierra Nevada to look for very, very old trees, and in fact 

found them, very, very old Foxtail Pines, a relative of Bristlecone 

Pines, high up at the upper tree line in the Sierra Nevada. But 

what shocked me when I got there was not the old trees, I expected 

to find those there, but as you went above the tree line, there were 

very large dead trees, I mean very large dead trees, above current 

tree line. Not just a couple, hundreds of them. And what that 

meant was that, in previous eras, tree line had been higher, implying that temperatures had been warmer. 

So as a trained tree ring scientist it turns out that we can very 

accurately date the innermost rings of those dead trees that tells 

us when the trees were established and the outermost ring with a 

little sort of 50 year or so error because of the loss of sap which 

tells us when those trees died. So what we know is over the last 

3,000 years, tree line was higher, and then somewhere around 950 

A.D., there was this massive die-off, and tree line reestablished at 

the current rate. 

So I went back to the lab, started looking at those data and 

started to also reflect on the fact that if you thought about those 

dates, those dates were very consistent with the time in which the 

Norse Vikings colonized Greenland and Iceland. And the dates at 

which my trees died were about the same time as those colonies 

failed. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

79 

So, recall this is 20 years ago, there were two outcomes. One is 

that I became fascinated with, what caused this long-term variability in climate? But the second outcome that is apropos today was 

that I was very much struck by the fact that, when I described my 

research to the public, it was very clear that it appeared to them 

that I had this very strong ability to say that, yes, current climate 

trends were well within the envelope of natural variability because 

I had trees in Sierra Nevada and historical data in the North Atlantic. 

That is not climate science. That is assembly of a couple of justso stories that tell us something about climate at two places on the 

surface of the earth. And what has happened subsequently is that, 

along with dozens of colleagues, we have very carefully scanned the 

earth for other kinds of high-resolution proxy data; tree ring 

records, historical documents, speleothems, ice cores, any number 

of barb sediments, if you try to understand how they reflect or 

don’t reflect temperature data. 

In doing that, we discovered that in fact there were a couple of 

other places around the globe that had this medieval warm period, 

in particular the Eurasian part of the Arctic and parts of, of course, 

the North Atlantic and the western part of the U.S. 

In other places, like the Northwest, the tropical Pacific, temperatures were also cooler during the so-called medieval warm period, 

and that this, dozens and dozens of peer-reviewed studies have allowed us to be able to assert with great confidence, after 20 years 

of looking for these kinds of records, that in fact the late 20th Century is the warmest period of earth history in the last 500 to 1,000 

years. 

So, finally, it is these kind of data that were assembled by the 

Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. I had the 

opportunity to participate as one of the panel members in Lord 

Oxburgh’s Scientific Assessment Panel. And in looking at that, and 

I want to quote the key response, is that we saw no evidence of any 

deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the climate 

research unit, and had it been there, we believe that we would 

have detected it. Rather, we found a small group of dedicated, if 

slightly disorganized, researchers who were ill-prepared for being 

the focus of public attention. The full report from that panel is appended to my own testimony. Thank you. 

[The statement of Ms. Graumlich follows:] 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

80 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 103 here 62590A.064
81 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 104 here 62590A.065
82 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 105 here 62590A.066
83 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 106 here 62590A.067
84 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 107 here 62590A.068
85 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 108 here 62590A.069
86 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 109 here 62590A.070
87 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 110 here 62590A.071
88 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 111 here 62590A.072
89 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 112 here 62590A.073
90 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 113 here 62590A.074
91 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 114 here 62590A.075
92 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 115 here 62590A.076
93 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 116 here 62590A.077
94 

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

The Chair will now recognize himself for a round of questions. 

Today is election day in the United Kingdom, and it is unclear 

which party will emerge as the winner. What is clear is that the 

leaders of the three major parties believe carbon pollution must be 

addressed. Nick Clegg, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, has 

said, ‘‘climate change scientists now agree that time is running out; 

the next Parliament is the last chance we have as a nation to introduce the bold measures of radical legislation leading us to set us 

on the path to green and sustainable growth in the future.’’ 

Gordon Brown, leader of the Labor Party, has said, ‘‘everybody 

knows the importance of climate change; it is one of the key issues 

that has moved me most and has made me determined to act internationally as well as nationally over the past few years.’’ 

David Cameron, leader of the Conservatives, has said, ‘‘we all 

agree that climate change is one of the greatest and most daunting 

challenges of our age; we have a moral imperative to act and act 

now.’’ 

And this concern about global warming is not new for British 

politicians. Please play the videotape. 

[Video shown.] 

The CHAIRMAN. So Dr. Hurrell, despite all the stolen e-mails, 

IPCC issues, what is your conclusion in terms of the strength of 

the case that has been made that global warming is real and that 

the consequences are catastrophic? 

Mr. HURRELL. I very much agree with those conclusions. I think, 

as I tried to state in both my written and my oral testimony, much 

of the strength lies not in individual papers, individual data sets, 

individual analyses, but rather the fact that there are many multiple lines of evidence conducted by multiple investigators, as we 

heard in the other oral testimonies, spanning many different physical and biological variables that all give a very consistent picture 

of global warming, of a warming world, and the science has advanced to the point that we can clearly attribute these changes to 

human activities and, in particular, the buildup of greenhouse gas 

emissions in the atmosphere. 

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. McCarthy, Lord Monckton had a very complicated explanation of the global temperature record. Can you tell 

us simply what is happening in the global temperature record and 

if it is attributable to human activities? 

Mr. MCCARTHY. There have been a number of efforts over the 

last maybe 10 to 15 years to use the knowledge we have of what 

could change climate, and some of these factors were referred to by 

Mr. Monckton. 

We know that greenhouse gases influence climate. We know that 

clouds influence climate. We know that solar variability can influence climate. And we know that there are natural cycles, referred 

to earlier as, for example, the El Nino cycle. 

And when you use these known aspects of climate to reconstruct 

climate over the last few decades, you find that there aren’t big 

missing pieces, that the changes in climate that we have observed 

can be explained. Why was 1998 such an exceptionally warm year? 

As already referred to by Jim Hurrell, a year of an exceptionally 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

95 

warm, probably the warmest El Nino that we know for the last 100 

years. 

Why was 1992, 1993 and 1994 unusually cool relative to the 

years before, immediately following the eruption of Mount 

Pinatubo, the largest volcano to have affected climate? Our most 

recent volcano that was very much in the news will probably not 

have much effect on climate because the release of material from 

that volcano was low in the atmosphere and, of course, we know 

interrupted air traffic. 

So when you put these pieces together you find that there aren’t 

big gaps. There aren’t periods where you can’t explain how climate 

has changed. 

Now, when you go back further in time, it becomes more difficult. 

But if you mark from like 1980, which is when we have satellite 

observations of Earth’s surface, satellite observations of ice. In 

1991, when Mount Pinatubo was erupted, satellites could measure 

directly its contribution to the upper atmosphere. When you put 

these pieces together, there are no great mysteries about how climate has changed over the last 10 to 20 years, and it is entirely 

consistent with the forcing by greenhouse gases. 

The CHAIRMAN. And Dr. Field, why don’t you just quickly try to 

answer that question as well? 

Mr. FIELD. You know, one of the major focal areas in climate 

science over the last several decades has been a topic that is called 

fingerprinting; how could we really be sure that the climate change 

that is now unequivocal is a consequence of human actions? 

And there are a large number of independent climate fingerprints for human action, most of which don’t require fancy climate 

models at all. A good example of a fingerprint is that if climate 

change is caused by greenhouse gases, we expect most of the warming to be in the lower atmosphere, with cooling in the upper atmosphere, exactly as we see. 

Dr. McCarthy already mentioned this balance between the heat 

that you calculate should be in the climate system, and the amount 

of heat that we actually see in the oceans. 

These fingerprinting techniques are very, very powerful at discriminating alternative explanations, and they point overwhelmingly at the human release of heat-trapping gases as the dominant 

cause of warming over the last half century. 

The CHAIRMAN. And you agree, Dr. Graumlich? 

Ms. GRAUMLICH. Yes, I do. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask this, do you each disagree with Lord 

Monckton’s analysis of whether or not there is global warming 

trend and it is a danger to the planet? Do you disagree with him, 

Dr. Hurrell? 

Mr. HURRELL. Yes I do. 

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. McCarthy. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. Monckton said he is not a scientist; he 

works in the policy arena and, on the basis of the sciences he 

reads, that he doesn’t think it calls for policy action. 

I think most scientists who look at the data believe that it does 

need policy action. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Dr. Field. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

96 

Mr. FIELD. Many scientists have looked at the issue. Warming is 

unequivocal. The evidence for the human fingerprint is very, very 

strong, and the prospect of continued warming in the future is very 

strong. 

The CHAIRMAN. So you do disagree with Lord Monckton? 

Mr. FIELD. I do disagree with Lord Monckton. 

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Graumlich? 

Ms. GRAUMLICH. I disagree with Lord Monckton’s conclusions 

based on the evidence that he presented as well. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

My time is expired. 

Let me turn and recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. 

Sensenbrenner. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Graumlich, you were on the Oxburgh panel, weren’t you? 

Ms. GRAUMLICH. Yes, I was. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Do you have a professional relationship 

with any of the scientists who were criticized during Climategate? 

Ms. GRAUMLICH. I, as a member of the paleoclimatic community, 

have an acquaintanceship with many of the people that were mentioned in the e-mails. You are probably aware that both Dr. Malcolm Hughes and I are from the University of Arizona and that we 

both have professional relationships with the Laboratory of Tree 

Ring Research there. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Have you co-authored papers with Dr. 

Hughes? 

Ms. GRAUMLICH. I have co-authored one book chapter with Dr. 

Hughes. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Has your work relied on information or 

data from the CRU? 

Ms. GRAUMLICH. No, it hasn’t. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Pardon? 

Ms. GRAUMLICH. No, it hasn’t. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The tree ring data in the hockey stick 

graph were directly called into question by Climategate. Have you 

relied on any of that in any of your professional work? 

Ms. GRAUMLICH. The data that myself and my students have produced have been at times part of these very, very large compilations of data that have allowed us to assess the nature of climate 

variability over the last 500 to 1,000 years. The hockey stick, per 

se, is never quoted in my own professional work. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. What did the panel learn from critics of 

the CRU’s scientists during its review? 

Ms. GRAUMLICH. What I think the panel took away from the critics of the CRU scientists is that, in particular, what we discovered 

was that, for example, the archiving of raw data and the development of documentation on computer code, such that it could be 

widely distributed and understood by the general public, was something that for years had not really been a high priority. Often it 

was unfunded by the kind of scientific funding sources that were 

available. And what was clear to the panel was that the stolen emails, as well as other things, other events, had motivated both scientists and science funders to do more public archiving of data. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

97 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Did the panel interview any of the critics 

of the CRU data? 

Ms. GRAUMLICH. No. That wasn’t our charge. We were charged 

to—— 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Well, why not? How can you get an objective viewpoint if you just look at one side of the issue? 

Ms. GRAUMLICH. The charge to the panel was to look at the scientific integrity of the publications of the CR unit, and we fulfilled 

that charge. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Were—well, then, that was an extremely 

limited charge, you know, that pre-ordained a conclusion. Was 

there any analysis of the actual e-mails or the biases that they exposed? 

Ms. GRAUMLICH. That was not part of our charge, and that was 

actually part of other kinds of inquiries that have gone on. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Okay. Now, were you aware of any of the 

biases of the other members of this seven-person panel? 

Ms. GRAUMLICH. I believe that the panel was chosen to minimize 

bias. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Well, Lord Oxburgh has strong personal 

and financial interests in the anti-global warming policy. He is director of an international environmental organization called Globe 

International. He is also chairman of a green energy firm called 

Falck Renewables, and president of the Carbon Capture Storage 

Association. 

And there was an article that appeared in the Times of London 

on April 14th where Lord Oxburgh himself even told the university 

that he was unfit to chair the panel because of conflicts of interest 

and warning the UEA that people might question his independence. Were any of those issues raised either on Lord Oxburgh or 

any of the other members of the panel? 

Ms. GRAUMLICH. Those issues weren’t raised. What we were focusing on was the science of the climate research unit as revealed 

in their publication record and in their day-to-day operations. And 

Lord Oxburgh was actually a—functioned very much as someone 

who has a Ph.D. in Earth sciences and brought his scientific 

mindset to that task. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Well, if he is a director of an advocacy organization called Globe International, you know, I have had meetings with and tiffs with ever since Kyoto, you know, together with 

the intertwining of you and other members, I don’t think that that 

was an objective review. I don’t know how universities in the 

United Kingdom get to the bottom of potential scandals, but I don’t 

think our news media here in the United States would allow any 

university to get away with a panel that would come to a pre-ordained conclusion. 

And I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER [presiding]. I guess I am having these terms 

echoing in my ear. I mean, it seems to me that it is a very stark 

difference. Dr. Graumlich, you were talking about focusing on the 

science. Our purpose today was to do precisely that; and I find it 

a little embarrassing and sad that the minority’s witness is a journalist with no scientific training, who didn’t come here with any information against the science. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

98 

It has been intriguing to me. I have heard Mr. Monckton—I have 

often thought appropriately named—in the past; and it is entertaining, but it doesn’t deal very much with the essence of what we 

are talking about here. My sense is that it wasn’t Dr. Graumlich. 

There were several other studies. There has been one by the British House of Commons. There has been one by the university itself, 

if I understand it correctly, one by Penn State. 

Ms. GRAUMLICH. Yes. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. All have looked at the science—— 

Ms. GRAUMLICH. Right. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER [continuing]. And concluded that this is a tempest in a teapot. I mean, there is nothing here that contradicts the 

basic science that has been reiterated by the other three distinguished scientists that join you on the panel; is that correct? 

Ms. GRAUMLICH. That is correct. 

And if I could add to the list of reviews that have happened, at 

my own institution, the University of Arizona, at the request of the 

president, all of the e-mails—an inquiry was made. Every single email was read, including those that dealt with Dr. Hughes; and 

there was a finding that there was no impropriety that affected the 

scientific conclusions of Dr. Hughes and others. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Though I suppose I should declare, for the 

purposes of the record, I have worked with GLOBE International 

in other areas, dealing, for instance, with serious problems dealing 

with international water supplies. I don’t think it has affected my 

objectivity, nor did I notice any sinister underlying motives or an 

international agenda at work. 

Dr. McCarthy, it is good to see you again. I am remembering 

that we first met in your office 10 or 12 years ago, where you were 

kind enough to help walk me through some of these issues. In the 

course of those 10 or 12 years, not going back now to 1986 when 

you talked about the trends that first sort of caught your attention, 

but just in the 10 or 12 years since we first met, have you seen 

anything in terms of the trend lines? Could you talk about whether 

the situation has gotten more urgent or less in that decade or 

more? 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Congressman, one thing I remember quite distinctly was our discussion about infrastructure and wondering the 

degree to which planning, particularly for a built infrastructure— 

the bridges, tunnels, mass transit systems, utilities of all sorts— 

should begin to be taken into consideration for our coastal cities 

the prospect of sea level rise. And at that time I can only guess 

that I would have said, well, this is something that we need to be 

concerned about in the future. But if you took the best estimates 

of the IPCC at that time, the planning horizons were out many decades. Now that has all become very compressed in time in the last 

decade because of the new knowledge of the rate at which ice loss 

is going to affect sea level rise. 

So you look at any of our coastal cities, if you look at the shape 

of Florida, with 21⁄2 or 31⁄2 feet of sea level rise a century, it is a 

very different-looking Florida. And although you think that rise— 

just the height of the counter here is not a lot, but when you consider low-lying land and how far that reaches inland, our Gulf 

Coast, very much in the news these days, will be dramatically afWReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

99 

fected by a sea level rise of that sort. And, of course, there are entire island nations that, with the combination of the sea level rise 

and the loss of coral through the change of pH in the ocean, will 

be at risk. So that would be my biggest sense of change. 

And, of course, in that period, as has been pointed out, we have 

seen temperature record after temperature record broken for the 

global average temperature. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. And in terms of the, quote, ‘‘mistakes of the 

IPCC,’’ I mean, what you have demonstrated with your testimony 

is that the studies, the projections were actually very conservative. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. People tend not to appreciate how conservative 

the IPCC process is. When you get a bunch of scientists together 

and get them to agree on a statement, trimming as many caveats 

out as you can because the scientists always want to add caveats, 

well, we are not entirely sure, but this would be what would be expected, you end up with a conservative statement. You end up 

without extremes on other side being represented. In this case, in 

sea level, it was a very conservative statement. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you. 

And it is. In terms of the risks that are at stake, we take in the 

Northwest very seriously that diminution of the snow pack, the less 

water content, pretty dramatic just in the community that I live in. 

And the fact that more than half of the American population is in 

the 673 coastal counties, when you are talking about inches, let 

alone feet, this is pretty compelling, at least in my mind. 

But the point I guess in terms of a policy perspective, based on 

the potential risks, based on the economic, the security problems, 

and just the waste of resources, is there any good scientific reason 

not to advance sound policies, even if we weren’t concerned about 

global warming? 

Stunned silence. All right. That is fine. Why don’t we—I will 

turn to Mr. Shadegg for your inquiry. 

Mr. SHADEGG. Thank you, Mr. Acting Chairman, if that is what 

you are. 

First, let me begin by apologizing. I have had to duck in and out 

a couple of times because I have another hearing going forward 

downstairs on the health care issue. 

Second, I want to welcome Dr. Graumlich. You are now at my 

alma mater, the University of Arizona, where I received both my 

undergraduate and law degree. I am pleased to have you here, and 

I am proud of the University of Arizona and proud of it being recognized for the knowledge and skill of its scientists and professors. 

I guess I have to begin, Dr. Monckton, by expressing a little 

shock at the questioning that just went forward and some reference 

to your name. I think that is a little inappropriate, but if that is 

what we are going do in this hearing, so be it. 

I do believe you were just told that, because you are not a scientist, you didn’t bring forward any scientific information or any 

information of any value to this hearing. Somehow I don’t seem to 

agree with that. I think you brought forth an analysis of scientific 

information, which I thought was fairly clear. And I guess I would 

like to see you at least have an opportunity to repaint that picture, 

because, apparently, some people in the room didn’t understand 

that what you said was, here is scientific data, here is how it was 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

100 

presented, here is the conclusion that was drawn from that scientific data, and here is why that conclusion is, in fact, unsupported. And, apparently, that escaped the attention or the understanding of some people here. Is there a possibility we could call 

that graph back up and you could explain it to us? Maybe we can 

get it the second time. 

Mr. MONCKTON. I am most grateful. I think obviously what is 

happening here is that a certain amount of politics has crept in on 

one side of this debate—— 

Mr. SHADEGG. What a shock. 

Mr. MONCKTON [continuing]. And, therefore, inconvenient science 

has been dismissed as not being science at all. 

That is the IPCC’s graph with the four separate trend lines on 

it. That, as I have said, is an inappropriate statistical technique. 

Next slide again. 

Mr. SHADEGG. While we are on that one, the purpose of those 

lines, this actually appears in the IPCC report? 

Mr. MONCKTON. It does three times, yes. 

Mr. SHADEGG. And all those lines slope upward at different angles. 

Mr. MONCKTON. That is right. As you get nearer to the present, 

they slope up at steeper and steeper angles. The implication which 

is stated three times in the report being that there is an acceleration of the rate of global warming. No, there isn’t, as we see from 

the subsequent slides. 

First of all, if you choose different starting points and ending 

points for where you do your trend lines, you can make the lines 

go completely—make the trend go in completely the other direction. 

There you have got 1905 to 1945 it was warming at twice the rate 

of 1905 to 2005. 

Mr. SHADEGG. So it is the exact same data. 

Mr. MONCKTON. Same data, same technique. It is a bogus technique, of course, and that is why you get completely opposite results depending on where you choose to start and end your trend 

line. 

Mr. SHADEGG. Incorrectly analyzed in the earlier graph to show 

a rapid increase in warming. 

Mr. MONCKTON. Exactly, and incorrectly analyzed again here. 

Next slide. 

Here is the true position where you have the three parallel rapid 

rates of warming. The first two cannot have been caused by CO2

on any view. The increase in CO2 over those periods wasn’t enough, 

even on the U.N.’s formula, to cause that. The third one we know 

was largely caused because it falls in the satellite era, largely 

caused by a naturally occurring decrease in cloud cover chiefly in 

the tropics allowing more sunlight to hit the ground. And that, if 

you use the U.N.’s multiplying up of the warming effect of that 

should have caused one Celsius degree or 1.8 Fahrenheit of warming. Only naught .37 Celsius was, in fact, observed. So we now 

know that that third of the three rapid rates of warming was 

caused by a natural event almost entirely. 

Mr. SHADEGG. Could you clarify something for the panel and for 

the people in the room listening? What is the satellite era? 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

101 

Mr. MONCKTON. The satellite era, from about 1983 onwards, we 

had satellites up there not only measuring changes in global surface temperature, which they do by reference to platinum resistance thermometers, comparing that with the temperatures they see 

on the ground, but also changes in outgoing radiation and changes 

in cloud cover. All of these satellite data show us exactly what has 

caused the warming of that most recent rapid period; and it was 

largely, in fact, very nearly all, to do with the reduction in cloud 

cover that happened quite naturally over the period. Nothing to do 

with CO2. 

Mr. SHADEGG. And with regard to—I mean, you don’t take the 

position that there has not been warming. 

Mr. MONCKTON. There has been warming. You can see it on the 

graph there. Of course there has been warming. Mr. Chairman, you 

have got that slightly wrong when you said I didn’t say there had 

been warming. Of course there has been warming. What I am saying is that in the one period we can tell about what caused the 

warming, the satellite period, it is clear that the warming was 

largely naturally caused, and there is paper after paper in the literature establishing this. 

Go on again, please. Next slide. 

This is Dr. Pincus’ paper establishing that the warming of that 

period was caused largely by a naturally occurring reduction in 

cloud cover, extra sunlight reaching the ground. 

Next slide, please, and the next one. We will miss that one out. 

We go on here to the 11 models, I should say, all predicting very, 

very rapid rates of warming, but this is the relationship between 

warming at the surface and extra outgoing long-wave radiation. 

Most of the models predict there will be less radiation escaping into 

space if you warm the surface. The truth, however, as you see in 

the middle panel now, that is the earth radiation budget experiment satellite measurement, it shows a very rapid increase in the 

amount of outgoing radiation escaping to space as you warm the 

surface. What that means very simply is that the radiation isn’t 

being trapped down here to cause warming at anything like the 

rate that the U.N. predicts, and that is why Professor Lindzen of 

MIT has concluded that the amount of warming you can expect to 

get from a doubling of CO2 concentration—this is scientific measurement, not playing with Xbox 360 models—is only naught.7 Kelvin, compared with a 3.26 plus or minus naught.69, which is the 

best estimate of the U.N.’s climate panel. Now, naught.7 Kelvin for 

a doubling of CO2 concentration is small, harmless, and generally 

beneficial. 

Mr. SHADEGG. I thank the gentleman, and I appreciate the indulgence of the chair in allowing you to answer. 

I guess your conclusion was we—I will just conclude with this remark—that we should do nothing. Certainly it appears to me that 

the majority got to pick four witnesses here. We got to pick one 

witness here. It is pretty evident that whether we do nothing, or 

what we do, there is clearly at least a dispute about the evidence. 

And it is not, in fact, apparently agreed upon. 

Mr. Chairman, I would also like at some point to ask unanimous 

consent to put into the record the actual e-mails which were exWReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

102 

changed which I believe show the dialog going on with regard to 

the analysis of the IPCC report. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it will be included in the 

record. 

[The information is in Select Committee records and is available 

at: http://globalwarming. house.gov/files/WEB/shadegg Materials.pdf or http://globalwarming. house.gov/pubs?id=0018] 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington State, Mr. 

Inslee. 

Mr. INSLEE. And I would note there is a dispute about whether 

we actually landed on the moon, and there is a dispute about 

whether the earth is round, and there is a dispute about gravity 

in some places, but there is no—— 

We will get to you, Lord Monckton, shortly, but I want to talk 

to the scientists on the panels, first, if that is okay. Thank you very 

much. 

Dr. McCarthy, I appreciate you bringing up the ocean acidification issues, which Dr. Jane Lubchenko of NOAA has called the evil 

twin of climate change. I would like you to describe what actually 

happens to species when they are exposed, and I want to put up 

a slide that I believe I got from Dr. Lubchenko. 

This slide basically shows what happens when you put a 

pterapod, a small creature, in the water. In the left, you see its picture. These are relatively small. And this shows what happens 

when you put a pterapod in water that will be in the same acidic 

conditions that will exist in the year 2100 if we do not change our 

course. So it basically shows that, according to Dr. Lubchenko, the 

pterapod melts. Its little calcium carbonate structure actually 

melts. 

And I just wonder if you can describe what the oceans will look 

like from an acidity standpoint in the next hundred years if we 

don’t change course and what that does to the plankton that serves 

or could do to the bottom of the food chain. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

This, like a lot of the other change we are talking about, is not 

simply a difference of one condition to another but the time period 

over which it happens. So if we look at changes in the ocean over 

the last million years, every 100,000 years or so we saw ice advance, retreat. We saw organisms that lived in the high north moving closer to the Equator, during the cool periods moving back on 

land, out of the ocean. In fact, it is interesting. There are very few 

extinctions during that period, that the memory, the genetics of organisms know in their history that being able to accommodate 

those changes is essential for survival. 

But when you crank those rates of change up, pH changed during those periods. Temperature changed. When you crank those 

rates of change up 100 or close to 1,000 fold, in some cases, then 

you exceed the capacity of ecosystems to adjust. 

Now, in this case, the pterapod—I was tempted to put a picture 

of a colorful animal in there. Pterapods are absolutely beautiful 

animals. And if you could have one in here in a beaker, the foot 

of the mollusk is thin and flaps like a wing. They are called sea 

butterflies. If you ever see them swimming, they are really—they 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

103 

are just spectacularly beautiful. It is a very delicate shell. They are 

a very, very important part of the food web in the north Pacific, 

particularly for salmon. We know that the pink salmon depends 

heavily on the pterapod for its food. 

That was just one example. I mentioned others, microscopic 

plankton, the foraminifer, and, of course, corals are all subject to 

the same condition. That is, as carbon dioxide is added to the ocean 

more rapidly than it can adjust, and if this were being added over 

the thousands of years, rather than over 100, it would be a whole 

different story, more rapidly adjust. Then the constant tension of 

the animal, of trying to keep its skeletal material, its shell from 

dissolving becomes more and more in the favor of water. That is, 

water pulls those minerals back into solution. So this is the condition. 

And, of course, we know in the past, there has been more carbon 

dioxide in the atmosphere. We know that in the past the pH of the 

oceans have been different. We also know that there are periods in 

the past where organisms like this disappeared, that the conditions 

were not suitable for corals or mollusks to survive. So this is a very 

important issue. 

Mr. INSLEE. So I am told that the waters are more acidic, 30 percent more acidic than they were in pre-industrial times. What will 

they be at the end of the century, approximately, if things don’t 

change? 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Well, I don’t know how to express it in terms of 

percent, but if you take these extrapolations, as is done here experimentally, you can show what the effect would be of that changing acid base balance referred to in the vernacular as acidification. 

The oceans aren’t becoming acid. They are becoming less alkaline. 

But it will dissolve these minerals. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. 

I was impressed—we are here as the House of Representatives 

to have the state of the science discussed about climate change. 

And I was impressed that those who have denied the threat this 

poses to the planet Earth couldn’t produce one scientist, not one 

scientist to propose the hypothesis to explain what the Earth is undergoing, all the changes we are undergoing now. They produced 

somebody that doesn’t even have a field, a background in science, 

and that is what they produce to try to convince Americans somehow that this is a big hoax. I think that is impressive or 

unimpressive, depending on how you look at it. So I want to ask 

about Lord Monckton’s viewpoint and basis for that. 

Lord Monckton, when did you start serving in the House of 

Lords? I noticed you brought fraternal greetings from the mother 

of parliaments to Congress to our athletic democracy. When did 

you start serving in The House of Lords? 

Mr. MONCKTON. Sir, I have never sat or voted in The House of 

Lords, as you have probably been informed. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. 

So, basically, I want to understand—thank you. You have answered my question. 

You come here, you call yourself a Lord, to try to convince the 

world to ignore something that threatens our grand kids; and you 

are not even a Lord. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

104 

Now let me finish my question, and then I will let you speak. 

Lord Monckton, in our athletic democracy, we will ask the questions, and you will answer them. Thank you very much. 

You come to our athletic democracy, sir, calling yourself Lord 

Monckton. Not only are you not a scientist, you are not even a Lord 

who served in the House of Parliament. Isn’t that correct? In The 

House of Lords. Is it correct you did not serve in the House of 

Lords? 

Mr. MONCKTON. I think I have already answered that one, sir. 

Mr. INSLEE. Okay. Thank you. 

So we not only have the deniers who have denied this clear 

science upon which there is enormous global consensus, they cannot only not produce one scientist to deny this clear consensus, 

they can’t even send us a real Lord from The House of Lords. 

Now, I think that says a lot about the status of this debate which 

we should not be having. Because we have an overwhelming consensus, and I note that it is not just by these four scientists. Joe 

Barton, our good friend, asked the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration to review your testimony, Lord 

Monckton, and this is what they said: 

‘‘The fact that globally average surface air temperature has 

shown no trend or even slight cooling over the last 7 years is not 

an accurate reflection of long-term general trends. In fact, calculation of a trend over the last 7 years is a gross mischaracterization 

of the longer-term trend. The last 7 years have been part of a 

strong warming trend that began in the 1970s which is attributable to human influences, citing IPCC 2007. During the last 7 

years, six of the seven warmest years on record have all been observed based on NOAA’s global land and ocean data. Deducing 

long-term trends over such a short period of time is comparable to 

estimating the height of a sea swell by looking at the short period 

waves on top of a swell.’’ 

NOAA, the people who work for our athletic democracy, have 

concluded we don’t need a fake Lord to tell us not to act. We need 

real science, and we need us to have a clean energy policy. Thank 

you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s times has expired. 

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

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, Lord Monckton, I guess I think you have a right to explain 

why you are a Lord, and I don’t think you had an opportunity to. 

Mr. MONCKTON. I will do that very briefly, because this is not the 

subject of this hearing; and, once again, I see politics of a not particularly pleasant kind creeping in. 

My grandfather was created a hereditary peer, one of the last to 

be created, in 1957 and by letters patent issued by the Queen. 

Until those letters patent are revoked—and they have not been— 

I remain and am correctly addressed as the Viscount Monckton of 

Brenchley. I am therefore a Lord, but by virtue of the 1999 House 

of Lords Act I no longer have the right to sit or vote. That was 

taken away from my father, so I have never sat or voted in The 

House of Lords, nor have I pretended otherwise. And I think that 

really should deal with that matter. Thank you, sir. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

105 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you. 

Lord Monckton, what could the climate scientists do to regain 

the public trust in their work? What can they do to insure transparency and accountability in the climate scientist community, especially as we look towards the development of the upcoming 

IPCC’s fifth assessment report? 

Mr. MONCKTON. Let me first of all begin with the quotation from 

NOAA’s response to my written testimony which, incidentally, I 

wasn’t given a copy of before this hearing, and I think somebody 

has slipped up there. 

But the passage that was quoted focused on one short sentence 

which mentioned that for the last 7 or 8 years there has been, if 

anything, a certain amount of global cooling. So there has. But, 

however, my temperature record goes back as far as the 

Neoproterozoic era, 750 million years ago. The graphs I showed 

today are for the last 150 years. So I don’t think I can be fairly 

accused of having unreasonably cherry-picked the periods over 

which I was looking at the data. 

Now, what I think scientists therefore need to do if they want to 

start commanding the respect of the public, because they are losing 

that respect over this issue, is to stop chattering about consensus. 

Science has never been done by consensus, and it isn’t going to be 

done by consensus now. Stop using in the IPCC’s documents references to documents not produced by peer-reviewed sources but by 

green propaganda groups and by journalists and confine their analysis to the peer-reviewed literature, as I did today. 

And, also, they must make sure that, instead of trying to push 

one agenda and shout down anyone who dares to put an alternative point of view, as I have politely sought to do today, they 

should treat those who disagree with them with courtesy, hear 

with some care what they have to say, and instead of dismissing 

an argument they perhaps don’t understand, as one of the panelists 

here did when asked to comment on my testimony, they should instead engage in a rational debate via the columns of the peer-reviewed literature with the many scientists who disagree with the 

official line. 

And, of course, scientists could have been paraded here today, 

but, quite rightly, the minority group, knowing that the majority 

would merely want to throw brickbats at them, decided that, instead, somebody with a certain amount of experience in politics and 

a thick skin should sit and take the cow pats flung at him, which 

I am more than happy to do, so as to spare the many thousands 

of diligent scientists who are questioning every aspect of this ludicrous scare to get on with their work, and that is what in the end 

is going to decide this matter. It is going to be diligent, scientific 

inquiry and not the hurling of childish political insults. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Lord Monckton, some of these scientists—or I 

guess anyone can answer this question. Do some of these scientists—how are they funded? Do they get grants or are their organization that give them funding? Do you think that that has a potential to corrupt the process? And do they feel beholden to certain 

results because of that? 

Mr. MONCKTON. That is a very shrewd point, sir. The only reason 

why the notion that consensus decides science has unfortunately 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

106 

crept in is that science these days effectively is a monopsony. There 

is only one paying customer, and that is the unwilling taxpayer. 

And because of that and because of the grant-funding structure 

and because of the resultant academic pressures to come forth, it 

take enormous courage for any scientist to stand out against the 

political line that is now being taken among the scientific institutions and to say, hang on a moment; the numbers don’t add up. 

I have just shown you today various points at which the numbers 

very plainly don’t add up, and they are established in the peer-reviewed literature, and they are established by measurement and 

not by modeling. 

You have heard the rather qualitative replies of the four scientists here. They didn’t really quote numbers much. They were 

quoting models. But science is best done and most accurately done 

by measurement, and those papers that rely chiefly on measurement are finding that there isn’t the problem that we are told there 

is. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER [presiding]. Congressman Cleaver. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Field—and I may want to get the other three to respond to 

this as well. I think all of the denials and all of the talk of 

Climategate has had an impact, at least in the United States. In 

1997, Gallup began conducting polls on attitudes in the United 

States on climate change; and, tragically, the number of people who 

believe that climate change has been exaggerated, according to Gallup, the latest poll is 48 percent. And until the latest poll, the number of those who embraced climate change as being impacted by 

human activity was on the way up. So the folk who have been 

fighting this have, unfortunately, from my vantage point, been winning. 

The poll also shows that—and maybe this is one of the reasons— 

that in areas where there was extreme cooling over the past winter, the people polled in those areas tend to embrace the theory 

that there has been exaggeration. 

One of the questions that I would like to ask is, what atmospheric condition needs to be at play for a higher level of snow on 

the planet? 

Mr. HURRELL. Well, perhaps one comment along those lines. Indeed, as I tried to emphasize in my testimony, global warming does 

not mean that changes are uniform everywhere. There are pronounced regional and seasonal variations, and this is due to the 

natural variability in the system. We still expect under climate 

change that we will have snowstorms. We will still have cold periods. Cold periods may become less frequent as we go into the future, but they will certainly occur. 

In terms of some of the heavy precipitation events, as my colleagues have spoken to today, a key ingredient in that is that, as 

the atmosphere warms, as it has unmistakably been observed, the 

warming, the atmosphere can hold more moisture; and, therefore, 

any given storm will precipitate more than it otherwise would 

have. As we have also been very explicit, that does not mean that 

you can attribute any individual storm to climate change, but, on 

average and statistically, we would expect to see an increasing 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

107 

trend in heavy precipitation events, including heavy snowstorms; 

and this indeed is being observed over many parts of the world. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Though it is counterintuitive, the scientific truth 

is we have more snows if it is warmer. 

Mr. HURRELL. Yes. Again, that relates to the ability of the atmosphere to hold moisture. A warm atmosphere can hold more moisture, so when it does snow it will snow more. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Dr. McCarthy. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

This is a very complicated subject and one can take one little 

piece of it and make a headline out of it and find that it may be 

true but it sounds like a contradiction. 

So the place I live right now in the Northeast, what limits snowfall in the winter is not temperature but moisture, and that moisture may come off the Atlantic with a Nor’Easter. It may come up 

from the Gulf, or it may come off the lakes, the Great Lakes. 

So one of the early projections in climate models was in a warmer world we would have more snow accreting in Greenland and in 

Antarctica. Now that to many people sounded like a contradiction. 

But indeed, for exactly the reason that Dr. Hurrell just explained, 

a warmer atmosphere holds more moisture. The air comes off the 

ocean over Antarctica, over Greenland. 

Now early studies showed that that was indeed happening, not 

possible until we had very precise estimates of the elevation of 

these ice masses with satellites. But what we see at the edges, 

even though they are gaining snow more rapidly, Antarctica, it is 

the coldest continent. It is also the highest average elevation of any 

continent. It is the windiest. It is also the driest. That is our biggest desert. So as the ocean warms up around it, more moisture 

into the air, more moisture into the interior. But what we see now 

as you look more carefully is it is gaining in the middle, but it is 

losing at the edges; and, on balance, Antarctica and Greenland are 

losing ice more rapidly than it is being formed. 

So you can take any—back here where you started with this comment. Any sort of one of those short phrases you could make a 

headline out of it. And, often, the public is very confused because 

they see these fragments of information and don’t understand how 

they fit together. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you. That is important. And I don’t know, 

one of the things we have got to do is to be able to figure out a 

way to present complicated information in a—you know, I think 

the newspapers are supposed to be printed at a sixth-grade level. 

And I think something as important as this, we have got to figure 

out how to simplify the language for the public. Because, otherwise, 

they are going to get a headache and bail out because they—not 

because they are not concerned, but they don’t get it. Now, we, 

some of this we learned in eighth grade. But my frustration is simplifying the language, and I don’t know how to do it. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Could I make a further comment? 

Mr. CLEAVER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Consensus seems to get a bad word at times. 

But when decisionmakers come to groups of scientists and say, tell 

us the simplest version of this story, that is where the consensus 

statement comes from. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

108 

If you get scientists together and say, what do you want to talk 

about, we don’t talk about things we agree on. We talk about the 

parts that we disagree on, the things that we don’t understand, 

where all the interest in furthering the science lies. So if you made 

two rosters and say, where are the statements on this subject that 

say there is a problem? Because the climate is changing. We know 

the causes of that. If those trends continue, all of the sort of impacts we talk about will come in play. 

Who is on that ledger? All the national academies of sciences— 

in my testimony, I included a statement that came out last October—eighteen organizations, scientific organizations of the United 

States. Look at any of our societies—the American Meteorological 

Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Ecological 

Society—all of their statements are very similar; and I have given 

an example here. 

So we are asked at times to try and simplify this, and this is the 

consensus or where consensus comes into play. Scientists don’t sit 

around talking about what they agree on. They talk about what 

they disagree on. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you all. 

The gentleman’s time has expired. We are about to be summoned 

to the floor with bells and whistles for our robust democracy on the 

floor of the House. We deeply appreciate your coming here. I think 

any review of the record today, as well as the materials you have 

submitted, illustrates the purpose of the hearing. But you have 

been so patient with us. 

We want to make sure that—and apologize for trying to bring it 

to a conclusion—but we would like to give every member of the 

panel a minute, a minute and a half just for any summary conclusion that you may have, any takeaway. If you have decided that 

it was just cloud cover and you were wrong, any wrap-up thoughts? 

Mr. HURRELL. Sir, I appreciate the opportunity to make some 

concluding comments. 

I think that transparency in process, making data available, 

making model codes available is extremely important; and that is 

something that, by and large, the climate science community does 

a very good job of. I work at the National Center for Atmospheric 

Research in Boulder, Colorado, where we develop one of the world 

leading climate models in the world that is used to understand climate, as well as project future changes in climate; and that entire 

code and all of the data that go into that model are publicly available. You can go out to the Web site right now and download that 

data. And I think that climate science spanning the breadth of the 

sciences makes a very valiant attempt to be as transparent as possible. 

I also want to emphasize, in terms of the IPCC process, that it 

is indeed an assessment; and, as Dr. McCarthy pointed out, the 

consensus view is indeed a very powerful view. The IPCC report 

does an exhaustive job documenting not only what we do know but 

also what we don’t know and where the grand challenges are and 

where the uncertainties are. There are many, many peer-reviewed 

papers that are thoroughly assessed in those international assessment reports. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

109 

When we saw some of Lord Monckton’s evidence today, those are 

largely based on single studies, and I could take the time, if you 

wanted, to go through those on an individual basis and point out 

some of the flaws in those studies as well. That is the scientific 

process; and, indeed, for the papers that he has highlighted, there 

are other papers in the literature that counter those points and 

raise issues. 

And very quickly, the final last word, what I did not address was 

indeed the importance of communicating; and I thoroughly agree 

that that is a very fundamental, very critical thing that all scientists need to be doing. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you very much. 

Dr. McCarthy. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you. I will try and make four points very 

briefly. 

I want to emphasize a point that I made in my testimony, that 

what we are talking about here are not just changes, changes that 

we may see analogs for in the past, but very rapid changes, rapid 

rates of change, rapid rise of sea level, rapid changes in ocean 

chemistry; and that is a very, very important part of the message. 

Secondly, I would like to say that we should think about this like 

assessing risk. What if we are right? What if we are wrong? What 

is the worst thing we could do? And you will puzzle your way 

through that logic. Think of how we assess risk, whether we buy 

fire insurance for our houses or not. I don’t think my house is ever 

going to burn down, but I would not own a house without fire insurance. And we look, we assess the risk here. We say, could we 

err on the right side or the wrong side? I think we want to err on 

the right side. 

Then you look at all the projections for cost; and, increasingly, 

from the report from Sir Nicholas Stern and many others, you see 

that doing the right thing to move us away from dependence upon 

fossil fuel is not inordinately expensive and that there are enormous benefits, many of which have never been cost in this ledger. 

Then just finally, if you go through these exercises, you see that 

we have a limited period in which to act if we are going to avoid 

some other things we didn’t even talk about today, some of the 

high consequence, low probability, high consequence changes. And 

a lot of models show that if we do not act within the next decade 

to begin to bend these curves then we are entering dangerous territory. 

Finally, we all need to communicate better. Scientists are clumsy 

at this. It is not our profession. We learned how to do science, not 

how to communicate well, and we need to work on that. 

Mr. MONCKTON. The central point I should like to leave the panel 

with is that there is no hurry. If you do nothing about this at all 

for the whole of the next 23 years, the worst that will happen, 

using the U.N.’s own estimate, is a 1 Fahrenheit degree warming, 

which will be largely harmless and beneficial. So you have plenty 

of time to check the studies, just a few of which I have shown you 

today in the peer-reviewed literature suggesting that there is another side to this story, another side based not on modeling but on 

measurement, which establishes and with increasing clarity establishes that there is no scientific problem. Even if there were, adapWReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

110 

tation, as and where and if necessary, would be orders of magnitude cheaper and more cost effective than trying to stop the emission of carbon dioxide. 

Who is going to get hurt if you start closing down coal-fired 

power stations, putting up the price of gasoline and electricity? 

Who is going to get hurt? It is the working people of America. Is 

that a good thing? I don’t think so and nor should you. 

Mr. FIELD. Thank you very much for the opportunity to make a 

couple of concluding remarks. 

One of the things I think really needs to be emphasized is that 

the scientific evidence on climate change is based on many lines of 

independent evidence, on thousands and thousands of scientific 

studies that are quantitatively careful. Some are based on models, 

many are based on observations, and they all fit together in a fabric in which the general kinds of conclusions that indicate that the 

climate is changing, that the changes are important are very, very 

real. 

It is also important to note, however, that there are important 

unknowns. Some of those have been discussed today, and many of 

the unknowns are in the direction of risks that are potentially 

higher than we have been able to accurately categorize. The risks 

of sudden sea level rise, the risks of carbon release from ecosystems, and the risks of dramatic changes in the Earth’s system 

have all been very difficult to quantify and are not generally recognized in the more conservative kinds of assessments that typically 

come from the IPCC and other organizations. 

I also want to emphasize the point that Dr. McCarthy made 

about the importance of viewing climate science as essentially problem in risk management. We don’t know precisely what the future 

will look like, but we have a very clear picture of the risk elements 

that are introduced by changes that people are causing in the 

earth’s system, and we can have an increasingly clear picture of 

the consequences of commonsense investments in decreasing those 

impacts. 

Now, finally, I want to conclude with a very strong comment that 

Lord Monckton’s conclusion that we don’t need to do anything now 

is fundamentally misleading. We haven’t seen crises that we can 

unambiguously attribute to climate change, but we have seen increasing risk to a wide range of Earth’s systems, and we also know 

that the longer we delay the more difficult it gets to address the 

problem and the more expensive it gets. This is a problem where 

commonsense investments in the shorter term are likely to pay big 

dividends relative to waiting and hoping against hope that the situation isn’t as bad as the science indicates. 

The CHAIRMAN [presiding]. Great. Thank you, Dr. Field very 

much. 

Dr. Graumlich. 

Ms. GRAUMLICH. Thank you for the opportunity to make a final 

comment. 

I would like to, first off, simply agree with my colleagues on this 

panel that the scientific consensus is clear and that the urgency to 

act is very much upon us. But I am struck by Congressman Cleaver’s comments about the degree to which public perception is perWReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

111 

haps lagging behind the perceptions of some of you on this particular committee and want to give my view from the Southwest. 

I am part of a land grant institution that has a very strong relationship with the ranching community in the Southwest. Since 

2002, we have been in a deep drought; and there is very good scientific evidence that that is due to the northern migration of the 

westerlies that are no longer bringing as much precipitation to the 

Southwest as there was before. Our ranching community is not arguing about whether climate change is here or not. They are coming to us saying, what are we going to do about it? And climate is 

the number one issue in this community, and they are asking us 

to give them guidance about how to adapt, both in the short term 

and the long term. So I think that the public perception that climate is an issue, whether it is called climate change or whether 

it is not called climate change, is particularly keen among the peoples of the Southwest. 

Secondly, as a professor in a large public university, we share 

your concern about the increase in scientific literacy that is going 

to be demanded to address the complex trade-offs that we are coming up against, and we are very much engaged in that enterprise. 

Thank you. 

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

We thank each of you for your participation in this very important hearing. We will continue with additional hearings on this 

issue so that we can ensure that all of the science is out in a way 

that it makes it possible for the public to be able to make an informed decision as to whether or not there really is such a thing 

as global warming that has been caused by manmade activity. We 

think that there is no more important debate that we can have in 

the Congress or in our country, and the experts that we had today 

I think very clearly laid out the scientific reality and has only 

added to my conviction that we have to act and we have to act 

soon. 

The Waxman-Markey bill passed last June 26, 2009. The Senate 

has a bill which, with a little bit of luck, it will begin consideration 

of in the relatively near future. But time is of the essence. 

So with the thanks of the committee, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:20 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

112 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 157 here 62590A.078
113 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 158 here 62590A.079
114 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 159 here 62590A.080
115 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 160 here 62590A.081
116 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 161 here 62590A.082
117 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 162 here 62590A.083
118 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 163 here 62590A.084
119 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 164 here 62590A.085
120 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 165 here 62590A.086
121 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 166 here 62590A.087
122 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 167 here 62590A.088
123 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 168 here 62590A.089
124 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 169 here 62590A.090
125 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 170 here 62590A.091
126 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 171 here 62590A.092
127 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 172 here 62590A.093
128 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 173 here 62590A.094
129 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 174 here 62590A.095
130 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 175 here 62590A.096
131 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 176 here 62590A.097
132 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 177 here 62590A.098
133 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 178 here 62590A.099
134 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 179 here 62590A.100
135 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 180 here 62590A.101
136 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 181 here 62590A.102
137 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 182 here 62590A.103
138 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 183 here 62590A.104
139 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 184 here 62590A.105
140 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 185 here 62590A.106
141 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 186 here 62590A.107
142 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 187 here 62590A.108
143 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 188 here 62590A.109
144 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 189 here 62590A.110
145 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 190 here 62590A.111
146 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 191 here 62590A.112
147 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 192 here 62590A.113
148 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 193 here 62590A.114
149 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 194 here 62590A.115
150 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 195 here 62590A.116
151 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 196 here 62590A.117
152 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 197 here 62590A.118
153 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 198 here 62590A.119
154 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 199 here 62590A.120
155 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 200 here 62590A.121
156 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 201 here 62590A.122
157 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 202 here 62590A.123
158 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 203 here 62590A.124
159 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 204 here 62590A.125
160 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 205 here 62590A.126
161 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 206 here 62590A.127
162 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 207 here 62590A.128
163 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 208 here 62590A.129
164 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 209 here 62590A.130
165 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 210 here 62590A.131
166 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 211 here 62590A.132
167 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 212 here 62590A.133
168 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 213 here 62590A.134
169 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 214 here 62590A.135
170 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 215 here 62590A.136
171 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 216 here 62590A.137
172 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 217 here 62590A.138
173 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 218 here 62590A.139
174 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 219 here 62590A.140
175 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 220 here 62590A.141
176 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 221 here 62590A.142
177 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 222 here 62590A.143
178 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 223 here 62590A.144
179 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 224-400 here 62590A.145