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

65–306PDF 2011

CLIMATE CHANGE: EXAMINING THE PROCESSES 

USED TO CREATE SCIENCE AND POLICY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

THURSDAY, MARCH 31, 2011 

Serial No. 112–09 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. RALPH M. HALL, Texas, Chair 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

SANDY ADAMS, Florida 

BENJAMIN QUAYLE, Arizona 

CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, 

Tennessee 

E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

DAN BENISHEK, Michigan 

VACANCY 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DAVID WU, Oregon 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio 

BEN R. LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL D. TONKO, New York 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Thursday, March 31, 2011 

Page 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2 

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3 

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Ralph M. Hall, Chairman, Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 7 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 8 

Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ........................................................................................................... 8 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 10 

Witnesses: 

Dr. J. Scott Armstrong, Professor of Marketing, the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania. 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 12 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 15 

Dr. Richard Muller, Professor of Physics, University of California, Berkeley 

and Faculty Senior Scientist, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 40 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 41 

Dr. John Christy, Director, Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 45 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 46 

Mr. Peter Glaser, Partner, Troutman Sanders, LLP 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 83 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 84 

Dr. Kerry Emanuel, Professor of Atmospheric Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 96 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 97 

Dr. W. David Montgomery, Economist 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 101 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 103 

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

Dr. J. Scott Armstrong, Professor of Marketing, the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania ............................................................................................. 154 

Dr. Richard Muller, Professor of Physics, University of California, Berkeley 

and Faculty Senior Scientist, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory ......................... 160 

Dr. John Christy, Director, Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville .............................................................................................. 167 

Mr. Peter Glaser, Partner, Troutman Sanders, LLP ............................................ 175 
Page

IV 

Dr. Kerry Emanuel, Professor of Atmospheric Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology ................................................................................................ 183 

Dr. W. David Montgomery, Economist .................................................................. 196 

Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record 

Material submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall, Chairman, Committee 

on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ................ 202 

Material submitted by Mr. Peter Glaser, Partner, Troutman Sanders, LLP ..... 212 

Material submitted by Representative Dana Rohrabacher, Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 256 
(1) 

CLIMATE CHANGE: EXAMINING THE 

PROCESSES USED TO CREATE SCIENCE 

AND POLICY 

THURSDAY, MARCH 31, 2011 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ralph Hall 

[Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 
2 
3 

1 http://www.nws.noaa.gov/glossary/ 

HEARING CHARTER

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

Climate Change: Examining the Processes 

Used to Create Science and Policy 

THURSDAY, MARCH 31, 2011

10:00 A.M. TO 12:00 P.M. 

2318 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING

PURPOSE 

On Thursday, March 31, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. the House Committee on Science, 

Space, andTechnology will hold a hearing to examine processes used to generate key 

climate change science and information used to inform policy development and decision-making. 

WITNESSES 

• Dr. J. Scott Armstrong, Professor of Marketing, the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania. 

• Dr. Richard Muller, Professor of Physics, University of California, Berkeley 

and Faculty Senior Scientist, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory 

• Dr. John Christy, Director, Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville 

• Mr. Peter Glaser, Partner, Troutman Sanders, LLP 

• Dr. Kerry Emanuel, Professor of Atmospheric Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 

• Dr. W. David Montgomery, Economist 

BACKGROUND 

All aspects of modern life operate within a known range of climate conditions. 

That range of variability requires that all sectors, from agriculture to transportation, have a measure of resiliency built into them. Our ability to adapt to changing climate conditions is predicated on our ability to better account for risk and prepare proportionate responses to those risks. Advancements in climate science may 

reduce uncertainty and provide a better idea about the risks we face, thus allowing 

for more informed decisions to be made that impact the quality of our lives. 

Weather and Climate 

Weather is defined as the state of the atmosphere with respect to wind, temperature, cloud cover, moisture, pressure, etc. at a given point in time. Climate is defined as the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region averaged over a period of years or more. 1 In addition, spatial elements such as latitude, 

terrain, altitude, proximity to water and ocean currents affect the climate. The difference between weather and climate is a measure of time. Whereas weather consists of short-term changes in the atmosphere, climate is determined by cycles of 

variability that operate within timescales that span from millennia (i.e. ice ages) to 

months (i.e. seasons). 

Scientific Process, Integrity, and Debate 

Since the dawn of science, man has tried to describe and measure the natural 

world. Through an iterative process of data collection, formulation of hypotheses, 

and testing and refining these hypotheses, a knowledge base of information is built 

that yield theories and allow for predictive models to be built that describe them. 
4 

2 http://www.aps.org.policy/statements/99l6.cfm 3 U.S. Climate Change Science Program, Synthesis and Assessment Product 3.1. Climate 

Models: An Assessment of Strengths and Limitations. July 2008. 

Experiments are conducted to test these hypotheses, theories and models. As new 

observations are incorporated throughout the process, the theories must be able to 

assimilate these new data or change to accommodate new facts. Confidence in a theory grows only if it is able to survive a rigorous testing process, it is supported by 

multiple and independent lines of evidence, and competing explanations can be 

ruled out. The American Physical Society statement on ethics and values states 

that: 

‘‘The success and credibility of science are anchored in the willingness of scientists 

to: 

1. Expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others. 

This requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials. 

2. Abandon or modify previously accepted conclusions when confronted with more 

complete or reliable experimental or observational evidence. 

Adherence to these principles provides a mechanism for self-correction that is the 

foundation of the credibility of science. 2

The creation of government regulations is dictated by several statutes, including 

the law that provides agencies the authority regulate some chemical or action as 

well as the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). While the APA provides guidelines 

as to what steps should be taken by agencies when promulgating rules, the statutes 

that give specific authority may also require additional measures to ensure a fair 

and impartial process. Furthermore, agencies have the discretion to allow for greater public participation, longer public comment periods, or even a greater burden of 

proof depending on the level of impact a given rule is projected to have. 

Whether it is scientific method or regulatory procedure, process is defined as a 

systematic series of actions that are broadly known and well understood. Given the 

potential widespread impacts on the U.S. economy, climate change policy has received a level of scrutiny and analysis that rival some of the most important debates 

the U.S. has engaged in. As such, it is vital that the processes upon which climate 

change science and policy are based be widely accepted, understood, and adhered 

to. 

In November of 2009, thousands of emails were leaked from the University of 

East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU). These emails-many of which involved 

world-leading scientists in positions of influence with respect to key scientific assessments relied upon by policymakers-revealed significant communications suggesting 

a lack of adherence to basic principles of scientific conduct, openness, and information sharing. The controversy regarding the leaked emails-dubbed ‘‘ClimateGate’’ in 

the media-called into question the processes used in the Intergovernmental Panel 

on Climate Change (IPCC) as well as the processes used to create models and data 

that support claims that anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases have caused 

changes in the Earth’s climate that is beyond natural variability. The significance 

of and concern regarding the emails has been heightened by the fact that CRU is 

one of the primary institutions that provide data and information to the IPCC, raising questions regarding the integrity of the models, data and processes, and ultimately the key scientific conclusions upon which climate policies are based. 

Modeling Uncertainty 

Increased computing capacity, a greater understanding of the atmosphere, and access to better data has allowed weather forecasting to evolve over the last century 

to become a vital part of daily life. The ability to forecast hours and days into the 

future is constantly improved as models used are validated by the observational 

data. Climate models, however, are not just weather models run for longer periods 

of time. Generally, climate models are more complex since they are dealing with 

longer time scales, larger geographic areas, and a greater number of complicated 

and interactive factors. 

General circulation models (GCMs) are mathematical models of the general circulation of a planetary atmosphere or ocean. GCMs that model the climate as a 

whole are actually an amalgamation of several different models, including atmospheric models, ocean circulation models, land surface models, and sea ice models . 3

Each one of these models is built with mathematical equations that describe the 

physical world as it is understood. However, not all the observable physical processes are able to be described or explained by an equation. For example, clouds are 

not well modeled in the GCM, creating a very large question of uncertainty regard-
5 

4 Zhang, Y., Klein, S.A., Boyle, J. and Mace, G.G. 2010. Evaluation of tropical cloud and precipitation statistics of Community Atmosphere Model version 3 using CloudSat and CALIPSO 

data. Journal of Geophysical Research 115: doi:10.1029/2009JD012006. 5 InterAcademy Council, Committee to Review the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change. Climate Change Assessments: Review of the processes and procedures of the 

IPCC. October, 2010. http://reviewipcc.interacedemycouncil.net/report/Climate %20Change 

%20Assessments, %20Review%20of%20the%20Process%20&%20Procedures%20of 

%20the%20IPCC.pdf 

ing climate sensitivities, 4 i.e. could higher temperatures result in more clouds that 

then reflect more incoming radiation or do the clouds act as an additional warming 

layer preventing radiation from escaping the Earth’s atmosphere. 

While it has been well known for years that climate change modeling is difficult, 

imprecise and yielding results that are subject to interpretation, there has been increasing evidence that these models have not been developed and used according to 

accepted modeling and forecasting processes and tenants. As mentioned above, the 

scientific method requires that models be subjected to rigorous testing and experimentation in order to validate their results. Such testing and validation is necessary 

to generate confidence in the models as useful projective tools. 

Data quality 

Although the U.S. government began collecting weather data as early as 1814, the 

first systematic collection of data and issuance of warnings began in 1870 after 

President Ulysses S. Grant signed into law a bill that established what is now the 

National Weather Service. Technology has advanced from individual measurements 

of temperature and wind to the current use of satellites to measure many aspects 

of Earth’s climate. This continuous data record provides the ability to observe the 

changes in weather patterns over time, and contributes to efforts to better predict 

future changes. 

In any scientific pursuit, data is the key ingredient that informs scientists as to 

whether or not the hypothesis being tested is supported or wrong. Bad quality data 

may demonstrate a hypothesis is supported, when in fact, the data may obscure the 

fact that the hypothesis is incorrect. High quality data, however, generates confidence that the results of an experiment represent the truth of the scientific inquiry. Therefore, the quality of data is paramount to production of good science. 

In recent years, there have been questions regarding not only the quality of the 

data collected but also the processes used for normalization (in order to compare 

‘‘apples to apple’’). The quality of data collected from instruments that have not been 

maintained or whose placement violates government positioning procedures has not 

been established. Furthermore, the process used for quality assurance has come 

under question as well, prompting several data quality projects across the country 

to test the quality of the data used in climate change science. 

IPCC Process 

The IPCC was established by the United Nations Environment Programme and 

the World Meteorological Organization to provide the world with scientific assessments of the current state of knowledge in climate change. Although billed as a scientific organization, the IPCC does not conduct science; it only compiles science from 

existing scientific literature. 

The issuance of the third (2001) and fourth (2007) assessment reports have been 

accompanied by increasing questions regarding the process used by the IPCC. Specifically, transparency, conflicts of interest, political interference, the characterization of uncertainty, and the use of non-peer reviewed data and information are all 

areas of the IPCC process that have caused concern among scientists, academics 

and policy makers. 5 Although there have been many recommendations as to how 

to reform the process in order to restore confidence in the assessment results, and 

the IPCC has stated it would adopt many of these reforms, there has been no evidence as of yet whether or not these reforms will sufficiently address the shortcomings in the process. 

If the IPCC assessments are to be used in the U.S. as a resource for the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and as a justification for changing U.S. government 

policies, the processes and procedures employed by the IPCC must meet the rigorous 

standards for integrity, objectivity and quality control that is imposed on other scientific information (i.e., requirements under the Data Quality Act). The aforementioned process issues mentioned and the questions raised about them demonstrate 

a need to determine whether or not the IPCC standards meet the necessary thresh-
6 

old to qualify as a resource for the U.S. government. Questions remain as to whether or not the reforms adopted by the IPCC will actually meet those standards. 

EPA Endangerment 

In December 2009, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized its 

endangerment finding, officially declaring the emission of greenhouse gases by mankind to be a danger to public health and welfare. Upon making this determination, 

the EPA became obligated under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases, 

particularly carbon dioxide, under other parts of the bill, namely, the Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V permitting of stationary sources. 

The process used to make the endangerment finding under section 202(a) of the 

Clean Air Act allows for significant agency discretion. The scientific basis the Agency used for its determination is detailed in the Technical Support Document (TSD). 

More than half of the references in the TSD are from the IPCC or from government 

reports that relied heavily on the IPCC as a resource. The concerns mentioned 

above regarding the integrity of the modeling results, the quality of the data used, 

and the IPCC process itself, raise questions about the robustness of the information 

used to make the endangerment determination, thus calling the finding into question. 
7 

Chairman HALL. Okay. The Committee on Science, Space, and 

Technology will come to order. And I say to all of you good morning 

and welcome to today’s hearing entitled Climate Change: Examining the Processes Used to Create Science and Policy. In front of 

you are packets containing the written testimony, biographies and 

Truth in Testimony Disclosures for today’s witnesses. I recognize 

myself for five minutes for an opening statement. 

I want to welcome everyone here today for this hearing on climate change processes. 

When I became Chairman of this Committee, I stated that I 

wanted to bring up folks to testify on climate change science and 

policy because I believe there have been a lot more questions than 

answers. The current Administration has been moving full speed 

ahead with regulations and policy initiatives that it justifies based 

on the available science. Since these actions have the potential to 

severely damage our economy, there should be extra care in making sure they are truly necessary and appropriate. 

Science is not perfect. It is a process of trial and error. And scientists are not infallible; they are just as human as any of us. As 

policy makers, we are tasked with making difficult decisions, sometimes when not all the answers are known. In cases such as these, 

we must rely upon the processes by which the information we do 

have is generated, and we must rely upon the fact that the people 

generating that information have adhered to these processes. 

The leaked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate 

Research Unit in November of 2009 revealed that the scientists 

most vocal about the effects humans were having on the climate 

were not following accepted scientific practices. When these emails 

came to light, the Administration proclaimed that the science generated by a corrupt process was still robust and still justified the 

policy measures it was taking. 

For many of us here, these emails were evidence that the trust 

in the underlying process was misplaced. I may not be a scientist, 

but as a politician, I can tell you when someone is trying to pull 

the wool over our eyes. 

There is an old saying. Caesar’s wife must be beyond reproach. 

This is to say that even if there has been no evidence of wrongdoing, the supposition of wrongdoing is enough to undermine the 

trust in an entire enterprise. 

The legitimate questions that have been raised about the processes used to generate climate change science and policy have thus 

far been cast aside. The reluctance to engage in conversations with 

people who have doubts or question the veracity of climate science 

is at the heart of the wrongdoing that undermines trust in climate 

change science. 

In a hearing last November, I stated that reasonable people have 

serious questions about our knowledge of the state of the science, 

the evidence, and what constitutes a proportional response. The 

hearing today will explore how basic and widely accepted scientific 

processes have been applied in building the foundation of climate 

science that we rely upon to make decisions. I look forward to returning the debate back to the methodical, deliberative, balanced 

and transparent discussion it ought to be. 

I thank the witnesses for being here. 
8 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN RALPH HALL

I want to welcome everyone here today for this hearing on climate change processes. 

When I became Chairman of this Committee, I stated that I wanted to bring up 

folks to testify on climate change science and policy because I believe there have 

been a lot more questions than answers. The current Administration has been moving full speed ahead with regulations and policy initiatives that it justifies based 

on the available science. Since these actions have the potential to severely damage 

our economy, there should be extra care in making sure they are truly necessary 

and appropriate. 

Science is not perfect. It is a process of trial and error. And scientists are not infallible; they are just as human as any of us. As policy makers, we are tasked with 

making difficult decisions, sometimes when not all the answers are known. 

In cases such as these, we must rely upon the processes by which the information 

we do have is generated. And we must rely upon the fact that the people generating 

that information have adhered to those processes. 

The leaked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit in 

November of 2009 revealed that the scientists most vocal about the effects humans 

were having on the climate were not following accepted scientific practices. When 

these emails came to light, the Administration proclaimed that the science generated by a corrupt process was still robust, and still justified the policy measures 

it was taking. 

For many of us here, these emails were evidence that the trust in the underlying 

process was misplaced. I may not be a scientist, but as a politician, I can tell when 

someone is trying to pull the wool over my eyes. 

There is an old saying—Caesar’s wife must be beyond reproach. That is to say 

that even if there has been no evidence of wrong doing, the supposition of wrong 

doing is enough to undermine the trust in an entire enterprise. 

The legitimate questions that have been raised about the processes used to generate climate change science and policy have thus far been cast aside. The reluctance to engage in conversations with people who have doubts or question the veracity of climate science is at the heart of the wrong doing that undermines trust in 

climate change science. 

In a hearing last November, I stated that reasonable people have serious questions about our knowledge of the state of the science, the evidence, and what constitutes a proportional response. The hearing today will explore how basic and widely accepted scientific processes have been applied in building the foundation of climate science that we rely upon to make decisions. I look forward to returning the 

debate back to the methodical, deliberative, balanced and transparent discussion it 

ought to be. 

I thank the witnesses for being here, and I now recognize Ranking Member Johnson for five minutes for an opening statement. 

Chairman HALL. I now recognize Ranking Member Johnson for 

five minutes for an opening statement. The Chair now recognizes 

Ms. Johnson. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, am I to assume that these witnesses are under oath today? 

Chairman HALL. I didn’t understand you. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Are the witnesses under oath today? 

Chairman HALL. They are. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you. Thank you very much. I appreciate 

you holding this hearing today. Political opinions on climate change 

vary greatly and nowhere more than here in the U.S. Congress. As 

one who accepts the overwhelming scientific consensus around climate change, I welcome the opportunity for this Committee to hear 

a number of perspectives on climate change. 

However, I believe this hearing will fall far short of providing a 

meaningful discourse on the subject. I am disappointed in the very 

broad scope of this hearing which arguably ranges beyond the ju-
9 

risdiction of this Committee without sufficient numbers of witnesses to do the topics justice. 

I believe that a subject as complex as we are attempting to cover 

today warrants at the very least multiple panels, if not multiple 

hearings. To hope to adequately cover everything from basic science 

to regulatory policy in one 2-hour hearing strikes me as too ambitious if not a little negligent. 

Likewise I am disappointed by the makeup of the panel today. 

By that I mean, no disrespect to these men or the quality of their 

work. However, we Democrats have been accused of ignoring a 

large subset of the climate science community that in varying degrees does not subscribe to the conclusions of the IPCC or otherwise does not accept the climate is changing, and that it is largely 

due to human activity. 

We have been told that these scientists’ voices have been 

squashed by a wide-ranging conspiracy and that under the new 

House leadership, they would finally have a platform to dispel the 

alarmists’ mistruth about the science of global climate change. 

I look at this panel today and I must ask, well, where are they? 

Where are the masses of legitimate expert witnesses that will corroborate to the assertion that climate change is an unproven theory 

or worse yet a hoax? I don’t see them today. Instead the witnesses 

before the Science, Space, and Technology today include a business 

school professor of marketing, an economist, and an energy industry lawyer. We also have three legitimate scientists, but it is worth 

noting that not one of them refutes the notion that the global climate is changing and that humans are a factor. 

The necessary oversight can be done right. For instance, in the 

last Congress, Energy and Environment Subcommittee Chairman 

Baird sensed that time was running out in the waning days of the 

111th Congress to have a balanced hearing on the subject and held 

a 4-hour hearing with three panels covering three separate issues 

within climate change and with a Republican witness on each 

panel. 

We could have reasonable discussions and disagree on the monetary costs of taking action and the devastating impacts of complacency, but science will not allow us to run from the facts no matter 

how inconvenient these facts may be. To be fair, there is a danger 

in saying that science is settled and that our knowledge of climate 

change is conclusive. On the contrary, with the risk of this magnitude, the job of science will never be done. It will continue to 

evolve. We know that climate is changing and that we have our 

hand on the thermostat, but we must always keep looking for new 

answers, replacing opinions with data and projections and observations. 

We must continue to innovate in how we predict, measure, prevent, and adapt to climate change. That is the nature of science 

and of the stewardship of our planet. Congress should acknowledge 

that we are not experts and that allowing partisan politics to dictate the scientific understanding of climate change is cynical, shortsighted, and by definition, ignorant. 

I implore my colleagues to recognize the value of research and 

resist efforts to defund and destroy the very scientific community 

that will give us answers. We may not agree as to where the uncer-
10 

tainties within climate science lie, but we can all understand that 

vast and avoidable uncertainties will remain if we stop the 

progress of climate science. 

This may be the scientific and policy challenge of the millennium, and we have a responsibility to the Nation and to the world 

to lead. 

The former Ranking Member, Republican Member of Energy and 

Environment Subcommittee, Bob Inglis, eloquently conveyed his 

dismay at the recklessness of climate skepticism by comparing it 

to the diagnosis of a sick child. If 98 doctors prescribe one treatment and two doctors prescribe a different treatment, who are you 

going to follow? 

This Committee has to decide between two choices when it comes 

to global climate change. We can allow the world’s scientists to continue to conduct extensive research and improve our knowledge of 

this phenomenon, or we can just wait and watch it happen and 

hope for the best. Climate change is a cancer, and we don’t cure 

cancer by refusing to test for it, calling the doctor a liar, and refusing to consider any treatment. We would never stop looking for the 

cure. 

While I look forward to today’s testimony and what will undoubtedly be a lively discussion, I must say that I sincerely hope that 

this Committee is not beginning and ending its record on climate 

science in the 112th Congress with this hearing. We have so much 

more work to do. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you holding this hearing today. Political 

opinions on climate change vary greatly, and nowhere more than here in the U.S. 

Congress. As one who accepts the overwhelming scientific consensus around climate 

change, I welcome the opportunity for this committee to hear a number of perspectives on climate science. However, I believe this hearing will fall far short of providing a meaningful discourse on the subject. 

I am disappointed in the very broad scope of this hearing, which arguably ranges 

beyond the jurisdiction of this Committee, without sufficient numbers of witnesses 

to do the topics justice. I believe that a subject as complex as we are attempting 

to cover today warrants, at the very least, multiple panels, if not multiple hearings. 

To hope to adequately cover everything from basic science to regulatory policy in 

one 2-hour hearing strikes me as too ambitious, if not a little negligent. 

Likewise I am disappointed by the makeup of the panel today. By that I mean 

no disrespect to these men or the quality of their work. However, for years we, 

Democrats, have been accused of ignoring a large subset of the climate science community that, in varying degrees, does not subscribe to the conclusions of the IPCC 

or otherwise does not accept that the climate in changing, and that is largely due 

to human activity. We have been told that these scientists’ voices have been 

quashed by a wide-ranging conspiracy, and that under the new House leadership 

they would finally have a platform to dispel the alarmists’ mistruths about the 

science of global climate change. 

I look at this panel today and I must ask, ′′Well, where are they?′′ Where are the 

masses of legitimate expert witness that will corroborate the assertion that climate 

change is an unproven theory, or worse, a hoax? I don’t see them here today. 

Instead, the witnesses before the Science, Space and Technology Committee include a Business School professor of Marketing, an Economist, and an energy industry Lawyer. We also have three legitimate scientists, but it is worth noting that not 

one of them refutes the notion that the global climate is changing and that humans 

are a factor. 

The necessary oversight can be done right. For instance, in the last Congress, Energy and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Baird sensed that time was run-
11 

ning out in the waning days of the 111th Congress to have a balanced hearing on 

the subject and held a 4-hour hearing with three panels covering three separate 

issues within climate change, and with a Republican witness on each panel. 

We can have reasonable discussions and disagree on the monetary costs of taking 

action and the devastating impacts of complacency. But Science will not allow us 

to run from the facts, no matter how inconvenient these facts may be. 

To be fair, there is a danger in saying that the science is settled, and that our 

knowledge of climate change is conclusive. On the contrary, with a risk of this magnitude, the job of science will never be done. It will continue to evolve. 

We know that the climate is changing, and that we have our hand on the thermostat. But we must always keep looking for new answers, replacing opinions with 

data, and projections with observations. We must continue to innovate in how we 

predict, measure, prevent and adapt to climate change. That is the nature of science 

and of our stewardship of our planet. 

Congress should acknowledge that we are not the experts, and that allowing partisan politics to dictate the scientific understanding of climate change is cynical, 

short-sighted, and, by definition, ignorant. I implore my colleagues to recognize the 

value of research, and resist efforts to defund and destroy the very scientific community that will give us answers. We may not agree as to where the uncertainties 

within climate science lie, but we can all understand that vast and avoidable uncertainties will remain if you stop the progress of climate science. 

This may be the scientific and policy challenge of the millennium, and we have 

a responsibility to the nation and the world to lead. 

The former Ranking Republican Member of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee, Bob Inglis, eloquently conveyed his dismay at the recklessness of climate 

skepticism by comparing it to the diagnosis of a sick child - if 98 doctors prescribe 

one treatment, and 2 doctors prescribe a different treatment, who are you going to 

follow? 

This Committee has to decide between two choices when it comes to global climate 

change: we can allow the world’s scientists to continue to conduct extensive research 

and improve our knowledge of phenomenon, or we can just wait to watch it happen 

and hope for the best. Climate changes is a cancer, and we don’t cure cancer by refusing to test for it, calling the doctor a liar, and refusing to consider any treatment. 

We never stop looking for the cure. 

While I look forward to today’s testimony and what will undoubtedly be lively discussion, I must say that I sincerely hope that this Committee is not beginning and 

ending its record on climate science in the 112th Congress with this hearing. We 

have so much more work to do. 

Chairman HALL. Okay. At this time, first, if there are Members 

who wish to submit additional opening statements, your statements will be added to the record at this point. 

[The information follows:] 

Chairman HALL. And I want to introduce the witnesses that we 

don’t consider anything but legitimate and witnesses that haven’t 

been here before because we have asked them to be here before and 

that has been turned down. 

Our first witness is Dr. J. Scott Armstrong, Professor of Marketing at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania. Dr. 

Armstrong is an expert in forecasting and has literally written the 

book on the principles of forecasting. He is the founder of several 

and currently serves as editor more than half-a-dozen peer review 

journals. 

Our second witness is Dr. Richard Muller, a Professor of Physics 

at the University of California, Berkeley and is a Faculty Senior 

Scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. Dr. Muller is the 

author of over 100 peer-reviewed publications and views of particle 

physics, geophysics, applied physics and astrophysics. He is currently chair of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project 

which is attempting to create a new global surface temperature 

data set. 
12 

Our third witness is Dr. John Christy, Director of the Earth System Science Center and Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric 

Science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. Dr. Christy is 

the Alabama State climatologist where he has built his own climate 

data sets. Dr. Christy was the lead author in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report in 2001 

and a contributing author in 1992, 1994, 1995 and 2007. 

Our fourth witness is Mr. Peter Glaser, a partner with Troutman 

Sanders, LLP. He practices in the energy and environmental law 

fields and is the chair of the firm’s climate change practice team. 

He specializes in environmental regulation and litigation, particularly in the area of air quality and global climate change. 

Our fifth witness is Dr. Kerry Emanuel, a Professor of Atmospheric Science in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dr. 

Emanuel’s research interests focus on tropical meteorology and climate with a specialty in hurricane physics. He is the author or coauthor of over 100 peer-reviewed publications and was elected to 

the National Academies of Science in 2007. 

Our final witness is Dr. David Montgomery, an independent 

economist and consultant and formerly the co-head of the Energy 

and Environment Practice at Charles River Associates. Dr. Montgomery is an expert on economic issues associated with climate 

change policy, and he was the principal lead author of the Second 

Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change. He was also Assistant Director of the U.S. Congressional 

Budget Office—Assistant Secretary for Policy in the U.S. Department of Energy. He also taught economics at California Institute 

of Technology and Stanford University. 

As our witnesses should know, spoken testimony is limited to 

five minutes. Do your best to stay there. You are not held there, 

and if you need to go a little further, you need to cut it a little 

short, that is up to you, after which the Members of the Committee 

are going to have five minutes each. We will hold ourselves to that 

five minutes. You have leeway of course because we appreciate you 

being here. You have prepared yourself to come here. You are here, 

and we want to accord you everything that we can to get the benefit from your appearance here, and the Members of the Committee 

get their chance to ask you questions about where you come from, 

how you got there, and what you have for us. 

So I recognize our first witness, Dr. J. Scott Armstrong, Professor 

at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania. 

STATEMENT OF DR. J. SCOTT ARMSTRONG, 

PROFESSOR OF MARKETING, THE WHARTON SCHOOL, 

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Dr. ARMSTRONG. Thank you, Chairman Hall, and Ranking Member Hall and Ranking Member Johnson. It is a pleasure to be here 

to testify. That is odd. This worked perfectly before we started 

here. 

Chairman HALL. Is it not working now? 

Dr. ARMSTRONG. Not working. If everybody has a copy of it, I can 

just go through while you look on your copy. 

Chairman HALL. You got an expert looking over your shoulder 

right now. 
13 

Dr. ARMSTRONG. All right. Here we go again. I am back to five 

minutes, am I? No, it is not working. 

Chairman HALL. No, we haven’t even started you yet. When I 

say go, you go. 

Dr. ARMSTRONG. All right. Thank you. Thanks for talking about 

my credentials. I started in 1968 when I graduated from MIT and 

specialized in forecasting methods, and it wound up recently as you 

mentioned with Principles of Forecasting, a handbook I did with 39 

other experts around the world. So it is 50 years of experience so 

far. If everybody can just get out the slides, I will just go through 

from that. The slides aren’t going to be as good because I had some 

fly-ins here, but the first thing is to start out with what we all 

agree with, and what we agree with is that climate changes. What 

we aren’t sure about is what is the optimal temperature? 

In conclusion, the most appropriate evidence-based forecast is 

that there will be no long-term warming claim. Secondly, even if 

we have a scientific forecasting approach that supported global 

warming on a long-term basis, there is no logical basis for action. 

Now, I am going to tell you how I got there. To adopt policies 

related to global warming, you need three things. The first is to 

show the forecast that there is a substantial, dangerous, long-term 

temperature change, absent with any regulations. Second is to 

show that this long-term change is going to cause harmful effects 

versus alternative policies such as doing nothing. Third is that you 

have cost-effective policies that will deal with any harmful effects. 

It is like a three-legged stool so that if any one of these legs is 

missing, then you have a problem. 

The next slide, and again it would be much nicer if we could get 

this system working here—no, it is not working. Forget it. The next 

slide shows the support that we have for these three elements of 

the leg, and I put them in that little box. You know, it is an important problem. We have been searching, we are trying to find what 

evidence we have on each of those three legs identified, and that 

little box contains all of the scientific forecasts we have been able 

to find. It is an empty box. 

So the warming alarm is based on faulting forecasting method. 

The IPCC forecast uses judgments to develop a model. They then 

run the model. They make judgments on the outcomes, and basically they are known as scenarios. Scenarios are not an appropriate 

method for forecasting. They have a role, but forecasting is not one 

of them. There are stories about the future, whether told in text 

or whether told by computer. 

We did an audit of the 2007 IPCC forecasting procedures using 

the principles from this book. There are 140 of them. We concluded 

that the IPCC violated 72 of the 89 relevant principles. Some of 

them were pretty serious, like using biased procedures to collect 

data. You should use unbiased procedures and to be conservative 

when you have uncertainty. 

An example of the policy section, you know, making policy based 

on global warming, we looked at the polar bear population forecasting. Two government reports indicated there would be a sharp 

decline in the population of polar bears. Our forecasting audit revealed failure to use 87 percent of the relevant principles. They 

failed to provide, for example, full disclosure of the data. Long-term 
14 

forecasts were used with only five years of data. They want to 

make long-term forecasts. 

The global warming forecast models have not been validated for 

predictability. We couldn’t find any evidence on that, so we did it 

ourselves. We used the period from 1850 through 2007, and we 

found that—we used a method called successive updating. We compared the error of our method, which is that there will be no 

change, with the IPCC forecast. And how large was the IPCC forecast? Well, on average, over the 10,750 forecasts that we checked, 

the IPCC forecast was 7.7 times larger. For the long-term forecast, 

91 to 100 years, it had 12.6 times larger error than we have from 

assuming no change. 

So forecasting global warming lacks any scientific basis. Now, 

given that the critical legs of the stool cannot be supported and 

that improper procedures have been used, in particular the lack of 

objectivity and the lack of full disclosure, we have concluded that 

this is basically an anti-scientific political movement. Has anything 

happened like this before, an anti-scientific political movement? So 

we started what we call the analogous project. We are looking for 

alarms over serious things that are happening that might be averted at great cost. The analogous study, some of the alarms we got 

were things like DDT and cancer, eugenics movement, population 

growth and famine starting with Malthus and then moving through 

computer models at MIT and global warming—it was global cooling 

alarm. 

Government intervention was called for in 25 of the 26 analogous 

situations that we identified. They called for increased taxes, increased spending and restrictions on individual liberties. Now how 

accurate were these analogous forecasts? Well, of the 26 analogous 

situations, 19 of the forecasts were categorically wrong, seven were 

wrong in degree and we were yet to find an analogous situation 

where the forecasts were correct. 

Next thing we asked was does government intervention help? Actually, there were 23 cases where they used government intervention, and harm was caused in 20 of those cases, and the policies 

were ineffective in three of the cases. And we found no cases in 

which the policies were effective. 

Summary of findings from the studies on alarming forecasts of 

dangerous manmade global warming are the temperature forecasting procedures are improper, the policy forecasting procedures 

are improper, the forecast failed in a validation study and none of 

the analogous alarms have been found to be correct. The thing 

about these alarming forecasts, it goes way back. It goes way back 

to Macaulay in 1930. Julian Simon, my friend and colleague in 

1990 talked about all these alarms, that the manmade is going to 

cause the end of the civilization, and he forecasted in the early ’90s 

that this global warming thing will blow over quickly. So that was 

one of his bad forecasts. 

The conclusion then is that the—I have to get to this last slide. 

[Slide] 

Dr. ARMSTRONG. The conclusions were again—one more. 

Chairman HALL. Just move along with it. You didn’t have a fair 

opportunity because of the malfunction, and that is our fault. But 

we let you go well over. I would hope you could conclude. 
15 

Dr. ARMSTRONG. Okay. Thanks. Recommendation number one is 

end government funding for climate change research. Recommendation number two is end government funding for research 

associated with global warming, things like alternative energy, CO2

reduction, habitat loss, things like that. Recommendation number 

three, end government programs and repeal regulations predicated 

on global warming. Recommendation number four, end global support for organizations that lobby or campaign predicated on global 

warming. 

Thank you for giving me extra time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Armstrong follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. J. SCOTT ARMSTRONG, PROFESSOR OF MARKETING, THE

WHARTON SCHOOL, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA

WITH KESTEN C. GREEN, UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA, AND WILLIE SOON, HARVARD-SMITHSONIAN CENTER FOR ASTROPHYSICS

Abstract 

The validity of the manmade global warming alarm requires the support of scientific forecasts of (1) a substantive long-term rise in global mean temperatures in 

the absence of regulations, (2) serious net harmful effects due to global warming, 

and (3) cost-effective regulations that would produce net beneficial effects versus alternatives policies, including doing nothing. 

Without scientific forecasts for all three aspects of the alarm, there is no scientific 

basis to enact regulations. In effect, the warming alarm is like a three-legged stool: 

each leg needs to be strong. Despite repeated appeals to global warming alarmists, 

we have been unable to find scientific forecasts for any of the three legs. 

We drew upon scientific (evidence-based) forecasting principles to audit the forecasting procedures used to forecast global mean temperatures by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—leg ‘‘1’’ of the stool. This audit found that 

the IPCC procedures violated 81% of the 89 relevant forecasting principles. 

We also audited forecasting procedures, used in two papers, that were written to 

support regulation regarding the protection of polar bears from global warming— 

leg ‘‘3’’ of the stool. On average, the forecasting procedures violated 85% of the 90 

relevant principles. 

The warming alarmists have not demonstrated the predictive validity of their procedures. Instead, their argument for predictive validity is based on their claim that 

nearly all scientists agree with the forecasts. This count of ‘‘votes’’ by scientists is 

not only an incorrect tally of scientific opinion, it is also, and most importantly, contrary to the scientific method. 

We conducted a validation test of the IPCC forecasts that were based on the assumption that there would be no regulations. The errors for the IPCC model longterm forecasts (for 91 to 100 years in the future) were 12.6 times larger than those 

from an evidence-based ‘‘no change’’ model. 

Based on our own analyses and the documented unscientific behavior of global 

warming alarmists, we concluded that the global warming alarm is the product of 

an anti-scientific political movement. 

Having come to this conclusion, we turned to the ‘‘structured analogies’’ method 

to forecast the likely outcomes of the warming alarmist movement. In our ongoing 

study we have, to date, identified 26 similar historical alarmist movements. None 

of the forecasts behind the analogous alarms proved correct. Twenty-five alarms involved calls for government intervention and the government imposed regulations 

in 23. None of the 23 interventions was effective and harm was caused by 20 of 

them. 

Our findings on the scientific evidence related to global warming forecasts lead 

to the following recommendations: 

1. End government funding for climate change research. 

2. End government funding for research predicated on global warming (e.g., alternative energy; CO2 reduction; habitat loss). 

3. End government programs and repeal regulations predicated on global 

warming. 

4. End government support for organizations that lobby or campaign predicated 

on global warming. 
16 

1 Obtained from http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual; notes 

on series at http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut3/. 

Introduction 

Knowledge of Roman vineyards in Britain and Viking diary farms in Greenland 

together with plots of temperature proxy data over hundreds, thousands, and hundreds-of-thousands of years provide evidence that the Earth’s climate varies, so the 

existence of climate change is not a matter of dispute. Global warming alarmist 

analysis is concentrated on the years from 1850, a period of widespread direct temperature measurement, increasing industrialization, and increasing concentrations 

of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. As with other periods, during this period one 

can retrospectively identify upward trends and downward trends, depending on the 

starting and ending dates one chooses. Over the whole period that we examined, 

1850 through 2007, global annual temperature proxy series constructed for the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) show a small upward trend of 

about 0.004°C per year. There is some dispute over the veracity of the proxy temperature series (Christy, et al. 2010). For our analyses, however, we treat the data 

as if they were correct. In particular, we use the U.K. Hadley Centre’s ‘‘best estimate’’ series, HadCRUt3 1 as described in Brohan et al. (2006). 

We approach the issue of alarm over dangerous manmade global warming as a 

problem of forecasting temperatures over the long term. The global warming alarm 

is not based on what has happened, but on what will happen. In other words, it 

is a forecasting problem. And it is a very complex problem. 

To address this forecasting problem we first describe the basis of the scientific 

principles behind forecasting. We then examine the processes that have been used 

to forecast the onset of dangerous manmade global warming and the validation procedures used to demonstrate predictive validity. We then summarize our validation 

study. 

We limit our discussion to forecasting. Those who are interested in the relevant 

aspects of climate science can find summaries in Robinson, Robinson and Soon 

(2007) and in Idso and Singer (2009). 

Based on our analyses, especially with respect to the violations of the principles 

regarding objectivity and full disclosure, we conclude that the manmade global 

warming alarm is an anti-scientific political movement. In an ongoing study, we 

identified analogous alarms and report on the forecasts behind the alarms and outcomes. 

The basis of scientific forecasting 

Research on proper forecasting methods has been conducted for roughly a century. 

Progress increased over the past four decades, as researchers emphasized experiments that were designed to test the effectiveness of alternative methods under varied conditions. Forecasting research has led to many surprising conclusions. 

To make this knowledge useful to forecasters in all domains, I, along with an 

international and inter-disciplinary group of 39 co-authors and 123 reviewers, expert in various aspects of forecasting, summarized the evidence as a set of principles. A principle is a conditional action, such as ‘‘forecast conservatively in situations of uncertainty.’’ There are now 140 forecasting principles. The principles are 

described and the evidence for them is fully disclosed in the Principles of Forecasting handbook (Armstrong 2001). The principles are also provided on the 

forecastingprinciples.com site (ForPrin.com), on which we invite researchers to contribute evidence either for or against the principles. 

In practice, nearly everyone believes that their situation is different and that the 

principles do not apply. I suggest to such people that they conduct experiments for 

their own situation and publish their findings, especially if they contradict the principles, and by doing so advance the science of forecasting. There can never be 

enough situation-specific evidence for some people but, given the evidence that 

many common forecasting practices are invalid, it would be in unwise to reject the 

principles without strong evidence for doing so. 

Conditions that apply in forecasting climate change 

The global warming alarm is based on a chain of three linked elements, each depending on the preceding element, and each element is highly complex due to the 

number of variables and the types of relationships. It is much like a three-legged 

stool. Each leg involves much uncertainty (Idso and Singer 2009). The alarm requires: 

1. a substantive long-term rise in global mean temperatures in the absence of 

regulations, 
17 

2 See description on Wikipedia and original paper at globawarmingart.com/images/1/18/ 

Arrhenius.pdf. 

2. serious net harmful effects due to global warming, and 

3. cost-effective regulations that would produce net beneficial effects versus alternatives such as doing nothing. 

Effective policy-making requires scientific forecasts for all three elements. Without proper forecasts, there can be no sound basis for making policy decisions. Surprisingly, then, despite repeated appeals to global warming alarmists, we have been 

unable to find scientific forecasts for any of the three elements. 

Of course, there have been many forecasts based on what we refer to as unaided 

expert judgment (i.e., judgments made without the use of evidence-based forecasting 

principles). For example, in 1896 the Swedish Nobel Prize winner in chemistry, 

Svante Arrhenius, speculated about the effect of increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide (C02) and concluded that higher concentrations would cause warming. His 

conclusion was drawn from an extrapolation of observational data. 2 Arrhenius’s idea 

attracted little attention at the time, perhaps because he expected benefits from 

warming, rather than an impending disaster. 

As noted, the forecasting principles provide advice about how to forecast given the 

conditions. Here the evidence yields a finding that is surprising to many researchers: use simple methods when forecasting in a complex and uncertain situation. This 

was a central theme in my 1978 book, Long-range Forecasting. Those involved in 

forecasting dangerous manmade global warming have violated the ‘‘simple methods’’ 

principle. 

Audit of methods used to forecast dangerous manmade global warming 

Kesten Green surveyed climate experts (many of whom were IPCC authors and 

editors) to find the most credible source for forecasts on climate change. Most respondents referred to the IPCC report and some specifically to Chapter 8, the key 

IPCC chapter on forecasting (Randall et at. 2007). 

Kesten Green and I examined the references to determine whether the authors 

of Chapter 8 were familiar with the evidence-based literature on forecasting. We 

found that none of their 788 references related to that body of literature. We could 

find no references that validated their choice of forecasting procedures. In other 

words, the IPCC report contained no evidence that the forecasting procedures they 

used were based on evidence of their predictive ability. 

We then conducted an audit of the forecasting procedures using Forecasting Audit 

Software, which is freely available on forprin.com. Kesten Green and I independently coded the IPCC procedures against the 140 forecasting principles, and then 

we discussed differences in order to reach agreement. We also invited comments and 

suggestions from the authors of the IPCC report that we were able to contact in 

hope of filling in missing information. None of them replied with suggestions and 

one threatened to lodge a complaint if he received any further correspondence. We 

described the coding procedures we used for our audit in Green and Armstrong 

(2007a). 

We concluded from our audit that invalid procedures were used for forecasting 

global mean temperatures. Our findings, described in Green and Armstrong (2007a), 

are summarized in Exhibit 1. Based on the available information, 81% of the 89 relevant principles were violated. There were an additional 38 relevant principles, but 

the IPCC chapter provided insufficient information for coding and the IPCC authors 

did not supply the information that we requested. 

Much of the problem revolves around the use of computer modelers’ scenarios as 

a forecasting method. As stated correctly by Trenberth (2007), a leading spokesperson for the IPCC researchers, the IPCC provides scenarios, not forecasts. Sce-
18 

narios are not a valid forecasting method (Gregory & Duran 2001), but simply descriptions of their authors’ speculations about what might happen in the future. 

Warming forecasts and polar bears 

We also examined two forecasts that were developed to support proposed policy 

changes. The reports assumed that there would be global warming as predicted by 

the IPCC. We examined the two reports that presented forecasts in line with the 

stated goal, mentioned on the first page of the report ‘‘to support US Fish and Wildlife Service Polar Bear Listing decision’’—which we coded as a violation of objectivity. Our procedures were similar to those in our audit of the IPCC forecasts except that we also obtained coding by a climate scientist who has published papers 

on climate change in the Arctic. On average, these two reports violated 85% of the 

90 relevant principles. For example, long-term forecasts were made using only five 

years of selected data (Armstrong, Green & Soon 2008). 

One key violation was that they did not provide full disclosure of the data in their 

paper, and they refused our requests for the data. They also refused to answer our 

questions about key aspects of their procedures, which were not fully described in 

their papers. They refused to provide peer review of our paper prior to publication. 

At our request, the editor of the journal invited them to provide commentary. They 

missed the deadline and our paper was published with commentary by other authors and with our replies to the commentaries. We were surprised when their commentary appeared in the journal some months later without us having being offered 

an opportunity to respond. In their commentary, the polar bear scientists claimed 

‘‘every major point in Armstrong et al. (2008) was wrong or misleading.’’ You can 

read their commentary in Amstrup, et al. (2009) and form your own opinion. 

Tests of predictive validity by global warming alarmists 

For important problems, it is important to test the predictive validity of the forecasting methods used. Validation tests are normally done by simulating the conditions involved in making actual forecasts (called ex ante forecasts) by, for example, 

withholding some data and forecasting what that data will be. Thus, if one wanted 

to test the accuracy of a method for forecasting 50 years from now, one would make 

a series of 50-year-ahead forecasts using the method of interest and one or more 

competitive alternative methods, in order to compare the accuracy of the forecasts 

from the different methods. 

We were unable to find any ex ante comparisons of forecasts by the alarmists. 

In the spirit of doing a systematic evaluation of forecasts, in 2007 I invited former 

Vice President Gore to join with me in a test as to the whether forecasts by manmade global warming alarmists would be more accurate than forecasts from a nochange model. Each of us would contribute $10,000 to go to the winner’s favorite 

charity. The period of the bet was to be 10 years so that I would be around to see 

the outcome. Note that this is a short time period, such that the probability of my 

winning is only about 70%, based on our simulations. Had we used 100 years for 

the term of the bet, I would have been almost certain to win. Mr. Gore eventually 

refused to take the bet (the correspondence is provided on theclimatebet.com). So 

we proceeded to track the bet on the basis of ‘‘What if Mr. Gore had taken the bet’’ 

by using the IPCC 0.03°C per-year projection as his forecast and the global average 

temperature in 2007 as mine. The status of this bet is being reported on 

theclimatebet.com. 

Claims of predictive validity by alarmists 

The claim by alarmists that nearly all scientists agree with the dangerous manmade global warming forecasts is not a scientific way to validate forecasts. In addition, the alarmists are either misrepresenting the facts or they are unaware of the 

literature. International surveys of climate scientists from 27 countries, obtained by 

Bray and von Storch in 1996 and 2003, summarized by Bast and Taylor (2007), 

found that many scientists were skeptical about the predictive validity of climate 
19 

3 See petitionproject.org for details. 4 Note that, had adjustments been made to reflect the heat island effect, the shifting base 

of weather stations, unsubstantiated revisions in historical temperature records, the error ratio 

of the IPCC forecasts (relative to our no-change model) would have been much higher. 

models. Of more than 1,060 respondents, 35% agreed with the statement ‘‘Climate 

models can accurately predict future climates,’’ while 47% percent disagreed. More 

recently, nearly 32,000 scientists have disputed the claim of ‘‘scientific consensus’’ 

by signing the ‘‘Oregon Petition.’’ 3

Perhaps in recognition that alarmist claims of predictive validity cannot sustain 

scrutiny, expressions of doubt about the alarm are often parried with an appeal to 

the so-called precautionary principle. The precautionary principle is an anti-scientific principle designed to silence people who have reached different conclusions. 

Alarmists, such as James Hansen of NASA, have even suggested publicly that people who reach different conclusions about global warming have committed crimes 

against the state (reported in Revkin 2008). Such attempts to suppress contrary evidence were ridiculed by George Orwell in his book 1984: The Ministry of Truth 

building was inscribed with the motto ‘‘Ignorance is truth.’’ For a closer examination 

of the precautionary principle from a forecasting perspective, see Green and Armstrong (2009). 

Experts’ opinions about what will happen have repeatedly been shown by research 

to be of no value in situations that are complex and uncertain. In 1980, I surveyed 

the evidence on the accuracy of experts’ judgmental forecasts and found that experts 

were no better at forecasting about complex and uncertain situations than were novices (Armstrong 1980). Bemused at the resistance to this evidence, I proposed my 

Seer-sucker Theory: ‘‘No matter how much evidence exists that seers do not exist, 

seers will find suckers.’’ More recently, Tetlock (2005) presented the findings of 20 

years of research over the course of which he obtained over 82,000 forecasts from 

284 experts on ‘‘commenting or offering advice on political and economic trends,’’ 

which represented complex and uncertain problems. Consistent with earlier research, he found that the experts’ forecasts were no more accurate than novices’ and 

naive model forecasts. 

Our validation test of IPCC forecasting model 

We conducted a validation test of the IPCC forecast of 0.03°C per-year increase 

in global mean temperatures. We did this starting roughly with the date used for 

the start of the Industrial Revolution, 1850. As it happens, that was also the start 

of the collecting of temperature from weather stations around the world. We used 

the U.K. Met Office Hadley Centre’s annual average thermometer data from 1850 

through 2007. Note that the IPCC forecast had the benefit of using these data in 

preparing the forecasts. Thus, it had an advantage over the no-change model. 

To simulate the forecasting situation, we needed unconditional (ex ante) forecasts. 

We obtained these for the years from 1851 through 2007. The period was one of exponentially increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations, which are the conditions 

that the IPCC modelers assumed for their ‘‘business as usual’’ model forecasts of 

0.03°C per-year increase in global mean temperatures. We used the process of ‘‘successive updating’’ to obtain a total of 10,750 forecasts for horizons from 1 to 100 

years ahead starting with forecasts for 1851 through 1950, then for 1852 through 

1951, and so on. Relative forecasting errors are provided in Exhibit 3. 

Note that the errors do not differ substantially in the short term (e.g., forecasting 

horizons from 1 through 10 years). As a consequence, the chances that I will win 

my l0-year bet with former Vice President Gore are not overwhelming. The IPCC 

model forecast errors for forecasts 91 to 100 years in the future, however, were 12.6 

times larger than those for our evidence-based ‘‘no change’’ model forecasts. 4 In an 

extension, we also examined a no-change model that used ten-year periods (instead 

of annual data) to forecast subsequent ten-year periods, updating this to make a 

forecast each year. The results were quite similar to those in Exhibit 3. 

Exhibit 3 shows relative errors, but it is also important for policy makers to look 

at absolute errors. Absolute errors for the no-change model are presented in Exhibit 
20 

5 http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/12/18/370719.aspx. 6 http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/l00017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-thecoffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/ and http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/lO/15/anotherwikipedia-editor-has-been-climate-topic-banned/. 

4. The accuracy of forecasts from the no-change model is such that even perfectly 

accurate forecasts of global mean temperatures would not provide much help to policymakers. For example, the mean absolute errors for 50-year-ahead no-change forecasts averaged only 0.24°C. 

The alarmists claim that validation tests cannot be done because things have 

changed. Such claims are commonly, but illogically, made by people who believe that 

their situation is new or so different from other situations, and cannot be related 

to the past. 

Conclusions from our analysis of the procedures used to forecast alarming 

manmade global warming 

Global warming alarmists have used improper procedures and, most importantly, 

have violated the general scientific principles of objectivity and full disclosure. They 

also fail to correct their errors or to cite relevant literature that reaches unfavorable 

conclusions. They also have been deleting information from Wikipedia that is unfavorable to the alarmists’ viewpoint 5 (e.g., my entry has been frequently revised by 

them). These departures from the scientific method are apparently intentional. 

Some alarmists claim that there is no need for them to follow scientific principles. 

For example, the late Stanford University biology professor Stephen Schneider said, 

‘‘each of us has to decide what is the right balance between being effective and being 

honest.’’ He also said, ‘‘we have to offer up scary scenarios’’ (October 1989, Discover 

Magazine interview). Interestingly, Schneider had been a leader in the 1970s movement to get the government to take action to prevent global cooling. ClimateGate 

also documented many violations of objectivity and full disclosure committed by 

some of the climate experts that were in one way or another associated with the 

IPCC. 

The alarmists’ lack of interest in scientific forecasting procedures 6 and the evidence from opinion polls (Pew Research Center 2008) have led us to conclude that 

global warming is a political movement in the U.S. and elsewhere (Klaus 2009). It 

is a product of advocacy, rather than of the scientific testing of multiple hypotheses. 
21 

Forecasts of outcomes of the manmade global warming alarmist movement 

Using a process known as ‘‘structured analogies,’’ we predicted the likely outcome 

of the global warming movement. Our validation test of structured analogies method 

was provided in Green and Armstrong (2007b). 

Global warming alarmism has the characteristics of a political movement In an 

ongoing study, we have been searching for situations that are ‘‘alarms over predictions of serious environmental harm that could only be averted at great cost.’’ We 

have searched the literature, contacted various researchers—especially those who 

believe in the global warming alarm. We have also posted appeals on email lists and 

on websites such as publicpolicyforecasting.com. We repeat this appeal here. 

To date, we have identified 26 analogous alarmist situations in the past Kesten 

Green and I independently coded the alarms. We coded them for: 

1. Forecasting method. 

2. Did the proposed action involve substantive government intervention? 

3. Accuracy of forecasts was rated on a -1 to +1 scale (-1 = wrong direction, 

0 = no, or minor, effect; +I = accurate) 

4. Did substantive government intervention take place, or not? 

5. Outcome of government policies to date on the value of their net benefit on 

a -I to +I scale 

6. Persistence of government policies, to-date, on a 0 to 2 scale (0 = reversed; 

I = no or little change; 2 = strengthened) 

We will be preparing descriptions of the analogies that will include the following 

elements and references to sources of information: 

1. Forecasts of impending catastrophe 

2. Methods used to forecast the catastrophe 

3. Actions called for (actions by government or by others) 

4. Salient endorsements of the forecast by scientists and politicians 

5. Challenges to the forecast 

6. Outcomes of each conflict over the alarming forecast and calls for action, including forecast accuracy 

We have posted full disclosure of our procedures at publicpolicyforecasting.com, 

and have sent announcements to websites and individual requests to people to comment. Thumbnail descriptions are available for nine of the 26 situations (indicated 

by italics in Exhibit 5) at publicpolicyforecasting.com. 
22 
23 

Here are our preliminary findings. None of these alarming forecasts were correct. 

Twenty-five of them called for government intervention. In the 23 cases where interventions occurred, none were effective. The policy changes caused harm in 20 of the 

cases. The findings will change as the project progresses and as we identify new analogies, provide more and better description of the analogies, and obtain codings from 

others, especially from experts in the various areas. 

We were not surprised by the outcomes, as none of the alarms were based on scientific forecasts. They typically began with stories and progressed from there with 

appeals to scientific support. Another reason that we were not surprised is that others had anticipated our findings. For example, after compiling a list of analogous 

situations in 1990, Julian Simon said, ‘‘As soon as one predicted disaster doesn’t 

occur, the doomsayers skip to another, why don’t [they] see that, in the aggregate, 

things are getting better? Why do they always think we’re at a turning point—or 

at the end of the road?’’ And considerably earlier, in 1830, Thomas Babington Macaulay concluded, ‘‘On what principle is it that when we see nothing but improvement behind us, we are to expect nothing but deterioration before us?’’ 

As with our other publications related to climate change, we have received no 

funding, so we expect this study to drag on. The good news is that it will allow an 

opportunity for researchers to provide peer review and to suggest further improvements in our study—or, better, to conduct independent studies of analogies. 

Recommendations 

To help ensure objectivity, government funding should not be provided for climatechange forecasting. Kealey (1996) summarized evidence on the dangers of bias in 

government-funded research. The government should instead rely on independent 

forecasters. 

As we have noted, simple methods are appropriate for forecasting for climate 

change. Large budgets are therefore not necessary. Private individuals have been 

willing to invest much time and effort in examining the global warming alarm without external rewards. In fact, a number of them have engaged in research on the 

global warming alarm at great personal cost. The cost has been at least in part because governments have almost universally sponsored scientists who have supported 

the manmade global warming alarm and these scientists have, as a consequence, 

attained considerable power over learned societies, journals, funding, and universities. With the power has come influence over news media that, by nature, are at-
24 

tracted to stories such as environmentalist alarms that grab the attention of audiences. 

The burden rightly falls on government to obtain scientific proof that a policy will 

lead to superior outcomes before increasing the burden of laws and regulations. It 

is not defensible to use anti-scientific procedures such as asking scientists or scientific organizations to ‘‘vote’’ on policy recommendations, even when the experts are 

provided with excellent information. This is especially true, given the evidence that 

expert opinions are useless for complex problems such as climate change. 

Instead, government should look for strict standards of objectivity in the evidence. 

Thus, we suggest that government should use information for each of the legs on 

the three-legged stool that underlies the global warming alarm: warming, effects of 

warming, and outcomes of alternative proposed policy changes, including ‘‘don’t just 

do something, stand there!’’ The following should be included for each leg: 

1. evidence, rather than experts’ opinions, 

2. research from scientists with diverse views, 

3. research that involves testing of multiple reasonable hypotheses, 

4. use of scientific (evidence-based) forecasting methods 

5. full disclosure of data and research methods, 

6. criticism, replications, and extensions, and 

7. testimony from scientists who have nothing to gain from the acceptance of 

their evidence. 

References 

Amstrup, Steven C., et al. (2009), ‘‘Rebuttal of ‘‘Polar bear population forecasts: 

A public-policy forecasting audit’’ Interfaces, 39 (4), 353–369. Amstrup, S. C., B. G. 

Marcot, D. C. Douglas (2007), Forecasting the rangewide status of polar bears at 

selected times in the 21st Century. Administrative Report, USGS Alaska Science 

Center, Anchorage, AK. Armstrong, J. S. (1978; 1985), Long-Range Forecasting: 

From Crystal Ball to Computer. New York: Wiley-Interscience. 

Armstrong, J. S. (1980), ‘‘The Seer-sucker Theory: The value of experts in forecasting,’’ Technology Review, 83 (June/July), 18–24. Armstrong, J. S (2001), Principles of forecasting. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 

Armstrong, J. S., Green, K. C., & Soon, W. (2008), ‘‘Polar bear population forecasts: A public-policy forecasting audit,’’ Interfaces, 38, No.5, 382—405. [Includes 

commentary and response] 

Bray, D. & von Storch, H. (2007). Climate scientists’ perceptions of climate change 

science. GKSS--Forschungszentrum Geesthacht GmbH. 

Brohan, P., Kennedy, J. J., Hartis, I., Tett, S.F.R & Jones, P.D. (2006). Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature changes: a new 

dataset from 1850. J. Geophys. Res, 111, D12106, doi: 10.1 029/2005JD006548. 

Christy, J. R., B. Hennan, R. Pielke, Sr., P. Klotzbach, R. T. McNider, J. J. Hnilo, 

R. W. Spencer, T. Chase and D. Douglass, 2010: What do observational datasets say 

about modeled tropospheric temperature trends since 1979? Remote Sensing, 2(9), 

2148–2169. 

Edwards, J. Gordon (2004), ‘‘DDT: A case study in scientific fraud,’’ Journal of 

American Physicians and Surgeons, 9 (3), 83–88. 

Green, K. C. & Armstrong, J. S. (2007a), ‘‘Global warming: Forecasts by scientists 

versus scientific forecasts,’’ Energy and Environment, 18, No. 7+8,995–1019. 

Green, K. C. & Armstrong, J. S. (2007b), ‘‘Structured analogies for forecasting,’’ 

International Journal of Forecasting, 23, 365–376. 

Green, K. C. & Armstrong, J. S. (2008), ‘‘Uncertainty, the precautionary principle 

and climate change,’’ Available on-line at publicpolicyforecasting.com and other web 

sites. 

Green, K. C. & Armstrong J. S. (2011), ‘‘Effects of the global warming alarm: A 

forecasting project using the structured analogies method,’’ Working Paper. Latest 

version available at http://kestencgreen.com/green&armstrong-agw-analogies.pdf. 

Green, K. C., Armstrong, J. S. & Soon W. (2009), ‘‘Validity of Climate Change 

Forecasting for Public Policy Decision Making,’’ International Journal of Forecasting, 25,826–832. 

Gregory, W. L. & Duran, A. (2001), ‘‘Scenarios and acceptance of furecasts.’’ In 

J.S. Armstrong, Principles of Forecasting. Kluwer Academic Publishers (Springer). 

Hunter, C. M., H. Caswell, M. C. Runge, S. C. Amstrup, E. V. Regehr, I. Stirling 

(2007), ‘‘Polar bears in the Southern Beaufort Sea II: Demography and population 

growth in relation to sea ice conditions.’’ Administrative Report, USGS Alaska 

Science Center, Anchorage, AK. 
25 

Idso, C. & Singer, S. F. (2009). Climate Change Reconsidered: The Report of the 

Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change. Chicago: The Heartland 

Institute. 

Kealey, Terence (1996), The Economic Laws of Scientific Research. Hampshire, 

UK: Macmillan Press. 

Randall, D. A., et al eds. (2007). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science 

Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, 

USA: Cambridge University Press. 

Revkin, A. (2008). ‘‘Are big oil and big coal climate criminals?’’ The New York 

Times: Dot Earth, June 23. Available from http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/ 

06/23/are-big-oil-and-big-coal-climate-criminals/ 

Robinson, A. B, Robinson, N. E., and Soon, W. (2007). Environmental effects of 

increased carbon dioxide. Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, 12, 79–90. 

Schneider, S. H. (1989). As quoted in an interview in Discover Magazine, October. 

Available at http://stephenscbneider.stanford.edu/Publications/ 

PDFlPaperslDetroitNews.pdf 

Tetlock, P. E. (2005), Expert Political Judgment. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Trenberth, Kevin E. (2007), ‘‘Global warming and forecasts of climate 

change’’, Nature.com’s Climate Feedback: the climate change blog. Available at 

http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/07/globallwarminglandlforecastslo.html. 

Waite, Donald E. (1994). ‘‘Myths and facts about DDT,’’ in D. E. Waite, Environmental Health Hazards, Environmental Health Consultant; Columbus, Ohio. 

Author and collaborators 

J. Scott Armstrong (Ph.D., MIT, 1968), a Professor at the Wharton School of Management, University of Pennsylvania, is the author of Long-range Forecasting, the 

creator of forecastingptinciples.com, and editor of Principles of Forecasting (Kluwer 

2001), an evidence-based summary of knowledge on forecasting methods. He is a 

founder of the Journal of Forecasting, the International Journal of Forecasting, and 

the International Symposium on Forecasting. He has spent 50 years doing research 

and consulting on forecasting (details at http://jscottarmstrong.com). Dr. Armstrong 

has also published over 30 papers on peer review and the scientific method. He can 

be reached at Armstrong@wharton.upenn.edu. 

Contributions to this report were made by: 

Kesten C. Green (PhD.) of the International Graduate School of Business at the 

University of South Australia is a Director of the International Institute of forecasters and is co-director with Scott Armstrong of the Forecasting Principles public 

service Internet site (ForPrin.com). He has been responsible for the development of 

two forecasting methods that provide forecasts that are substantially more accurate 

than commonly used methods. (Kesten.Green@unisa.edu.au) 

Willie Soon (PhD.) is an astrophysicist and a geoscientist at the Solar, Stellar, and 

Planetary Sciences division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. He 

is also the receiving editor in the area of solar and stellar physics fur the journal 

New Astronomy. He has 20 years of active researching and publishing in the area 

of climate change and all views expressed are strictly his own. 

(vanlien@earthlink.net) 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 

Chairman HALL. Thank you, and I apologize for this scientific organization not to have the facility that you needed. Maybe we will 

do better next time. 

At this time I recognize Dr. Richard Muller, Professor at the University of California, Berkeley, and a Senior Scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory to present your testimony. You have five 

minutes, sir. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF DR. RICHARD MULLER, PROFESSOR OF 

PHYSICS, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY, 

AND FACULTY SENIOR SCIENTIST, LAWRENCE BERKELEY 

LABORATORY 

Dr. MULLER. Thank you Chairman Hall and Ranking Member 

Johnson. In addition to those organizations, I am the founder of the 

Berkeley Earth study, and my testimony today does not represent 

the views of those organizations but are my personal views. 

I begin talking about my view of global warming. Prior groups 

at NOAA, NASA, and in the UK estimate about a 1.2 degree Celsius land temperature rise from the early 1900s to the present. 

That 1.2 degree rise is what we call global warming. Their work 

is excellent, and the Berkeley Earth project strives to build on it. 

Human caused global warming is somewhat smaller. According 

to the most recent IPCC report, the human component became apparent only after 1957, and it amounts to most of the 0.7 degree 

rise since then. I am not denying that there may have been human 

rise before that. Let us assume that by most human-caused global 

warming is about 0.6 degrees. I am not endorsing this number, I 

am simply stating it as a working number. The magnitude of this 

is a key scientific and public policy concern. Just a 0.2 degree uncertainty puts the human component between 0.4 and 0.8 degrees. 

It is a factor of two uncertainties. This number needs to be improved, and Berkeley Earth is working to improve the accuracy of 

it by using a more complete set of data and looking at biases in 

a new way. 

Let me talk about one of these potential biases, bias in data selection. The prior groups selected for their analysis from 12 to 22 

percent of the roughly 39,000 stations available. They believe their 

selection was unbiased. Outside groups have questioned that and 

claimed that the choice preferred records with large temperature 

increases. Such biases could be inadvertent, for example, a result 

of choosing long, continuous records. This needs to be looked at 

carefully. To avoid station selection bias, Berkeley Earth has developed techniques to work with all the available stations. 

In an initial test of our software and our analysis program, 

Berkeley Earth chose stations just randomly from the complete 

sets. Such a selection of stations avoids station selection bias. 

In our preliminary analysis of these stations, we found a warming trend that is shown in the figure. Berkeley Earth is the black 

curve, the other three groups are in color. Our result is very similar to that reported by the prior groups: a rise of about 0.7 degrees 

Celsius since 1957. 

The Berkeley Earth agreement with the prior analysis surprised 

us, since our preliminary results don’t yet address many of the 

known biases. When they do, it is possible that corrections could 
41 

bring our current agreement into disagreement. Why such close 

agreement between our uncorrected data and their adjusted data? 

One possibility is that the systematic corrections applied by the 

other groups turn out to be small. We don’t yet know. We will find 

out. 

Now let me address another issue, poor quality measurements. 

Many temperature stations in the United States are located near 

buildings, in parking lots, or close to heat sources. Anthony Watts 

and his team have shown that most of the current stations in the 

U.S. Historical Climatology Network would be ranked poor by 

NOAA’s own standards, with error uncertainties up to 5 degrees 

Celsius. 

Did such poor station quality exaggerate the estimates of global 

warming? Berkeley Earth has studied this issue, and we have a 

preliminary answer and the answer is no. Our analysis shows that 

over the past 50 years the poor stations in the U.S. network do not 

show greater warming than do the good stations. Thus, although 

poor station quality might affect absolute temperature, or variance 

in temperature, it does not appear to affect trends, and for global 

warming estimates, it is the trend that is important. 

Without the efforts of Anthony Watts and his team, we would 

have only a series of anecdotal images of poor temperature stations, and we would not be able to evaluate the integrity of the 

data. This is a case in which scientists receiving no government 

funding did work crucial to understanding climate change. Similarly for the work done by Steve McIntyre. Their ‘‘amateur’’ science 

is not amateur in quality. It is true science, conducted with integrity and high standards. 

I was asked how legislation could advance our knowledge of climate change. After some consideration I felt the creation of a Climate Advanced Research Project Agency or Climate-ARPA could 

help. Government policy needs to encourage work such as that of 

Watts and McIntyre. Climate-ARPA could be an organization that 

provides quick funding to worthwhile projects without regard to 

whether they support or challenge current understanding. 

In summary, despite potential biases in the data, methods of 

analysis can be used to reduce bias effects well-enough to enable 

us to measure long-term Earth temperature changes. Data integrity is adequate. Based on our initial work at Berkeley Earth, I believe that some of the most worrisome biases are less of a problem 

than I had previously thought. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Muller follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. RICHARD MULLER, PROFESSOR OF PHYSICS, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY, AND FACULTY SENIOR SCIENTIST, LAWRENCE

BERKELEY LABORATORY

Executive Summary 

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project was created to make the best 

possible estimate of global temperature change using as complete a record 

ofmeasurements as possible and by applying novel methods for the estimation and 

elimination ofsystematic biases. It was organized under the auspices of Novim, a 

non-profit public interest group. Our approach builds on the prior work ofthe groups 

at NOAA, NASA, and in the UK (Hadley Center—Climate Research Unit, or 

HadCRU). 

Berkeley Earth has assembled 1.6 billion temperature measurements, and will 

soon make these publicly available in a relatively easy to use format. The difficult 
42 

issues for understanding global warming are the potential biases. These can arise 

from many technical issues, including data selection, substandard temperature station quality, urban vs rural effects, station moves, and changes in the methods and 

times of measurement. 

We have done an initial study of the station selection issue. Rather than pick stations with long records (as done by the prior groups) we picked stations randomly 

from the complete set. This approach eliminates station selection bias. Our results 

are shown in the Figure; we see a global warming trend that is very similar to that 

previously reported by the other groups. 

We have also studied station quality. Many US stations have low quality rankings 

according to a study led by Anthony Watts. However, we find that the warming seen 

in the ‘‘poor’’ stations is virtually indistinguishable from that seen in the ‘‘good’’ stations. 

We are developing statistical methods to address the other potential biases. 

I suggest that Congress consider the creation of a Climate-ARPA to facilitate the 

study of climate issues. 

Based on the preliminary work we have done, I believe that the systematic biases 

that are the cause for most concern can be adequately handled by data analysis 

techniques. The world temperature data has sufficient integrity to be used to determine global temperature trends. 

Testimony of Richard A. Muller 

Thank you Chairman Hall and Ranking Member Johuson for this opportunity to 

testify before the Committee. 

I am a Professor of Physics at DC Berkeley and Faculty Senior Scientist at the 

Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. I founded the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature 

project under the auspices of Novim, a non-profit public interest group. My testimony represents my personal views and not those of the above organizations. 

[[Italic part for written statement only, not to be read aloud]] 

I’ve published papers on climate change in Science, Nature, and other refereed journals; I am the author of a technical book on the subject. My papers on climate change 

have appeared in Nature, Science, Paleoceanography, and the Journal of Geophysical 

Research. I wrote a technical book on the Earth’s past temperature changes: ‘‘Ice Ages 

and Astronomical Causes’’, Springer 2000. I am the author of ‘‘Physics for Future 

Presidents’’, a popular book which describes many misuses of data in climate. I was 

a cited referee on the report of the NRC on the hockey stick controversy. For two years 

I wrote an online column for MIT’s Technology Review. My major awards for scientific achievement include the Alan T. Waterman Award of the National Science 

Foundation, the Texas Instruments Founders Prize, a MacArthur Prize Fellowship, 

and election to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and to the California 

Academy of Sciences. 

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study has received a total of $623,087 in 

financial support from: 

The Lee and Juliet Folger Fund ($20,000) 

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory ($188,587) 

William K. Bowes, Jr. Foundation ($100,000) 

Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (created by Bill Gates) ($100,000) 

Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation ($150,000) 

The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($50,000) 

We have also received funding from a number of private individuals, totaling 

$14,500. 

For more information on Berkeley Earth, see www.BerkeleyEarth.org. For more information on Novim, see www.Novim.org. 

I begin by talking about 

Global Warming 

Prior groups at NOAA, NASA, and in the UK (HadCRU) estimate about a 1.2 degree C land temperature rise from the early 1900s to the present. This 1.2 degree 

rise is what we call global warming. Their work is excellent, and the Berkeley 

Earth project strives to build on it. 

Human caused global warming is somewhat smaller. According to the most recent IPCC report (2007), the human component became apparent only after 1957, 

and it amounts to ‘‘most’’ of the 0.7 degree rise since then. Let’s assume the humancaused warming is 0.6 degrees. 
43 

The magnitude of this temperature rise is a key scientific and public policy concern. A 0.2 degree uncertainty puts the human component between 0.4 and 0.8 degrees—a factor of two uncertainty. Policy depends on this number. It needs to be 

improved. 

Berkeley Earth is working to improve on the accuracy of this key number by 

using a more complete set of data, and by looking at biases in a new way. 

The project has already merged 1.6 billion land surface temperature measurements from 16 sources, most of them publicly available, and is putting them in a 

simple format to allow easy use by scientists around the world. By using all the 

data and new statistical approaches that can handle short records, and by using 

novel approaches to estimation and avoidance of systematic biases, we expect to improve on the accuracy of the estimate of the Earth’s temperature change. 

I’ll now talk about potential. 

Bias in Data Selection 

Prior groups (NOAA, NASA, HadCRU) selected for their analysis 12% to 22% of 

the roughly 39,000 available stations. (The number of stations they used varied from 

4,500 to a maximum of 8,500.) 

They believe their station selection was unbiased. Outside groups have questioned 

that, and claimed that the selection picked records with large temperature increases. Such bias could be inadvertent, for example, a result of choosing long continuous records. (A long record might mean a station that was once on the outskirts 

and is now within a city.) 

To avoid such station selection bias, Berkeley Earth has developed techniques to 

work with all the available stations. This requires a technique that can include 

short and discontinuous records. 

In an initial test, Berkeley Earth chose stations randomly from the complete set 

of 39,028 stations. Such a selection is free of station selection bias. 

In our preliminary analysis of these stations, we found a warming trend that is 

shown in the figure. It is very similar to that reported by the prior groups: a rise 

of about 0.7 degrees C since 1957. (Please keep in mind that the Berkeley Earth 

curve, in black, does not include adjustments designed to eliminate systematic bias.) 

Figure: Land average temperatures from the three major programs, compared with 

an initial test of the Berkeley Earth dataset and analysis process. Approximately 2 

percent of the available sites were chosen randomly from the complete set of 39,028 

sites. The Berkeley data are marked as preliminary because they do not include treatments for the reduction of systematic bias. 
44 

The Berkeley Earth agreement with the prior analysis surprised us, since our preliminary results don’t yet address many of the known biases. When they do, it is 

possible that the corrections could bring our current agreement into disagreement. 

Why such close agreement between our uncorrected data and their adjusted data? 

One possibility is that the systematic corrections applied by the other groups are 

small. We don’t yet know. 

The main value of our preliminary result is that it demonstrates the Berkeley 

Earth ability to use all records, including those that are short or fragmented. When 

we apply our approach to the complete data collection, we will largely eliminate the 

station selection bias, and significantly reduce statistical uncertainties. 

Let me now address the problem of 

Poor Temperature Station Quality 

Many temperature stations in the U.S. are located near buildings, in parking lots, 

or close to heat sources. Anthony Watts and his team has shown that most of the 

current stations in the U.S. Historical Climatology Network would be ranked ‘‘poor’’ 

by NOAA’s own standards, with error uncertainties up to 5 degrees C. 

Did such poor station quality exaggerate the estimates of global warming? We’ve 

studied this issue, and our preliminary answer is no. 

The Berkeley Earth analysis shows that over the past 50 years the poor stations 

in the U.S. network do not show greater warming than do the good stations. 

Thus, although poor station quality might affect absolute temperature, it does not 

appear to affect trends, and for global warming estimates, the trend is what is important. 

Our key caveat is that our results are preliminary and have not yet been published 

in a peer reviewed journal. We have begun that process of submitting a paper to the 

Bulletin ofthe American Meteorological Society, and we are preparing several additional papers for publication elsewhere. 

NOAA has already published a similar conclusion—that station quality bias did 

not affect estimates of global warming—based on a smaller set of stations, and Anthony Watts and his team have a paper submitted, which is in late stage peer review, 

using over 1000 stations, but it has not yet been accepted for publication and I am 

not at liberty to discuss their conclusions and how they might differ. We have looked 

only at average temperature changes, and additional data needs to be studied, to 

look at (for example) changes in maximum and minimum temperatures. 

In fact, in our preliminary analysis the good stations report more warming in the 

U.S. than the poor stations by 0.009 ±0.009 degrees per decade, opposite to what 

might be expected, but also consistent with zero. We are currently checking these results and performing the calculation in several different ways. But we are consistently finding that there is no enhancement of global warming trends due to the inclusion of the poorly ranked US stations. 

Berkeley Earth hopes to complete its analysis including systematic bias avoidance 

in the next few weeks. We are now studying new approaches to reducing biases from: 

1. Urban heat island effects. Some stations in cities show more rapid warming than 

do stations in rural areas. 

2. Time of observation bias. When the time of recording temperature is changed, stations will typically show different mean temperatures than they did previously. 

This is sometimes corrected in the processes used by existing groups. But this cannot be done easily for remote stations or those that do not report times of observations. 

3. Station moves. If a station is relocated, this can cause a ‘‘jump’’ in its temperatures. This is typically corrected in the adjustment process used by other groups. 

Is the correction introducing another bias? The corrections are sometimes done by 

hand, making replication difficult. 

4. Change of instrumentation. When thermometer type is changed, there is often an 

offset introduced, which must be corrected 

Potential Legislation 

I was asked what legislation could advance our knowledge of climate change. 

After some consideration, I felt that the creation of a Climate Advanced Research 

Project Agency, or Climate-ARPA, could help. 

Without the efforts of Anthony Watts and his team, we would have only a series 

of anecdotal images of poor temperature stations, and we would not be able to 

evaluate the integrity of the data. 

This is a case in which scientists receiving no government funding did work crucial to understanding climate change. Similarly for the work done by Steve McIn-
45 

tyre. Their ‘‘amateur’’ science is not amateur in quality; it is true science, conducted 

with integrity and high standards. Government policy needs to encourage such 

work. Climate-ARPA could be an organization that provides quick funding to 

worthwhile projects without regard to whether they support or challenge current 

understanding. 

In Summary 

Despite potential biases in the data, methods of analysis can be used to reduce 

bias effects well enough to enable us to measure long-term Earth temperature 

changes. Data integrity is adequate. Based on our initial work at Berkeley Earth, 

I believe that some ofthe most worrisome biases are less of a problem than I had 

previously thought. 

Chairman HALL. Thank you, sir. I want to say to Dr. Armstrong 

that your testimony will be in the record as you submitted it as 

will all the testimony. The malfunction won’t cost you there. 

Dr. ARMSTRONG. Thank you. 

Chairman HALL. Thank you, Dr. Muller. Now I recognize Dr. 

Christy, Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville for five minutes to present his testimony. 

STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN CHRISTY, DIRECTOR, 

EARTH SYSTEM SCIENCE CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA, 

HUNTSVILLE 

Dr. CHRISTY. Thank you, Chairman Hall, Ranking Member Johnson, Committee Members and my Congressman Brooks over here 

for this opportunity to be here. 

I am here to address issues regarding the process by which major 

climate assessments have led to problems for you, our policymakers. I am John Christy, Alabama State Climatologist from the 

University of Alabama in Huntsville. 

My research deals specifically with climate science. I am one of 

those few people who actually builds climate data sets from scratch 

to answer questions about climate variability and to test assertions 

people make about climate change. I was the lead author of the 

IPCC 2001 report and a secondary author of the others which 

doesn’t really mean much at all when you read my written testimony. 

Climate assessments like the IPCC use a process in which 

IPCC’s selected lead authors are given significant control over the 

text, including the authority to judge their own work against the 

work of their critics. You might call this a conflict of interest. This 

process has led to the propagation of incorrect and misleading information in the assessments and thus should lead you to question 

the IPCC’s general support for a catastrophic view of climate 

change. These reports do not represent a full-range of scientific evidence on climate, and I have three examples. 

In the first case, I address the icon of the IPCC 2001, the hockey 

stick, and show that the hockey stick’s author was the same IPCC 

lead author who, in my opinion, worked with a small group of cohorts and misrepresented the temperature record of the past 1,000 

years by promoting his own result and neglecting studies that contradicted his and allowing amputation of a disagreeable result and 

the splicing of unrelated data to hide the decline. Thus, in my view, 

conflicting data were eliminated or massaged, and real uncertainties were not acknowledged. 
46 

In the second example from the recent IPCC 2007 report, evidence was presented by Dr. Ross McKitrick and others that indicated the popular surface temperature data sets were affected by 

warming, not likely to be caused by greenhouse gases. This has 

raised serious doubts about using surface temperatures for evidence for greenhouse warming. The IPCC authors were themselves 

producers of these data sets, yet as final say authors, they sat in 

judgment over the controversy, eventually denying McKitrick’s evidence with what turned out to be apparently their own fabricated 

claim. I discuss more about surface temperatures in my written 

testimony. 

In the third example, I demonstrate that in the EPA finding 

which declared greenhouses gas as a dangerous threat, key evidence regarding the evaluation of climate models and their ability 

to depict the real atmosphere was misrepresented. In IPCC-like 

fashion, the EPA relied on establishment scientists, giving them 

authority to respond to evidence which contradicted the EPA finding with assertions that were not based on reliable data or methods. The evidence shows the EPA overstated the agreement between models and observations, when in fact there was significant 

disagreement. 

Finally, this issue has policy implications that may potentially 

raise the price of energy a lot and thus essentially the price of everything else. As such, in my opinion, the U.S. Congress and EPA 

should not rely exclusively on the United Nations’ IPCC assessments and their sister assessments exclusively because the process 

by which they were written has been shown to produce bias, false, 

over-confident or misleading information about one of the most 

murky of sciences, climate. As I stated in my IAC testimony last 

year, climate science needs adult supervision, but Congress needs 

at least one second opinion—talking about medical ideas here—one 

second opinion produced by expert climate scientists but overseen 

by a non-activist team which includes those with experience in the 

scientific method, such as physicists, and those who simply understand what is important for people, such as engineers, and then 

those who understand the legal aspects of admissible evidence and 

discovery, such as attorneys. 

I refer you to my written testimony submitted here and from the 

Energy and Power hearing three weeks ago where these points 

were fleshed out. Thank you for your consideration. I await your 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Christy follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN R. CHRISTY, DIRECTOR, EARTH SYSTEM SCIENCE

CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA IN HUNTSVILLE

One Page Summary 

1. Climate assessments like the IPCC have to date been written through a process 

in which IPCC-selected authors are given significant authority over the text, including judging their own work against work of their critics. This has led to biased information in the assessments and thus raises questions about a catastrophic view of climate change because the full range of evidence is not represented. Three examples follow. 

1.A. Regarding the Hockey Stick of IPCC 2001 evidence now indicates, in my view, 

that an IPCC Lead Author working with a small cohort of scientists, misrepresented the temperature record of the past 1000 years by (a) promoting his own 

result as the best estimate, (b) neglecting studies that contradicted his, and (c) 
47 

amputating another’s result so as to eliminate conflicting data and limit any 

serious attempt to expose the real uncertainties of these data. 

1.B. In the IPCC 2007 report, Dr. Ross McKitrick presented evidence that indicated 

warming processes other than greenhouse gas warming affected the popular 

surface temperature data sets. The IPCC authors were themselves producers 

of these data sets, yet as ‘‘final-say’’ authors they sat in judgment over this controversy, eventually denying McKitrick’s evidence with what turned out be (apparently) their own fabricated claim. 

1.C. The EPA Finding misrepresented key evidence on the evaluation of climate 

models against real data. In IPCC-like fashion, the EPA gave authority to its 

hand-picked author team to respond to evidence which contradicted the Finding with assertions that were not based on reliable data or methods. The evidence shows the EPA overstated the agreement between models and observations when in fact there was disagreement. 

2. Warming in surface temperatures is caused by many factors other that greenhouse gases, one reason they are poor proxies to depict greenhouse warming. 

Bulk atmospheric temperatures, a more direct proxy, show much less warming 

that models predict. 

3. Because this issue has policy implications that may potentially raise the price of 

energy significantly (and thus essentially the price of everything else), the U.S. 

Congress should not rely exclusively on the U.N. assessments because the process by which they were written includes biased, false, and/or misleading information about one of the most murky of sciences—climate. In my opinion, the Congress needs at least one second-opinion produced by well-credentialed climate scientists but overseen by a non-activist team which includes those with experience 

in the scientific method, the legal aspects of ‘‘discovery,’’ and who simply know 

what is important in answering the questions at hand. 

A HOUSE SCIENCE, SPACE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE EXAMINING THE PROCESS

CONCERNING CLIMATE CHANGE ASSESSMENTS

31 MARCH 2011 

JOHN R. CHRISTY, THE UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA IN HUNTSVILLE

Written Testimony 

I am John R. Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth 

System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. I am also Alabama’s State Climatologist. My training and research have been almost exclusively 

in the area of climate studies. I built my first climate dataset when I was 15 in 

an attempt to understand and predict the interannual variations of rainfall in the 

San Joaquin Valley of California. It didn’t work. Even so, climate science has been 

a passion of mine for almost 50 years. 

I have served as Lead Author of the Third Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (2001) and a ‘‘Key’’ or ‘‘Contributing’’ Author on the others. I was chosen 

to receive a Special Award by the American Meteorological Society and NASA’s 

Medal Exceptional Scientific Achievement for my work with Dr. Roy Spencer regarding the development of satellite-based climate datasets. I was elected a Fellow of 

the AMS in 2002. My main research deals with building climate datasets from 

scratch to understand what the climate has been doing and to test assertions made 

about the climate system. 

I normally speak to congressional committees regarding the science of climate 

change as I did three weeks ago to the House subcommittee on Energy and Power. 

Those interested in that testimony are encouraged to access it (8 March 2011.) The 

question I was asked to address today relates to the process by which past climate 

change assessments were generated and how the final products of such efforts may 

be compromised. This is the same basic topic I addressed before the Inter-Academy 

Council (of Sciences) or IAC in Montreal last June. Some of the discussion below 

is contained in that testimony (Appendix A.) Additionally, Dr. Ross McKitrick provided information to the same House subcommittee three weeks ago and I wish to 

attach that as well (Appendix B) since I refer to it below. Finally, one of my responses to the EPA Endangerment Finding is discussed below and thus my full comment to EPA is attached as Appendix C. 

In the following I will provide some general remarks on the shortcomings of the 

assessment process as I’ve experienced it, then provide three examples of how the 
48 

process led to inaccurate information provided to policymakers, followed by a comment on temperature records and I will close with some concluding remarks. 

1. General Remarks 

The first basic problem with the entire issue here is that climate science is a 

murky science, not a classic, experimental science. As an emerging science of a complex, chaotic atmospheric and oceanic system, it is plagued by uncertainty and ambiguity in both observations and theory. Lacking classic, laboratory results, it easily 

becomes hostage to opinion, groupthink, arguments-from-authority, overstatement of 

confidence, and even Hollywood movies. (For a formalized discussion of the uncertainties and ignorance in climate science see Curry 2011.) 

The most prominent assessment of climate change science is produced through the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or IPCC. These U.N. reports have appeared every few years, with the main reports coming out in 1990, 1995, 2001 and 

2007. Understanding the selection and role of the authors is important for policymakers who want to understand the process. 

In simplified terms, IPCC Lead Authors are nominated by their countries, and 

down-selected by the IPCC bureaucracy with help from others (the process is still 

not transparent to me—who really performs this down-select?) The basic assumption 

is that the scientists so chosen as Lead Authors (L.A.s) represent the highest level 

of expertise in particular fields of climate science (or some derivative aspect such 

as agricultural impacts) and so may be relied on to produce the most up-to-date and 

accurate assessment of the science. When these assessments are done, government 

organizations such as the U.S. EPA often adopt the reports in total, without investigation, to guide their agendas. 

In one sense, the authors of these reports are volunteers since they are not paid. 

However, they do not go without salaries. Government scientists make up a large 

portion of the author teams and can be assigned to do such work, and in effect are 

paid to work on the IPCC by their governments. University scientists aren’t so lucky 

but can consider their IPCC effort as being so close to their normal research activities that salary charges to the university or grants occur. Travel expenses were paid 

by the IPCC for trips, in my case, to Australia, Paris, Tanzania, New Zealand, Hawaii, and Victoria, Canada. Perhaps it goes without saying that such treatment 

might give one the impression he or she is an important authority on climate. 

As these small groups of L.A.s travel the world, they tend to form close communities which often re-enforce a view of the climate system that can be very difficult 

to penetrate with alternative ideas (sometimes called ‘‘confirmation bias’’ or ‘‘myside 

bias’’.) They become an ‘‘establishment’’ as I call them. With such prominent positions as IPCC L.A.s on this high profile topic, especially if they support the view 

that climate change is an unfolding serious disaster, they would be honored with 

wide exposure in the media (and other sympathetic venues) as well as rewarded 

with repeated appointments to the IPCC process. In my case, evidently, one stint 

as an L.A. was enough. 

The second basic problem (the first was the murkiness of our science) with these 

assessments is the significant authority granted the L.A.s. This is key to understanding the IPCC process. In essence, the L.A.s have virtually total control over 

the material and, as demonstrated below, behave in ways that can prevent full disclosure of the information that contradicts their own pet findings and which has serious implications for policy in the sections they author. While the L.A.s must solicit 

input for several contributors and respond to reviewer comments, they truly have 

the final say. 

In preparing the IPCC text, L.A.s sit in judgment of material of which they themselves are likely to be a major player. Thus they are in the position to write the 

text that judges their own work as well as the work of their critics. In typical situations, this would be called a conflict of interest. Thus L.A.s, being human, are 

tempted to cite their own work heavily and neglect or belittle contradictory evidence 

(see examples below.) 

In the beginning, the scientists who wrote the IPCC assessment were generally 

aware of the new responsibility, the considerable uncertainties of climate science, 

and that consequences of their conclusions could generate burdensome policies. The 

first couple of reports were relatively cautious and rather equivocal. 

In my opinion, as further assessments were created, a climate ‘‘establishment’’ 

came into being, dominating not only the IPCC but many other aspects of climate 

science, including peer-review of journals. Many L.A.s became essentially permanent 

fixtures in the IPCC process and rose to positions of prominence in their institutions 

as a side benefit. As a result, in my view, they had a vested interest in preserving 

past IPCC claims and affirming evermore confident new claims to demonstrate that 

the science was progressing under their watch and that financial support was well 
49 

spent. Speaking out as I do about this process assured my absence of significant 

contribution on recent and future reports. 

Political influence cannot be ignored. As time went on, nations would tend to 

nominate only those authors whose climate change opinions were in line with a national political agenda which sought perceived advantages (i.e. political capital, economic gain, etc.) by promoting the notion of catastrophic human-induced climate 

change. Scientists with well-known alternative views would not be nominated or selected. Indeed, it became more and more difficult for dissention and skepticism to 

penetrate the process now run by this establishment. As noted in my IAC testimony, 

I saw a process in which L.A.s were transformed from serving as Brokers of science 

(and policy-relevant information) to Gatekeepers of a preferred point of view. 

A focus evolved in the IPCC that tended to see enhanced greenhouse gas concentrations as the cause for whatever climate changes were being observed, particularly in the 2001 (Third Assessment Report or TAR) which was further solidified 

in 2007, (the Fourth Assessment Report or AR4.) The IAC 2010 report on the IPCC 

noted this overconfidence when it stated that portions of the AR4 contained ‘‘many 

vague statements of ‘high confidence’ that are not supported sufficiently in the literature, not put into perspective, or are difficult to refute.’’’ (This last claim relates 

to the problem of generating ‘‘unfalsifiable hypotheses’’ discussed in my recent 

House testimony.) 

With an understanding of the power of the L.A.s in determining the content of 

the IPCC and thus EPA reports, I shall describe three situations, about which I am 

quite familiar, to support the claims made above. 

1.A. An Example from IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR 2001)—the Hockey 

Stick 

My experience as Lead Author in the IPCC TAR, Chapter 2 ‘‘Observed Climate 

Variability and Change’’, allowed me to observe how a key section of this chapter, 

which produced the famous Hockey Stick icon, was developed. My own topic was 

upper air temperature changes that eventually drew little attention, even though 

the data clearly indicated potentially serious inconsistencies for those who would advocate considerable confidence in climate model projections. 

First, note these key points about the IPCC process: the L.A. is allowed (a) to 

have essentially complete control over the text, (b) sit in judgment of his/her own 

work as well as that of his/her critics and (c) to have the option of arbitrarily dismissing reviewer comments since he/she is granted the position of ‘‘authority’’ (unlike peer-review.) Add to this situation the rather unusual fact that the L.A. of this 

particular section had been awarded a PhD only a few months before his selection 

by the IPCC. Such a process can lead to a biased assessment of any science. But, 

problems are made more likely in climate science, because, as noted, ours is a 

murky field of research—we still can’t explain much of what happens in weather 

and climate. 

The Hockey Stick curve depicts a slightly meandering Northern Hemisphere cooling trend from 1000 A.D. through 1900, which then suddenly swings upward in the 

last 80 years to temperatures warmer than any of the millennium when smoothed. 

To many, this appeared to be a ‘‘smoking gun’’ of temperature change proving that 

the 20th century warming was unprecedented and therefore likely to be the result 

of human emissions of greenhouse gases. 

I will not debate the quality of the Hockey Stick—that has been effectively done 

elsewhere (and indeed there is voluminous discussion on this issue), so, whatever 

one might think of the Hockey Stick, one can readily understand that its promotion 

by the IPCC was problematic given the process outlined above. Indeed, with the evidence contained in the Climategate emails, we have a fairly clear picture of how 

this part of the IPCC TAR went awry. For a more detailed account of this incident 

with documentation, see http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/ipcc-and-the-trick/. 

We were appointed L.A.s in 1998. The Hockey Stick was prominently featured 

during IPCC meetings from 1999 onward. I can assure the committee that those not 

familiar with issues regarding reconstructions of this type (and even many who 

should have been) were truly enamored by its depiction of temperature and sincerely wanted to believe it was truth. Skepticism was virtually non-existent. Indeed 

it was described as a ‘‘clear favourite’’ for the overall Policy Makers Summary 

(Folland, 0938031546.txt). 

In our Sept. 1999 meeting (Arusha, Tanzania) we were shown a plot containing 

more temperature curves than just the Hockey Stick including one from K. Briffa 

that diverged significantly from the others, showing a sharp cooling trend after 

1960. It raised the obvious problem that if tree rings were not detecting the modern 

warming trend, they might also have missed comparable warming episodes in the 

past. In other words, absence of the Medieval warming in the Hockey Stick graph 
50 

might simply mean tree ring proxies are unreliable, not that the climate really was 

relatively cooler. 

The Briffa curve created disappointment for those who wanted ‘‘a nice tidy story’’ 

(Briffa 0938031546.txt). The L.A. remarked in emails that he did not want to cast 

‘‘doubt on our ability to understand factors that influence these estimates’’ and thus, 

‘‘undermine faith in paleoestimates’’ which would provide ‘‘fodder’’ to ‘‘skeptics’’ 

(Mann 0938018124.txt). One may interpret this to imply that being open and honest 

about uncertainties was not the purpose of this IPCC section. Between this email 

(22 Sep 1999) and the next draft sent out (Nov 1999, Fig. 2.25 Expert Review) two 

things happened: (a) the email referring to a ‘‘trick’’ to ‘‘hide the decline’’ for the 

preparation of report by the World Meteorological Organization was sent (Jones 

0942777075.txt, ‘‘trick’’ is apparently referring to a splicing technique used by the 

L.A. in which non-paleo data were merged to massage away a cooling dip at the 

last decades of the original Hockey Stick) and (b) the cooling portion of Briffa’s curve 

had been truncated for the IPCC report (it is unclear as to who performed the truncation.) 

In retrospect, this disagreement in temperature curves was simply an indication 

that such reconstructions using tree ring records contain significant uncertainties 

and may be unreliable in ways we do not currently understand or acknowledge. This 

should have been explained to the readers of the IPCC TAR and specifically our 

chapter. Highlighting that uncertainty would have been the proper scientific response to the evidence before us, but the emails show that some L.A.’s worried it 

would have diminished a sense of urgency about climate change (i.e. ‘‘dilutes the 

message rather significantly’’, Folland, 0938031546.txt.) 

When we met in February 2000 in Auckland NZ, the one disagreeable curve, as 

noted, was not the same anymore because it had been modified and truncated 

around 1960. Not being aware of the goings-on behind the scenes, I had apparently 

assumed a new published time series had appeared and the offensive one had been 

superceded (I can’t be certain of my actual thoughts in Feb. 2000). Now we know, 

however, that the offensive part of Briffa’s curve had simply been amputated after 

a new realization was created three months before. (It appears also that this same 

curve was apparently a double amputee, having its first 145 years chopped off too, 

see http://climateaudit.org/2011/03/23/13321/.) So, at this point, data which contradicted the Hockey Stick, whose creator was the L.A., had been eliminated. No one 

seemed to be alarmed (or in my case aware) that this had been done. 

Procedures to guard against such manipulation of evidence are supposed to be in 

place whenever biases and conflicts of interest interfere with duties to report the 

whole truth, especially in assessments that have such potentially drastic policy implications. That the IPCC allowed this episode to happen shows, in my view, that 

the procedures were structurally deficient. 

Even though the new temperature chart appeared to agree with the Hockey Stick, 

I still expressed my skepticism in this reconstruction as being evidence of actual 

temperature variations. Basically, this result relied considerably on a type of western U.S. tree-ring not known for its fidelity in reproducing large-scale temperatures 

(NRC 2006, pg. 52). 

At the L.A. meetings, I indicated that there was virtually no inter-century precision in these measurements, i.e. they were not good enough to tell us which century 

might be warmer than another in the pre-calibration period (1000 to 1850.) 

In one Climategate email, a Convening L.A., who wanted to feature the Hockey 

Stick at the time (though later was less enthusiastic), mentions ‘‘The tree ring results may still suffer from lack of multicentury time scale variance’’ and was ‘‘probably the most important issue to resolve in Chapter 2’’ (Folland, 0938031546.txt). 

This, in all likelihood, was a reference to (a) my expressed concern (see my 2001 

comments to NRC below) as well as to (b) the prominence to which the Hockey Stick 

was pre-destined. 

To compound this sad and deceptive situation, I had been quite impressed with 

some recent results by Dahl-Jensen et al., (Science 1998), in which Greenland iceborehole temperatures had been deconvolved into a time series covering the past 

20,000 years. This measurement indeed presented inter-century variations. Their result indicated a clear 500-year period of temperatures, warmer than the present, 

centered about 900 A.D.—commonly referred to as the Medieval Warm Period, a feature noticeably absent in the Hockey Stick. What is important about this is that 

whenever any mid to high-latitude location shows centuries of a particularly large 

temperature anomaly, the spatial scale that such a departure represents is also 

large. In other words, long time periods of warmth or coolness are equivalent to 

large spatial domains of warmth or coolness, such as Greenland can represent for 

the Northern Hemisphere (the domain of the Hockey Stick.) 
51 

I discussed this with the paleo-L.A. at each meeting, asking that he include this 

exceptional result in the document as evidence for temperature fluctuations different from his own. To me Dahl-Jensen et al.’s reconstruction was a more robust 

estimate of past temperatures than one produced from a certain set of western U.S. 

tree-ring proxies. But as the process stood, the L.A. was not required to acknowledge my suggestions, and I was not able to convince him otherwise. It is perhaps 

a failure of mine that I did not press the issue even harder or sought agreement 

from others who might have been likewise aware of the evidence against the Hockey 

Stick realization. 

As it turned out, this exceptional paper by Dahl-Jensen et al. was not even mentioned in the appropriate section (TAR 2.3.2). There was a brief mention of similar 

evidence indicating warmer temperatures 1000 years ago from the Sargasso Sea 

sediments (TAR 2.3.3), but the text then quickly asserts, without citation, that this 

type of anomaly is not important to the hemisphere as a whole. 

Thus, we see a situation where a contradictory data set from Greenland, which 

in terms of paleoclimate in my view was quite important, was not offered to the 

readers (the policymakers) for their consideration. In the end, the Hockey Stick appeared in Figure 1 of the IPCC Summary for Policymakers, without any other comparisons, a position of prominence that speaks for itself. 

So, to summarize, an L.A. was given final say over a section which included as 

its (and the IPCC’s) featured product, his very own chart, and which allowed him 

to leave out not only entire studies that presented contrary evidence, but even to 

use another strategically edited data set that had originally displayed contrary evidence. This led to problems that have only recently been exposed. This process, in 

my opinion, illustrates that the IPCC did not provide policymakers with an unbiased evaluation of the science, whatever one thinks about the Hockey Stick as a 

temperature reconstruction. 

This story had a couple of postscripts regarding my involvement. First, The National Academy of Sciences contacted me shortly after the TAR appeared in 2001 

for my views on the IPCC process. I indicated that the process was generally a 

pleasant experience, but that some things still bothered me. In my written submission to the NRC I stated that I believed too much emphasis was placed on the Hockey Stick. 

21 May 2001 

To: Vaughan Turekian (NAS) 

Subject: Question about IPCC 

1000-year temperature record 

This first concern arises from our chapter (2) for which I must accept as much 

blame as anyone. We (chapter 2 authors) are guilty of omitting information that 

indicated the temperature history of the past 1000 years is not as well known 

as is implied by the prominent figure in the SPM [Summary for Policymakers] 

(Fig. 1) and TS [Technical Summary] (Fig.5). At each of the Lead Authors meetings I pointed out that we should include mention of publications which strongly 

suggest the medieval warm period was warmer than the current century. In particular I mentioned the Dahl-Jensen et al. 1998 Science paper which I believe 

presents the most direct measurement of temperature and thus should be highlighted. Broeker (2001, SCIENCE) echoed the very concerns I had put forward 

in our meetings. In the final version of the text the Dahl-Jensen paper was not 

even cited in Section 2.3 -a fact I did not realize until last week when I read 

the report in detail (2.3 is the section on the temperature record of the past 1000 

years.) Thus, its [Greenland’s temperature] information was not carried forward 

in the TS or SPM. (The paper is only mentioned in passing regarding the warming 8 kybp in the TAR [Third Assessment Report].) I should point out that the 

final wording concerning the warmth of the 1990’s and 1998 as ‘‘likely’’ the 

warmest of the past millennium (i.e. only 2/3 chance of being correct) tried to 

account for the lack of certainty in our knowledge of past temperatures. However, 

the very prominent placement of the time series of the last 1000 years in the TS 

and SPM overrules what tentativeness some of us actually intended. This is my 

personal view. 

John R. Christy 

University of Alabama in Huntsville 

Secondly, I served on the 2006 NRC panel that took another look at the temperatures of the past 2000 years and noted several findings about the Hockey Stick that 

had come to light since I wrote the above in 2001. That report stated that it was 

inappropriate to use the particular type of tree rings which dominated the early 
52 

part of the Hockey Stick (p. 52), and that a key step in its mathematical method 

was so biased that even when a collection of random numbers were used for input, 

hockey stick shapes were produced (p. 91.) Overall, the NAS report concluded that 

methodological problems in reconstructions mean that ‘‘uncertainties of the published reconstructions have been underestimated’’ (p. 113.) For further critical analysis see the ‘‘Wegman Report’’ (Wegman et al. 2006). It is clear now, in my view, 

that the prominence accorded the Hockey Stick was inappropriate and that the 

IPCC failed to provide an accurate depiction of the state of climate science in this 

area. Finally, you may hear that certain ad-hoc panels were assembled which examined 

these events and were claimed to have ‘‘exonerated’’ the scientists from major wrong 

doing. Please note that these reports have no true legal standing as the legal process was not followed, i.e. determining admissible evidence, discovery, cross-examination of the evidence and witnesses, the full inclusion of testimony by witnesses denigrated by these scientists, etc. A summary of this whole ‘‘exoneration’’ affair is given 

by Dr. Ross McKitrick in ‘‘response to climategate inquiries’’ at http:// 

rossmckitrick.weebly.com/submissionsresponses-to-govt-inquiries.html. 

1.B. IPCC apparent fabrication of claims regarding surface temperature 

The next two examples are well-described in the attached document supplied by 

Dr. Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph, Ontario, sent to the House subcommittee on Energy and Power in relation to their hearing three weeks ago (Appendix B). The first situation I describe deals with an apparent fabrication of information regarding surface temperatures contained in the most recent IPCC AR4 

(2007) and the subsequent usage of the information by the EPA in their 

endangerment finding. This is a situation encountered by McKitrick himself (Appendix B.1). The second incident focuses more on EPA’s mishandling of information, 

and I relate my own experience here (Appendix C.3.1a), but I direct you to 

McKitrick’s commentary in Appendix B.3 as an independent analysis of the same 

issue. 

In the first case, a point of contention arose between McKitrick, an IPCC reviewer, and the IPCC L.A.s concerning evidence published by two independent 

groups which documented the contamination of the surface temperature record by 

industrialization and land-use change (De Laat and Maurellis 2004, 2006, McKitrick 

and Michaels 2004.) Numerous papers, including some by myself (e.g. Christy et al. 

2009), have been published in this arena, but the two groups’ papers cited here specifically found patterns of warming over land that were statistically associated with 

patterns of socio-economic development, a correlation not predicted in model simulations of greenhouse warming. This of course would call into question the use of 

these surface datasets (maintained by some of the aforementioned L.A.s) as indicators of greenhouse warming of the planet. 

After the close of peer review, the L.A.s inserted text into the IPCC report that 

described the findings pointed out by McKitrick, but then dismissed them by asserting that the correlations were due to natural circulation patterns, not industrialization, concluding that the ‘‘correlation of warming with industrial and socioeconomic 

development ceases to be statistically significant.’’ This claim was subsequently 

quoted by the EPA Finding, and thus, as demonstrated below, tarnishes that document as well. The problem? There was no evidence to support this claim made by 

the L.A.s—it was simply an assertion (perhaps a belief?) evidently invented to dismiss the offensive results. 

McKitrick (2010) was later published which specifically tested the IPCC claim 

about the role of circulation patterns as the cause of the observed distribution of 

warming and found the IPCC claim to be false. Thus, the IPCC assertion had evidently been a fabrication. The key point here is that the IPCC process failed policymakers by not providing the complete picture of an issue and unfortunately produced not just misleading, but false information. Given that the IPCC L.A. team (a) 

exerted almost total control over the text, (b) were sitting in judgment of criticisms 

of datasets they themselves produced, and (c) were not required to accommodate alternate views, it is not difficult to see how such a failure could occur—a failure that 

can have significance for climate change policy. This, again, is an example of L.A.s 

acting as Gatekeepers, not as Brokers. Furthermore, the Climategate emails also 

shed light on the behind-the-scenes attempts by the L.A.s to squelch this important 

information—hardly the activity associated with an open and transparent process 

(see Appendix B.1). 

1.C. EPA ‘‘Finding’’ relied on an IPCC-like review process 

In its Finding (Part III.C.), the EPA essentially relies on climate model output to 

make claims about current and future climate changes being potentially dangerous 
53 

and being caused by increases in greenhouse gases. The report, fundamentally, assumes that climate models are so precise in their depiction of the real climate that 

they are reliable for predictions and thus policy. In the public comment period, I 

was one of several who responded to this assertion with evidence to demonstrate 

that basic and fundamental features of climate model simulations do not effectively 

represent the real world. 

A prominent signature of global warming due to greenhouse gases in climate models is a warming of the tropical upper atmosphere, generally between 8 and 12 km, 

that is much greater than the warming which models project for the surface. The 

signature in models is so prominent that it provides a relatively easy test against 

observations. Several studies have indicated that observations do not show this feature, which in turn casts doubt on climate model theory as representing greenhouse 

warming properly and on which the EPA Finding relied (e.g. Christy et al. 2007, 

Douglass et al. 2007). 

In the review of the EPA draft, several responders, including me, informed the 

EPA that the EPA’s statement about agreement between observations and models 

had been improperly reported. We backed up our claims with published information. 

However, in their response to us, the EPA’s ‘‘authors’’ (themselves part of the establishment) in IPCC-like fashion claimed ‘‘when uncertainties in models and observations are properly accounted for, newer observational datasets are in agreement 

with climate model results.’’ As far as we could tell, they did not give any serious 

consideration to contradictory evidence. This was another example of authors, who 

were utilized by the EPA, having the authority to ignore evidence that was clearly 

against their assertions. Rather than providing the range of views in the Finding, 

or at a minimum pointing out significant model uncertainty suggested by our results, the EPA authors acted as gatekeepers and mislead the readers (See Appendix 

C for my full review comments.) 

In their response to our reviews, the EPA cited three papers which purportedly 

offered ‘‘new observations’’ to support their model vs. observations ‘‘agreement’’, relying mainly on Santer et al. 2008. However, these ‘‘new’’ upper air data sets 

(RAOBCORE 1.3, 1.4, and Allen and Sherwood (2005) thermal wind derivation) and 

two of the ‘‘new’’ surface data sets (ERSST v2 and v3) had been shown to contain 

spurious trends when tested for accuracy and these versions are not used for trend 

estimation any longer. Santer et al., the EPAs key citation, had done no testing of 

the observations as we had done. In my review, I went through the details of why 

Santer et al. 2008 had been incorrect in both their hypothesis test (where they neglected the pre-condition of surface trend agreement between models and observations—see bracketed note below) and with the data they used. However, the EPA 

simply allowed its own hand-picked authors to assert their conclusion. They did not 

objectively assess the conclusions of these contradictory studies or even acknowledge 

at a minimum that significant controversy continued on this issue. Further studies 

support the original comments of my review (e.g. Sakamoto and Christy, 2009, 

Klotzbach et al. 2009, Christy et al. 2010, McKitrick et al. 2010). 

[I note here some technical points. Douglass et al. tested a hypothesis that depended on a specific condition. We addressed the question, ‘‘If models and observations have the same surface temperature trend, then do the models and observations have the same upper air trend?’’ In other words, we were testing the relationship between surface and upper air temperatures. For data 1979–2004, the answer 

was no. McKitrick et al. 2010 (and Santer et al. 2008) tested a broader question 

without the condition of surface agreement. Their question was simply, ‘‘Do upper 

air trends of models and observations agree?’’ (i.e. without the requirement that surface trends agree). Santer et al. used 1979-99, McKitrick et al. used 1979–99 and 

1979–2009. Ending in 1999 was a clever way to tilt observations upward, to help 

them match the models’ warming, due to the massive 1998 El Nı ̃no whose impact 

fades as the time series is lengthened to 2004 and 2009. Even on this more general 

question, McKitrick et al. 2010 found the answer to be no, i.e. models and observations do not agree, and noted the difference in methodologies in their Supplementary Note 5.] 

In my comments to the EPA on this issue I knew the agency would rely on the 

‘‘establishment’’ in IPCC-like fashion to write its response, giving their hand-picked 

‘‘authors’’ control of the process. So I included the following paragraph: 

Warning: The EPA will be tempted to rely on scientists/appointees who are 

well-entrenched into a particular view of the issue of global warming to review 

documents such as this, and who will (a) develop clever sounding rebuttals, and 

(b) are afforded the luxury of the ‘‘last word’’ to protect the current EPA consensus. Basic scientific inquiry should encourage EPA to listen to those of us 
54 

who actually build these datasets (from scratch) as our message has equal if not 

greater credibility. 

This plea to be objective and avoid an IPCC-like process (i.e. relying on handpicked authors to give the last word) was to no avail. Again, this demonstrates that 

consensus reports like the IPCC and EPA can be resistant to dissenting scientific 

information in a science that is already murky. In this last case, not only were policymakers misled by the EPA’s consensus document, but the promised expensive 

regulations that are to follow must be viewed as being based, at least in part, on 

misleading or flawed information. This situation occurs when an institution follows 

a process that accords authors with veto-oversight of scientific information, who hold 

one type of perspective, and who are given total control over the output in a field 

plagued by uncertainty. 

There are other examples of the shortcomings of the assessment process (see for 

example, McKitrick’s Appendix B.2 and my Appendix C.1, C.2 and C.3b), but these 

above are sufficient to show the problems with the process of generating consensus 

documents. 

Before providing concluding remarks I will briefly address an issue requested by 

the committee regarding surface temperature datasets. 

2. Temperature data sets 

I have built temperature data sets for climate studies from satellite microwave 

sensors, balloon soundings, and traditional surface thermometers. My research as 

well as my experience as State Climatologist exposed me to problems with traditional surface measurements and led me to establish a new network of stations in 

Alabama with high quality, modernized instrumentation. However, these older stations provide the bulk of the measurements that are the basis of the popular surface 

temperature datasets today. My studies (and many others) have shown that popular 

land-surface temperature measurements are affected by many influences, most of 

them causing warming, which are unrelated to greenhouse gas increases (Christy 

2002, Christy et al. 2006.) This is especially true for the daily low temperature 

which is utilized in the popular surface temperature datasets today (Christy et al. 

2006, 2009.) As a result, these measurements, as used, are not adequate to detect 

what might be happening to the global climate as a result of greenhouse gas increases. (This is also related to the contamination issue raised by McKitrick described above and in my Appendix C.3.2.) 

Two of the major problems with the traditional datasets today are determining 

the provenance of the raw data and reproducing the methodology that created the 

processed temperature products used in assessments. In the past, raw data were 

often held close to the product-producer and so results were difficult to independently investigate. ‘‘Just trust me’’ seemed to be the basis for acceptance by the 

IPCC. 

There is an effort underway to create a data bank for surface temperatures that 

will be open and transparent, with the capability to trace the data to the original 

sources. From a data bank that is this comprehensive, many useful applications can 

be created (addressing not just climate change) with the full traceability of the product—from its original measurement with site photographs, to the final adjustments. 

In this way, for example, methods designed to deal with the contamination issues 

described above can be better studied and addressed by the community. Much of the 

effort of this project is led out of the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville 

NC. 

Bulk atmospheric temperatures measured by satellites and balloons, from the surface to 35,000 ft., form a more robust parameter than surface measurements for detecting changes that might be caused by the enhanced greenhouse effect. These temperatures are also affected by transient events, like volcanoes, that tend to confuse 

the detection of what these extra greenhouse gases are doing to the climate. As described in my recent testimony, when these extraneous features are removed from 

the global bulk atmospheric temperatures, we find a rising temperature trend since 

1979 that is significantly lower than what is being predicted from climate models 

as they try to quantify the effect of those greenhouse gases. To me, this demonstrates that the real atmosphere is not as sensitive to greenhouse gases as the 

climate models suggest. 

3. Concluding remarks 

While there are many examples of problems with the process of producing climate 

change assessments, I am not suggesting everything in these assessments is wrong. 

The point I raise here is that the process by which these assessments were created, 

whether intended or not, did not provide an expression of the full range of scientific 
55 

information (and in some cases provided incorrect information) for some key conclusions. These conclusions were then adopted without question by regulatory authorities such as the U.S. EPA. These suspect conclusions include but are not limited 

to, (a) the notion that the popular surface temperature datasets can serve is a detection variable of the impact of enhanced greenhouse-gas concentrations (and that it 

is accurately measured), (b) the belief that climate models have precisely replicated 

natural, unforced variability (so natural variations can be ruled out as the cause for 

changes that occur), and (c) an overconfident view of how sensitive the climate is 

to human forcing. 

With the IPCC process to date, we see Lead Authors sitting in judgment of information regarding their very own scientific results and those of their critics. This creates an unhealthy conflict-of-interest situation that unfortunately shortchanges the 

policymakers. To make well-informed decisions, policymakers depend on receiving 

the full range of scientific thought and evidence on any issue, especially one as contentious, murky, and as potentially expensive as climate change. The committee 

should understand that the IPCC presents one version of climate change science 

generated by an establishment that has evolved to largely reflect a particular point 

of view. As shown above, this point of view attempts to dismiss information that 

questions the belief that greenhouse gases are the dominant cause of observed climate change (as represented mainly by a rather poor surface temperature data set) 

with little effort expended on (a) other explanations for change such as natural, 

unforced variability, (b) a critical assessment of the climate change variables utilized (including paleoclimate) or (c) a rigorous assessment of model sensitivity and 

fidelity to observations. 

In my IAC testimony (Appendix A), I indicated that the climate ‘‘establishment’’ 

is so entrenched now, that our science is in need of ‘‘adult supervision.’’ If a new 

and independent report is called for, one idea is to use a leadership team composed 

of non-activists that includes, (a) physicists who understand that science advances 

by testing falsifiable hypotheses (and not by accepting popularized, untestable sentiments), (b) research engineers who understand what’s important to the issue at 

hand and (c) attorneys who understand the meaning of language, admissible evidence, and the legal process of discovery (transparency). With, hopefully, such objective eyes overseeing the process, the result may be much more humble and honest— 

revealing the lack of confidence and understanding we have on most climate issues, 

the lack of dramatic events attributable to humans now occurring in the climate, 

and the resilience of the Earth to human inputs. 

References 

Allen, R.J. and S.C. Sherwood. Warming maximum in the tropical upper troposphere deduced from thermal winds. Nature Geoscience. 2008. Published online 25 

May 2008: doi: 10.1038/ngeo208. 

Christy, J.R., B. Herman, R. Pielke, Sr., P. Klotzbach, R.T. McNider, J.J. Hnilo, 

R.W. Spencer, T. Chase and D. Douglass, 2010: What do observational datasets say 

about modeled tropospheric temperature trends since 1979? Remote Sens. 2, 2138– 

2169. Doi:10.3390/rs2092148. 

Christy, J.R., W.B. Norris and R.T. McNider, 2009: Surface temperature variations in East Africa and possible causes. J. Clim. 22, DOI: 10.1175/ 

2008JCLI2726.1. 

Christy, J.R., W.B. Norris, R.W. Spencer, and J.J. Hnilo, 2007: Tropospheric temperature change since 1979 from tropical radiosonde and satellite measurements, J. 

Geophys. Res., 112, D06102, doi:10.1029/2005JD006881. 

Curry, J. 2011: Reasoning about climate uncertainty. Climatic Change, submitted. 

(see draft: http://judithcurry.com/2011/03/24/reasoning-about-climate-uncertaintydraft/#more-2743). 

Dahl-Jensen, D., K. Mosegaard, N. Gundestrup, G.D. Clow, S.J. Johnsen, A.W. 

Hansen and N. Balling, 1998: Past temperatures directly from the Greenland ice 

sheet. Science, 282, 268–271. 

De Laat, A.T.J. and A.N. Maurellis, 2004: Industrial CO2 emissions as a proxy 

for anthropogenic influence on lower tropospheric temperature trends. Geophys. Res. 

Lett., 31, L05204, doi:1029/2003GL019024. 

De Laat, A.T.J. and A.N. Maurellis, 2006: Evidence for influence of anthropogenic 

surface processes on lower tropospheric and surface temperature trends. Int. J. 

Climatol., 26, 897–913. 

Douglass, D.H., J.R. Christy, B.D. Pearson and S.F. Singer, 2007: A comparison 

of tropical temperature trends with model predictions. International J. Climatology, 

DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651. 
56 

IAC 2010: Interacademy Council Review of the IPCC. http:// 

reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/report.html. 

Klotzbach, P.J., R.A. Pielke Sr., R.A. Pielke Jr., J.R. Christy, and R.T. McNider 

(2009), An alternative explanation for differential temperature trends at the surface 

and in the lower troposphere, J. Geophys. Res., 114, D21102, doi:10.1029/ 

2009JD011841. 

McKitrick, R., 2011: Atmospheric oscillations do not explain the temperature-industrialization correlation. Statistics, Politics and Policy, Vol 1, No. 1, July 2010. 

McKitrick, R.R., S. McIntyre and C. Herman, 2010: Panel and multivariate methods for tests of trend equivalence in climate data sets. Atmos. Sci. Lett., doi:10.1002/ 

asl.290. 

McKitrick, R.R. and P.J. Michaels, 2004: A test of corrections for extraneous signals in gridded surface temperature data. Clim. Res., 26(2), 15–173, Erratum, Clim. 

Res. 27(3), 265–268. 

NRC 2006: Surface temperature reconstructions for the last 2,000 years. National 

Academies Press, Washington DC, www.nap.edu. 155pp. 

Sakamoto, M. and J.R. Christy, 2009: The influences of TOVS radiance assimilation on temperature and moisture tendencies in JRA–25 and ERA–40. J. Atmos. Oc. 

Tech., doi:10.1175/2009JTECHA1193.1. 

Santer, B.D., P.W. Thorne, L. Haimberger, et al. Consistency of modeled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere. Int. J. Climatol. 2008. 

DOI:1002/joc.1756. 

Wegman, E.J., D.W. Scott and Y.H. Said, 2006: Ad hoc committee report on the 

‘Hockey Stick’ global climate reconstruction. www.uoguelph.ca/rmckitri/research/ 

WegmanReport.pdf. 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 

Chairman HALL. I thank you very much, and let us assume the 

testimony that has been withheld until the liberal press hadn’t reported it. I am going to be watching how they report your testimony. I thank you very much, sir. 

At this time, I recognize Dr. Peter Glaser, a partner at Troutman 

Sanders for five minutes to present his testimony, and I thank you, 

Dr. Christy, for staying within the five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MR. PETER GLASER, PARTNER, 

TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP 

Dr. GLASER. Thank you, Chairman Hall, Ranking Member Johnson, for the opportunity to appear today. My name is Peter Glaser. 

I am not a doctor. I am a partner with the law firm of Troutman 

Sanders. 

Let me emphasize at the outset that I am not appearing before 

this Subcommittee on behalf of any of my clients. The views I 

present here are my own and do not necessarily represent those of 

my clients, and I am not being compensated by them for this testimony. 

I have been asked to comment on the process EPA used to prepare its greenhouse gas endangerment finding, and that process 

suffered from a number of flaws in my opinion that undermine confidence in the substantive conclusions reached in that finding. 

These flaws are identified at more length in my written testimony, 

and I will provide a brief summary here. 

In the first place, EPA did not consider the societal health and 

welfare benefits created by the energy sources that produce greenhouse gas emissions. The EPA’s decision to limit its analysis in this 

fashion caused it to miss an obvious fact and that is that over the 

last century as anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have increased and in EPA’s view, the public health and welfare danger 

from these emissions has accelerated, every relevant indicator of 

public health and welfare has improved dramatically around the 

world, rather than deteriorated. 

Moreover, EPA pre-judged the principal issue on which the public was asked to comment when EPA proposed the endangerment 

finding which was whether anthropogenic greenhouse gas emitted 

from new light-duty motor vehicles may reasonably be anticipated 

to endanger public health or welfare. Even before the comment period began, EPA had already made up its mind that it would issue 

the proposed finding, and indeed the President had already agreed 

to the motor vehicle greenhouse gas regulations for which the 

endangerment finding was the necessary predicate. 

Other process flaws include the Administrator’s failure to exercise independent judgment in determining the endangerment question. Instead, as the Administrator conceded, she relied almost exclusively on what she referred to as third-party assessment literature. In particular, on the critical question of whether anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are causing deleterious climate 

change, the Administrator relied most heavily on the work of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or the IPCC. 

The failure by her to exercise her own judgment is a violation in 

my view of the statutory provision under which the endangerment 

finding was made. 
84 

1 Although I represent clients in the case now pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in which the Endangerment Finding is on appeal, Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, No. 09–1322, I am not appearing before this subcommittee on behalf of those or any other clients. The views I present here are my own and do not necessarily 

represent those of my clients, and I am not being compensated by them for this testimony. 2 Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 

202(a) of the Clean Air Act published at 74 Fed. Reg. 66,496 (Dec. 15, 2009). 

The endangerment finding also violated various provisions of the 

Information Quality Act, or the IQA and EPA’s own IQA guidelines. For instance, EPA’s IQA guidelines require to ensure the 

quality, integrity and transparency of information on which EPA 

relies for scientific reports. Despite relying so heavily on the IPCC, 

however, EPA never examined the quality, integrity and transparency of the data and studies on which the IPCC itself relied. 

EPA decided instead that it could satisfy its IQA obligations as to 

the IPCC material by examining the IPCC’s own information quality standards and procedures. EPA’s rationale, however, does not 

pass muster on the IQA, but in any event, that rationale was undermined by the so-called Climategate revelations. 

Climategate showed that either EPA’s investigation of the IPCC’s 

procedures was wanting or the IPCC had departed from those procedures. Either way, given the Climategate material, EPA should 

have at least afforded the public an opportunity to comment on 

whether EPA’s reliance on the IPCC was justified in light of this 

new information, but EPA refused to do so. And the Climategate 

issue is discussed in more detail in a petition that is attached to 

my written testimony and is in the public record in the EPA docket. 

My testimony addresses a number of other process flaws and 

contrasts the abbreviated and expedited endangerment finding proceeding with the measured and methodical process that EPA uses 

to develop national ambient air quality standards, a process that 

unlike the GHG endangerment finding process involves numerous 

opportunities for public comment on successive draft scientific and 

policy assessments. 

I appreciate the opportunity to provide my testimony to you 

today, and I look forward to questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Glaser follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MR. PETER GLASER, PARTNER, TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP 

Analytical and Process Flaws in EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Endangerment 

Finding 

INTRODUCTION 

My testimony 1 addresses analytical and process flaws in the finding of the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) that anthropogenic emissions 

of greenhouse gases (GHGs) ‘‘may reasonably be anticipated to endanger the public 

health and welfare’’ within the meaning of Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). 2 This finding is commonly referred to as the Endangerment Finding. 

In my view, EPA failed to observe basic requirements set forth in applicable law 

as to how a regulatory determination such as the Endangerment Finding should be 

made. These flaws are not technical. They go to the fundamental fairness and transparency of the way EPA arrived at its Endangerment Finding and the quality of 

the information on which EPA relied. The procedures EPA failed to observe are designed to ensure the integrity both of the decision-making process and the ultimate 

result an agency reaches. EPA’s failure to observe these basic requirements therefore undermines confidence in the substantive scientific conclusions in the 

Endangerment Finding. 
85 

3 CDC, Deaths: Preliminary Data for 2009 (March 16, 2011). 4 CDC, Deaths: Preliminary Data for 2009 at 5. 5 http://www .nationalacademies.org/greatachievements/Feb22Release.PDF. 

One particular analytical flaw in the Endangerment Finding stands out, which is 

that EPA only examined the danger to public health and welfare from GHGs emissions as they accumulate in the atmosphere and did not examine the danger to public health and welfare that would occur if society did not emit GHGs. As I discuss, 

EPA’s one-sided analytical approach caused the Agency to miss an obvious fact— 

that over the last century, as anthropogenic greenhouse emissions have increased, 

every relevant indicator of public health and welfare has improved dramatically 

rather than deteriorated. A new report by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) 

finds that the U.S. death rate (number of deaths per 100,000 population) fell for the 

tenth straight year and is now at an all-time low, continuing a decade-over-decade 

pattern of improved mortality rates over the 20th century. 3

This relationship between increasing GHG emissions and improved public health 

and welfare is not an accident. As I will discuss, the direct cause of both the increased emissions and the improvements in health and welfare is society’s use of 

energy, particularly electricity, which has inevitably produced GHGs. A complete 

analysis of whether society’s emissions of GHGs endanger public health and welfare, 

as EPA should have conducted, would include not only whether the accumulation 

of anthropogenic GHGs in the atmosphere may be causing deleterious climate 

change but also whether the processes that produce those GHGs produce countervailing public health and welfare benefits. 

My testimony is divided into two sections. I first discuss EPA’s one-sided analytical approach in more depth. I then describe the process EPA used to formulate the 

Endangerment Finding and discuss how that process violated fundamental obligations EPA has under the Administrative Procedure Act, the rulemaking provisions 

of the CAA, the Information Quality Act, and other applicable authority. I further 

contrast the highly expedited and abbreviated Endangerment Finding process with 

the much more deliberative and open process that EPA uses when it formulates a 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). 

DISCUSSION 

I. One-Sided Analytical Approach 

The question that the Endangerment Finding attempts to answer is whether society’s emission of GHGs endangers the public health or welfare. But EPA’s answer 

only addresses one side of that question—the effect of the emissions on health and 

welfare once they enter the atmosphere. There is another side of the question, however—the effect on public health and welfare of the activity that produces those 

emissions. 

Obviously, the emission of GHGs does not occur in a vacuum. GHGs are emitted 

across the economy for many reasons, the principal of which is that various residential, commercial and industrial processes utilize fossil fuels for energy and because 

C02, the most ubiquitous GHG, is the inevitable byproduct of combusting such fuels. 

These processes produce fundamental health and welfare benefits without which 

modern life would be impossible. As stated above, a new report by the Centers for 

Disease Control (CDC) finds that the U.S. death rate (number of deaths per 100,000 

population) fell for the ‘‘10th straight year’’ and is now at ‘‘a record low.’’ 4 The chief 

reason is a decline in mortality rates related to heart disease, stroke, malignant tumors, Alzheimer’s disease, diabetes, pneumonia/influenza, and other illnesses. As 

the CDC report and related publications clearly show, U.S. death rates have declined, decade by decade, since 1900, even as GHG emissions have increased. 

This relationship between increasing GHG emissions and improved public health 

and welfare is not an accident. The direct cause of both the increased emissions and 

the improvements in health and welfare is society’s use of energy, particularly electricity, as has been shown by a variety of publications. As the National Academy 

of Engineers noted in 2000 in naming electrification as the number one engineering 

achievement of the 20th century: 

One hundred years ago, life was a constant struggle against disease, pollution, 

deforestation, treacherous working conditions, and enormous cultural divides 

unbreachable with current communications technologies. By the end of the 20th 

century, the world had become a healthier, safer, and more productive place, 

primarily because of engineering achievements. 5

EPA’s decision to limit its analysis to the perceived detrimental impact of emissions after they enter the atmosphere—as opposed to the positive impacts of the 
86 

6 Endangerment Finding, 74 Fed. Reg. at 18,892, n.10 (emphasis supplied). 7 Id. at 18,892/3 (emphasis supplied). 8 Id. at 18,890/3. 9 IPCC, Climate Change 2001: Mitigation (‘‘IPCC 2001’’), at 608, available at http:// 

www.ipcc.ch/. 10 Proposed Consent Decree, Clean Air Act Citizens Suit, 68 Fed. Reg. 52,922, 52,928 (Sep. 

8,2003). 11 531 U.S. at 496. 

processes that create the emissions—is based on EPA’s overly narrow interpretation 

of its mandate under Section 202(a) (and in other endangerment finding provisions 

in other parts of the CAA) and the intent of these provisions. Logically, when EPA 

assesses whether the emission of GHGs endanger public health and welfare, EPA 

must assess the dangers and benefits on both sides of the point where the emissions 

occur: in the atmosphere where the emissions lodge and, on the other side of the 

emitting stack or structure, in the processes that create the emissions. Otherwise, 

EPA will not be able to accurately assess whether the fact that society emits GHGs 

is a benefit or a detriment. 

Without belaboring EPA’s legal interpretation of its responsibilities here, I would 

simply note that a full analysis of the dangers to the public health and welfare 

posed both by emitting GHGs and not emitting GHGs makes sense from a policy 

perspective. And EPA admitted that policy played a role in its Endangerment Finding. As EPA stated: 

[t]hroughout this Notice the judgments on endangerment and cause or contribute are described as a finding or findings. This is for ease of reference and 

is not intended to imply that the Administrator’s exercise of judgment in applying the scientific information to the statutory criteria is solely a factual finding; 

while grounded squarely in the science of climate change, these judgments also 

embody policy considerations. 6

The necessity for exercising policy judgment in acting in a precautionary fashion 

reflects the fact that determining the proper quantum of precaution in a particular 

case requires a balancing of risks and benefits in a broad sense. Obviously, overcaution creates its own health and welfare risks. As Justice Breyer stated in his 

concurring opinion in Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass’ns, 531 U.S. 457, 495–496 

(2001) (Breyer, concurring), ‘‘a world that is free of all risk—[would be] an impossible and undesirable objective.’’ And as the Endangerment Finding Proposal preamble states, the purpose of such a finding is to review ‘‘the totality of the circumstances’’ to determine ‘‘whether the emissions ‘justify regulation’ under the 

CAA.’’ 7

If, as EPA says, the basic purpose of the Endangerment Finding is to assess all 

risks and benefits of emissions in order to arrive at a policy judgment of the proper 

amount of precaution that justifies regulation in a particular case, that purpose cannot be fulfilled if EPA only looks at the atmospheric impacts of emissions, and ignores the health and welfare reasons why the emissions occur in the first place. 

Without a full view of the balance of health and welfare factors that relate to emissions, EPA could find that society would be better off without GHG emissions, when 

a balanced analysis might yield the opposite conclusion. 

The GHG regulation that EPA has already undertaken and further GHG regulation that EPA is likely to undertake in the future provides a particularly compelling 

illustration of the need for a balanced approach in assessing possible endangerment. 

As the regulatory preamble to the Endangerment Finding proposal stated, in somewhat of an understatement, ‘‘[t]he Administrator recognizes that the context for this 

action is unique.’’ 8 As the IPCC has noted, ‘‘[e]missions of GHGs are associated with 

an extraordinary array of human activities.’’ 9 Eighty-five percent of energy in the 

United States is derived from the combustion of fossil fuel. As a result, according 

to EPA, ‘‘[v]irtually every sector of the U.S. economy is either directly or indirectly 

a source of GHG emissions.’’ 10

Because GHG emissions, particularly CO2 emissions, are so closely tied with all 

facets of modern life, a finding that GHG emissions endanger public health and welfare is akin to saying that modern life endangers public health or welfare. That may 

be true in some sense, but the necessary rejoinder is: compared to what? Certainly 

not as compared with pre-industrial society with pre-industrial levels ofatmospheric 

GHG concentrations. To again quote Justice Breyer’s concurring opinion in Am. 

Trucking Ass’ns, ‘‘[p]reindustrial society was not a very healthy society; hence a 

standard demanding the return of the Stone Age would not prove ‘requisite to protect the public health.’’’ 11 Thus, although EPA would presumably conclude that preindustrial society would not pose a health and welfare danger in terms of GHG 
87 

12 http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergylmore. 13 Testimony of Carol A. Browner in hearings before the Senate Environment and Public 

Works Committee (Apr. 27, 2007). 14 (Emphasis supplied.) The memorandum can be found at http://blog.epa.gov/administrator/ 

2009/01/26/opening-memo-to-epa-employees/. 

emissions, the lack of industrial activity that causes GHG emissions would pose 

other, almost certainly more serious health and welfare consequences. 

Finally, the broader assessment of health and welfare impacts that I discuss here 

does not mean that EPA is without power to conduct a full assessment of the health 

and welfare impacts caused by potential climate change. To the contrary, such an 

assessment is a fundamental part of endangerment analysis. Nor do I maintain 

that, on balance, EPA could not find that GHG emissions endanger the public 

health or welfare. EPA, for instance, might find that the risks of what EPA might 

see as potentially catastrophic climate change outweigh the benefits accruing from 

energy production and other processes that result in the emission of GHGs. Or EPA 

might find that the risks to society of unabated GHG emissions outweigh the risks 

to society of some level of abated GHG emissions. 

But what EPA cannot do is to ignore the public health and welfare benefits that 

cause society to emit GHGs—to, in effect, pretend that a possible scenario exists 

where GHGs are not emitted at all and modern life continues. Such a scenario does 

not exist, and to assume that it does is to ignore the purpose for which EPA is called 

on to assess endangerment, which is to duly protect society against real-world risk. 

II. Process Flaws 

A. Process that Led to Endangerment Finding 

Proposed Endangerment Finding 

When the current Administration took office in January 2009, it brought with it 

a firm conviction that a scientific consensus existed that anthropogenic GHG emissions were the cause of significant deleterious global climate change and that continued emissions would make the situation far worse. A central plank of President 

Obama’s campaign position on energy and environmental issues was the need to reduce GHG emissions by 80 percent by 2050. 12 And considerable frustration was felt 

over what was believed to be the Bush Administration’s failure to pursue GHG regulation under the CAA following the Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. 

EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007). Indeed, Carol A. Browner, who would become director of 

the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy, testified in hearings 

immediately following the Court decision that EPA should begin regulating GHG 

emissions from motor vehicles and powerplants at once and that ‘‘climate change is 

real, it is caused by human activities, it is rapidly getting worse, and it will transform both our planet and humanity if action is not taken now.’’ 13

The new Administration did not wait long before taking action. In one of her first 

acts, EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson issued a January 23, 2009 ‘‘Opening Memo 

to EPA employees’’ discussing her overall views on environmental regulation that 

set forth ‘‘five priorities that will receive my personal attention.’’ Her first priority 

was ‘‘[r]educing greenhouse gas emissions,’’ including through regulation under the 

CAA: 

The President has pledged to make responding to the threat of climate change 

a high priority of his administration. He is confident that we can transition to 

a low-carbon economy while creating jobs and making the investment we need 

to emerge from the current recession and create a strong foundation for future 

growth. I share this vision. EPA will stand ready to help Congress craft strong, 

science-based climate legislation that fulfills the vision of the President. As Congress does its work, we will move ahead to comply with the Supreme Court’s 

decision recognizing EPA’s obligation to address climate change under the 

Clean Air Act. 14

Consistent with this view, EPA proposed the Endangerment Finding on April 17, 

2009, less than three months after the Administration took office. Although the proposed Endangerment Finding was ostensibly issued as a formal rulemaking document on which public comment was sought on all issues, including whether the Administration should make the Endangerment Finding at all, there was little doubt 

that the Administrator had already pre-judged that issue. Apart from her previous 

public statements on climate science and those of others senior to her in the Administration, the President announced in May 2009, just one month after the proposed 

Endangerment Finding was published in the Federal Register and before the comment period even closed, that he had committed EPA to issuing motor vehicle GHG 
88 

15 President Obama Announces New Fuel Efficiency Policy, http://www.whitehouse.gov/ 

thelpress—office/President-Obama-Announces-National-Fuel-Efficiency-Policy/. 16 Colin Sullivan, Vow of Silence Key to White Hause-Calif. Fuel Economy Talks, THE NEW 

YORK TIMES, May 20, 2009. 17 See, e.g, Endangennent Finding, 74 Fed. Reg. at 66,498/2. 18 Endangerment Finding, 74 Fed. Reg. at 66,510. The USGCRP refers to the United States 

Global Change Research Program. USGCRP subsumed the work of the U.S. Climate Change 

Science Program (‘‘CCSP ’’), which had previously coordinated such research. As ofJanuary 16, 

2009, the CCSP had produced 21 synthesis and assessment reports (‘‘SAPs ’’), and these reports, 

along with the IPCC reports, became the principal basis for the June USGCRP report GLOBAL 

CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES. The IPCC is a body that was established by the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Meteorlogical Organization to ‘‘provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of climate change 

and its potential environmental and socio-economic consequences.’’ Among other things, the 

IPCC releases Assessment Reports. The NRC is National Research Council. 19 TSD at 4. 

regulations that were premised on EPA making the Endangerment Finding. 15 The 

President’s announcement was based on an agreement that resulted from private 

negotiations among the Administration, automakers, environmental parties, and 

representatives of the State of California, and these negotiations had commenced 

before EPA had even proposed the Endangerment Finding. 

Despite the Administration’s commitment to unparalleled transparency in Agency 

decision-making—the Administrator had issued an April 23, 2009 memorandum on 

‘‘Transparency in EPA’s Operations’’ that promised that EPA would operate ‘‘in a 

fishbowl’’ and declared that ‘‘[i]t is crucial that we apply the principles of transparency and openness to the rulemaking process’’—no public record of these negotiations exist. Press reports, including in The New York Times, quoted the senior California representative in the negotiations as saying that she and Carol Browner, who 

coordinated the negotiations, specifically required that no written records of the negotiations be kept by any party. 16

The agreement provided for imposition of GHG standards for model year 2012 

automobiles and light duty trucks. In order to provide the automakers sufficient 

lead time to comply with the new standards, EPA needed to propose and then finalize the standards by the Spring of 2010. (It was also decided to coordinate the EPA 

GHG standards with Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards to be 

issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and 

NHTSA is statutorily obligated to provide certain defined advance notice of new 

CAFE standards.) Given the agreement to put these new standards in place by 

model year 2012, there was now no doubt that the Endangerment Finding. without 

which the EPA standards could not be promulgated, would need to be issued soon. 

Final Endangerment Finding and the Administrator’s Failure to Exercise Her Own 

Judgment 

The final Endangerment Finding was issued on December 7, 2009 and published 

in the Federal Register shortly thereafter. Despite the requirement of Section 202(a) 

that the Administrator exercise her own judgment as to whether GHGs endanger 

public health and welfare, the Endangerment Finding was not the product of the 

Administrator’s or her Agency’s independent review of climate science. Instead, as 

the Administrator readily conceded, the Endangerment Finding was based almost 

exclusively on reports produced by third parties summarizing their views of global 

climate change science, reports that the Endangerment Finding referred to as ‘‘assessment literature.’’ 17 As the Endangerment Finding stated, ‘‘ . . . the Administrator is relying on the major assessments of the USGCRP, the IPCC, and the NRC 

as the primary scientific and technical basis of her endangerment decision.’’ 18 The 

Administrator’s statement of her primary reliance on these reports is repeated 

throughout the Endangerment Finding, the Technical Support Document (TSD) 

(which was the detailed document prepared by EPA in connection with the 

Endangerment Finding that discussed climate science), and the document EPA prepared to respond to rulemaking comments (the Response to Public Comments). For 

instance, the TSD stated that it ‘‘relies most heavily’’ on this ‘‘assessment literature.’’ 19 The Response to Comments stated: 

The endangerment analysis for greenhouse gases under the CAA requires that 

EPA examine the extent to which the GHGs constitute the air pollution that 

may be reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare . . . The 

Findings discuss in detail the information that is relevant to the determination 

and how the Administrator has interpreted it in deciding whether the air pollution is reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. The scientific literature as synthesized in the TSD provides exactly the kind of infor-
89 

20 Endangerment Finding Response to Public Comments, VoL 1 at 5 (emphasis supplied.) 21 Id. at 7 (emphasis supplied). 22 TSD at 47–54. 23 Endangerment Finding, 74 Fed. Reg. at 66,503. 24 In denying the extension requests, EPA also said that it had provided a 120-day comment 

period in the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (‘‘ANPR ’’) regarding potential GHG regulation (Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the 

Clean Air Act, 73 Fed. Reg. 44,353 (JuL 30, 2008) (ANPR). The ANPR, however, did not contain 

any proposed Endangerment Finding or indeed any meaningful discussion of conclusions that 

might be drawn from the draft TSD that was included with the ANPR. Moreover, although the 

TSD in the ANPR was similar to the TSD in the proposed Endangerment Finding, there were 

important differences between the two. Additionally, a number of the CCSP assessment reports 

on which the ANPR TSD relied had not been through the public comment period for those reports and were not final at the time of the ANPR comment period. Thus, the 120-day conunent 

period on the ANPR did not provide an opportunity for the public to comment on these reports 

to EPA. 

mation that can help inform these issues. For example, the TSD summarizes the 

conclusions of the assessment reports with respect to: 1) current emissions of 

GHG emissions; 2) how these emissions are changing the composition of the atmosphere; 3) how such changes in the atmosphere are affecting the global and 

regional climate; and 4) the potential impacts of such changes in climate on 

human health and welfare, for current and future generations. In its scope and 

quality, the assessment literature is relevant and appropriate for addressing the 

scientific issues under the CAA. 20

Similarly, EPA stated that: 

EPA disagrees that review of the scientific and technical information contained 

in the TSD was inadequate. EPA did not develop new science as part of this action and instead summarized the existing peer-reviewed assessment literature. 21

Importantly, although EPA says it relied on reports of the USGCRP, the IPCC, 

and the NRC, EPA relied almost exclusively on the work of the IPCC on the critical 

‘‘attribution’’ issue: whether changes to the climate system that EPA says are occurring and will accelerate in the future can be attributed to anthropogenic GHG emissions and not natural forces. Most of the TSD examines observed and projected climate and the effect on public health and welfare. Only eight pages of the TSD are 

devoted to the attribution issue. 22 I count 67 citations in this section, with 47 to 

the IPCC. All the graphics in this section are taken from the IPCC, as is the introduction. Plainly, the principal authority for EPA’s central conclusion that anthropogenic GHG emissions are causing deleterious climate change is the IPCC. 

Limited Comment Period 

EPA allowed only a sixty-day comment period on the Endangerment Finding, a 

period that was not sufficient to address the vast volume of material cited in the 

‘‘assessment literature’’ on which EPA was relying—as well as the voluminous material that such literature ignored or which had been published after the ‘‘assessment 

literature’’ itself was published. Nevertheless, given the time pressure to make the 

Endangerment Finding that resulted from the Administration’s agreement to promulgate GHG standards for model year 2012, requests to EPA to extend the sixtyday comment deadline were denied. 

EPA’s publicly-stated rationale for denying requests for more time to comment on 

the proposed Endangerment Finding is interesting because it amounts to a further 

admission that the Administrator did not exercise her own judgment in making that 

finding and instead relied on the ‘‘assessment literature.’’ She said that: 

the major scientific assessments that the EPA relied upon in the TSD released 

with the ANPR had previously each gone through their own public review processes and have been publicly available for some time. In other words, EPA has 

provided ample time for review, particularly with regard to the technical support for the Findings. 23

Thus, according to EPA, the ability of the public to comment on the ‘‘assessment 

literature’’ during the processes in which that literature was developed guided 

EPA’s decision in determining how much time the public should be given to comment on the proposed Endangerment Finding. 24 EPA’s logic makes sense only if one 

accepts that the Administrator has authority to essentially delegate her obligation 

to exercise her own judgment to third party institutions and that comments to these 

third party institutions as they exercise their judgment are tantamount to comments to EPA. But Section 202(a) does not permit the Administrator to delegate her 
90 

25 The IQA was enacted as Section 515 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001 (pub.L. 

106–554). EPA’s IQA Guidelines are Guidelines for Ensuring and Minimizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by the Environmental Protection Agency 

(Oct. 2002). http://epa.gov/quality/informationguidelines/documents/ 

EPAlInfoQualityGuidelines.pdf. 26 See comments responded to at Endangerment Finding Response to Public Co1D.Irients, 

Vol. 1 at 7. 27 27 Id. at 7. 28 Endangerment Finding Response to Comments, Vol. 1 at 54. 29 Id. 30 Id. 31 Id. 

obligation to exercise judgment to third parties, and the public has a right to comment on her exercise of judgment to EPA. 

Lack of Independent and Objective Peer Review 

The Administrator’s near-total reliance on the third-party assessments is also 

shown in EPA’s failure to provide for objective peer review of the Endangerment 

Finding. EPA’s Information Quality Act (IQA) guidelines, 25 which are discussed in 

more detail below, incorporate a ‘‘Peer Review Policy’’ that ‘‘provides that major scientifically and technically based work products (including scientific, engineering, 

economic, or statistical documents) related to Agency decisions should be peer-reviewed.’’ During the Endangerment Finding comment period, a number of commenters questioned the independence and objectivity of the personnel EPA selected 

to peer review the Endangerment Finding, which is plainly a major scientifically 

based work product requiring peer review under EPA’s IQA guidelines. As these 

comments pointed out, all of the peer reviewers were government scientists and 

many had worked directly on the ‘‘assessment literature’’ on which EPA relied. 1A26

In responding to this comment, the Administrator recognized that she was obligated to provide for independent peer review. She nevertheless maintained that her 

near complete reliance on the ‘‘assessment literature’’ meant that she was justified 

in selecting peer reviewers not on the basis of their independence from EPA or the 

‘‘assessment literature’’ but on the basis of their familiarity with that literature. As 

she stated, ‘‘[g]iven our approach to the scientific literature . . . the purpose of the 

federal expert review was to ensure that the TSD accurately summarized the conclusions and associated uncertainties from the assessment reports.’’ 27 In other 

words, it was not important to the Administrator that she receive an independent 

critique of her own Endangerment Finding; her concern was merely to ensure that 

she had accurately summarized the conclusions of the ‘‘assessment literature’’ on 

which she was relying. 

Failure to Docket Information Relied On 

Another example of the Administrator’s near total reliance on the ‘‘assessment literature’’ in lieu of making her own judgment is EPA’s failure to include in the official Endangerment Finding record the publications and scientific information relied 

on by the ‘‘assessment literature.’’ Docketing all of the information on which the Administrator relies is not a procedural formality. It is the key way in which the public 

is informed of the basis of the Agency’s decision and therefore is a critical part of 

the public’s ability to comment on the action the Agency is taking. As explained in 

the Administrator’s April 23, 2009 ‘‘Memo to EPA Employees’’ cited above, EPA can 

only ensure that the principles of transparency and openness are observed in the 

rulemaking process ‘‘if EPA clearly explains the basis for its decisions and the information considered by the Agency appears in the rulemaking record.’’ (Emphasis supplied.) 

Recognizing that she was required to include in the Endangerment Finding record 

the information on which she relied, 28 the Administrator nevertheless maintained 

that since she is ‘‘reasonably relying on the major assessments of the USGCRP, 

IPCC, and NRC as the primary scientific and technical basis of her endangerment 

decision,’’ she is not required to docket material that these reports themselves relied 

on. 29 She took the position that ‘‘[i]nformation regarding the underlying data, models, and studies used by the IPCC, USGCRP, CCSP, and NRC in developing their 

assessment reports can be accessed by consulting these reports.’’ 30 Similarly, the 

Administrator stated that she ‘‘did not conduct new research or modeling in developing the TSD, and instead relied upon the findings of the assessment literature, 

including data and modeling studies presented in those reports. The information 

mentioned by the Commenter can be accessed by consulting these assessment reports and the underlying studies.’’ 31 She went on to say that ‘‘[o]ur comprehensive 
91 

32 Id. 33 Petition for Reconsideration of Peabody Energy Company (Feb. 11, 2010). I am submitting 

both the Petition and the Executive Summary of the Petition for the record. If the Petition is 

considered too long to be included in the record, I ask that the Executive Summary be included 

instead. 34 Response to Comments, Vol. 1 at 57. 

referencing of the assessment literature ensures transparency regarding the source 

of the data used . . .’’ 32

The Administrator’s rationale, however, is wrong in at least two respects. In the 

first place, if (as she admitted) she relied on the ‘‘assessment literature,’’ then presumably Agency personnel read the studies and data cited in that literature and 

were persuaded that the conclusions reached by that literature are correct. If that 

is the case, then those underlying studies and data must be included in EPA’s 

record, since ultimately it is that information that forms the basis of the Administrator’s conclusion that anthropogenic GHGs endanger public health and welfare. 

Additionally, as the so-called ‘‘climategate,’’ revelations showed (see below), the data 

underlying the IPCC conclusions, in fact, were not made publicly available by the 

IPPC or by the authors of the IPCC reports and indeed were withheld even when 

asked for under freedom of information law. Thus, the Administrator was incorrect 

in saying that the information cited in the ‘‘assessment literature’’ can be ‘‘accessed 

by consulting these assessment reports and the underlying studies.’’ 

Refusal to Allow the Public to Comment on Climategate 

Just weeks before EPA issued its Endangerment Finding, a considerable body of 

email and other information from the University of East Anglia (UEA) Climatic Research Unit (CRU) became available on the Internet. The emails are primarily those 

of American and British scientists who had critical roles in writing the IPCC reports. 

The CRU information undermines a number of the central pillars on which the 

Endangerment Finding rests, particularly the work of the IPCC. The CRU information reveals that many of the principal scientists who authored key chapters of the 

IPCC scientific assessments were driven by a policy agenda that caused them to 

cross the line from neutral science to advocacy. They went far beyond even what 

is acceptable as advocacy, as they actively suppressed information that was contrary 

to, in their words, the ‘‘nice, tidy story’’ that they wished to present, they refused 

to disclose underlying data concerning the studies in which they were involved to 

third parties who might use the information to critique those studies—even when 

asked for that information in freedom of information requests and even to the extent 

of deleting emails—, they engaged in a wide variety of improper and indeed unethical tactics to manipulate the type of scientific information that appeared both in 

the IPCC reports and in the peer-reviewed scientific journals upon which the IPCC 

largely relied, and they relied on inaccurate and unverified information from secondary source material that was produced by advocacy groups, information that the 

authors apparently knew was unverified but included anyway to advance the authors’ advocacy agenda. A comprehensive discussion of the climategate material can 

be found in the attached Petition for Reconsideration. 33

The climategate revelations (at least) created significant doubt as to the heavy reliance the Administrator had placed in the IPCC reports. As discussed below, the 

IQA obligates EPA to ensure the reliability and transparency of the information on 

which it relies for important decisions. In responding to comments on the proposed 

Endangerment Finding, however, the Administrator stated that she had not made 

her own expert determination as to the quality and transparency of the information 

used in the ‘‘assessment literature’’ despite her relying so much on that literature. 

Instead, she said that she had satisfied her obligations to ensure the reliability and 

transparency of the information underlying the ‘‘assessment literature’’ by reviewing 

the procedures used by the entities that prepared the that literature to confirm that 

those entities, in her view, had adequately taken steps to ensure information quality 

and transparency. She stated that ‘‘[o]ur approach is consistent with these [EPA’s 

IQA] guidelines because we thoroughly reviewed and evaluated the author selection, 

report preparation, expert review, public review, information quality, and approval 

procedures of IPCC, USGCRP/CCSP, and NRC to ensure the information adhered 

‘‘to a basic standard of quality, including objectivity, utility and integrity.’’ 34

There are at least two problems with the Administrator’s rationale in this regard. 

In the first place, it is by no means certain that the Administrator can satisfy her 

IQA obligations as to information quality and transparency without examining the 

transparency and quality of the information cited in the ‘‘assessment literature’’ 

given her heavy reliance on that literature to fulfill her statutory obligations. But 
92 

35 See the Response to Petitions at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ endangerment/petitions.html. 36 This discussion is not intended to be a complete discussion of the process and other flaws 

of the Endangerment Finding but instead is intended to illustrate some of the flaws. 

even if she could satisfy her IQA obligations solely by examining the procedures 

used by the authors of the ‘‘assessment literature’’ to ensure reliability and quality, 

climategate undermined her conclusion that the IPCC’s procedures, in fact, had conformed with U.S. norms for scientific objectivity, integrity, and transparency. 

A number of parties asked EPA to reconsider the Endangerment Finding in light 

of the climategate material and, in particular, to take public comment on this new 

information since it had not been available at the time comments were submitted 

on the proposed Endangennent Finding. These reconsideration petitions maintained 

that the climategate information and its implication for EPA’s reliance on the IPCC 

was at least important enough that EPA should allow the public an opportunity to 

comment on the impact of this information on the Endangerment Finding. 

EPA, however, refused to even take public comment on climategate, dismissing 

the new infonnation as essentially irrelevant to whether EPA had properly relied 

on the IPCC. Oddly, however, the Agency’s decisional documents needed more than 

five hundred pages to reach the conclusion that the climategate material was not 

important enough to warrant input from the public. 35

B. The Process EPA Conducted to Formulate the Endangerment Finding 

Failed to Meet Basic Requirements for Fairness and Transparency 

The above discussion reveals basic process flaws in the manner in which the 

Endangerment Finding was developed. American law sets forth a number of procedural requirements that administrative agencies like EPA must observe in rulemaking proceedings and in making scientific determinations like the Endangennent 

Finding that become the basis for regulatory policy. These include rulemaking requirements set forth in the CAA and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), information quality and transparency requirements set forth in the IQA, and a number 

of analytical requirements set forth in various statutes and executive orders, such 

as the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and Executive Order 12866 and President 

Obama’s new Executive Order 13563 on ‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.’’ 

As stated above, these process flaws are not mere technicalities that have no relevance to the substance of the Endangerment Finding. The reason that the law sets 

forth required procedures for administrative decision-making and scientific determinations is to ensure the integrity of the ultimate decision made. 

Some of the most important flaws are as follows: 36

First, the most basic flaw is the Administrator having prejudged the 

Endangerment Finding, which is an obvious violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and the rulemaking provisions of the CAA. As discussed, even before the 

Endangerment Finding was proposed, the President had already undertaken negotiations to commit EPA to regulations that the Agency could not issue unless it 

made the Endangerment Finding, and these negotiations resulted in an agreement 

even before the comment period on the proposed Endangerment Finding expired. As 

to the basic issue of whether or not anthropogenic GHG emissions endanger the 

public health or welfare, the comment period and indeed the rulemaking process 

was largely a formality. 

Second, in contravention of Section 202(a), the Administrator failed to exercise her 

own judgment and instead adopted the findings of the ‘‘assessment literature.’’ I can 

think of no instance where, on a matter of such overriding national importance, 

EPA relied so heavily and deferred so much to the judgment of third parties. 

Third, apart from the pre-judgment issue, and whether or not limiting the comment period to sixty days is strictly a violation of law, sixty days was wholly insufficient for public input into the Endangerment Finding. This limited comment period 

contrasts dramatically with the numerous and often lengthy comment periods that 

inform EPA promulgation of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), 

as will be further discussed below. Moreover, the Agency’s rationale that the public 

had an opportunity to submit comments during preparation of the ‘‘assessment literature’’ lacks merit. Public comments were not taken in preparation of the IPCC 

science reports, and the public could not have been expected to know that comments 

on the USGCRP reports were necessary on the theory that EPA would later decide 

to use those reports as the basis for the Endangerment Finding and for the ensuing 

regulation (and, indeed, in contrast to the numerous public comments on the 

Endangerment Finding, relatively few public comments were submitted on those reports). More fundamentally, the right to comment on the Endangerment Finding is 
93 

37 According to EPA, ‘‘[t]ypically, the endangerment and cause or contribute findings have 

been proposed concurrently with proposed standards under various sections of the CAA.’’ Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 

202(a) of the Clean Air Act, 74 Fed. Reg. 18,886, 18,888/3 (Apr. 24, 2009). 38 Proposed Endangerment Finding, 74 Fed. Reg. at 18,90911–2. 39 Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards EPA Response to Comments Documentfor Joint Rulemaking (Apr. 2010) at 7– 

66—7–77. 40 See Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V GHG Tailoring Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments (May 2010) at 163–65. . 41 OMB’s guidelines are set forth in Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, 

Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by Federal Agencies; Notice; Republication, 67 Fed. Reg. 8,452 (Feb. 22, 2002). 42 Id. at 8,459/1–2 (emphasis supplied). 43 EPA Information Quality Guidelines at 20. 

a right to comment to EPA, in order to influence EPA action, not a right to comment 

to third parties. 

Fourth, climategate destroyed EPA’s basis for concluding that it could rely on the 

IPCC’s procedures for ensuring the quality, integrity and transparency of the information on which the IPCC relied. Climategate showed that either EPA’s investigations of the IPCC procedures were wanting or the IPCC had departed from those 

procedures. Either way, given the climategate revelations, EPA should have (at a 

minimum) afforded the public an opportunity to comment on whether EPA’s reliance 

on the IPCC was justified. 

Moreover, in attempting to show that climategate did not affect the conclusions 

reached in the Endangerment Finding, EPA relied on studies prepared after the 

Endangerment Finding was finalized and then placed those studies in the 

Endangerment Finding docket. EPA thus attempted to shore up the rationale for 

the Endangerment Finding based on new information, but did not allow the public 

an opportunity to comment on such information or the conclusions EPA reached 

from it. 

Fifth, EPA held separate rulemaking proceedings for making the Endangerment 

Finding and for promulgating the motor vehicle regulations triggered by that finding. EPA did not identify any other precedent involving an endangerment finding 

in which it had bifurcated the endangerment finding proceeding from the proceeding 

to issue substantive regulations. 37 As a result, in considering whether to make the 

Endangerment Finding, EPA never considered whether the cost of regulating outweighed the benefit. Thus, although EPA took the view that the Endangerment 

Finding automatically triggered an obligation by EPA to regulate motor vehicle 

GHG emissions, and that EPA regulation of motor vehicle GHG emissions automatically triggered regulation of GHG emissions from stationary facilities under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V permit programs, EPA failed 

to undertake an assessment of the costs and benefits of GHG regulation of stationary sources. 

Instead, EPA took the position during the Endangerment Finding proceeding that 

it was not required to assess the costs and benefits of the regulation that its 

Endangerment Finding triggered because the Endangerment Finding itself was nonregulatory. 38 But EPA also refused to study the costs and benefits of regulation of 

stationary source GHG emissions during the motor vehicle regulatory proceedings 

on the ground that such issue was more properly addressed in further proceedings 

EPA would have on GHG regulation under the PSD and Title V programs. 39 Yet 

EPA again refused to study the impacts of such regulation even during those proceedings. 40 To this day, EPA still has not conducted any study of the costs and benefits of the stationary source GHG regulation that the Endangerment Finding triggered. 

Sixth, in developing the Endangerment Finding, the Administrator did not conform to several provisions of the Agency’s own IQA guidelines and those of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 41 for the ‘‘Utility’’ and ‘‘Quality’’ of information. The OMB Guidelines define ‘‘Utility’’ as ‘‘the usefulness of the information to 

its intended users, including the public. In assessing the usefulness of information 

that the agency disseminates to the public, the agency needs to consider the uses 

of the information not only from the perspective of the agency but also from the perspective of the public.’’ 42 EPA’s IQA Guidelines amplify this requirement by providing that the Agency will subject ‘‘influential’’ scientific information to a ‘‘rigorous 

standard of quality.’’ 43 ‘‘Influential’’ information is defined to include the following: 

Information disseminated in support of top Agency actions (i.e., rules, substantive notices, policy documents, studies, guidance) that demand the ongoing 

involvement of the Administrator’s Office and extensive cross-Agency involve-
94 

44 Id. 45 Id. at 22–23 (emphasis supplied). 46 OMB IQA Guidelines, 67 Fed. Reg. at 8,459/3. 47 According to EPA’s IQA Guidelines, ‘‘EPA recognizes that influential scientific, financial, 

or statistical information should be subject to a higher degree of quality (for example, transparency about data and methods) than information that may not have a clear and substantial 

impact on important public policies or private sector decisions. A higher degree of transparency 

about data and methods will facilitate the reproducibility of such information by qualified third 

parties, to an acceptable degree of imprecision . . . It is important that analytic results for influential information have a higher degree of transparency regarding (1) the source of the data 

used, (2) the various assumptions employed, (3) the analytic methods applied, and (4) the statistical procedures employed.’’ EPA IQA Guidelines at 20–21. 48The information below is taken from EPA’s PM NAAQS website. 

ment; issues that have the potential to result in major cross-Agency or crossmedia policies, are highly controversial, or provide a significant opportunity to 

advance the Administrator’s priorities. Top Agency actions usually have potentially great or widespread impacts on the private sector, the public or state, 

local or tribal governments. This category may also include precedent-setting or 

controversial scientific or economic issues. 44

Plainly, the Endangerment Finding qualifies as ‘‘influential’’ scientific information 

within the meaning of EPA’s guidelines, since it triggered GHG regulation of automobiles, regulation of all major stationary sources of GHG emissions under the PSD 

and Title V programs, and likely other far-reaching regulation. As a result, EPA 

should have, but failed in several respects to, apply a ‘‘rigorous standard of quality’’ 

in making the Endangerment Finding: 

• As discussed in a number of comments in the rulemaking process, EPA failed 

to discuss a large number of peer-reviewed studies that contradict the Administrator’s conclusions. According to EPA’s Guidelines, EPA must ‘‘ensure and 

maximize the quality of ‘Influential’ scientific risk assessment information’’ 

by, among other things, discussing ‘‘peer-reviewed studies known to the Administrator that support, are directly relevant to, or fail to support any estimate of risk and the methodology used to reconcile inconsistencies in the scientific data.’’ 45

• As also discussed in comments, EPA’s discussion did not include a proper context of other peer-reviewed studies that conflict with EPA’s conclusions. 

OMB’s IQA Guidelines for Objectivity, however, require information to be 

‘‘presented in an accurate, clear, complete, and unbiased manner,’’ including 

presenting the material within its proper context, with dissemination of other 

information ‘‘in order to ensure an accurate, clear, complete, and unbiased 

presentation.’’ 46

• As discussed above, EPA failed to provide for independent and objective peer 

review of the Endangerment Finding. 

• Climategate revealed that the information underlying the IPCC reports on 

which EPA relied did not conform to IQA standards for transparency. Yet, for 

the reasons discussed above and in the attached Petition for Reconsideration, 

the climategate material revealed that the information used in the IPCC reports did not meet these standards regarding transparency as to data sources, 

assumptions used, analytic methods applied and statistical procedures employed. 47

In sum, the process used by EPA to develop the Endangerment Finding was 

flawed, and these flaws undermine confidence in the Agency’s substantive finding 

that GRGs may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. 

C. EPA’s Process for Establishing a NAAQS 

The expedited and abbreviated process EPA used to make its Endangerment 

Finding may be contrasted with the methodical process EPA uses to develop 

NAAQS, a process that involves numerous opportunities for public comment on successive draft scientific and policy assessments. The example I will use is EPA’s promulgation of the NAAQS for particulate matter (PM) in September 2006. 48

The key scientific documents prepared in connection with a NAAQS review are 

the Criteria Document (CD) and Staff Paper. The CD is prepared by EPA’s Office 

of Research and Development and is a compilation and evaluation by EPA scientific 

staff and other expert authors of the latest scientific knowledge relevant to assessing the health and welfare effects of the air pollutant. The Staff Paper is prepared 

by EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Its purpose is to evaluate 
95 

49 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter; Proposed Rule, 71 Fed. 

Reg. 2,620 (Jan. 17, 2006). 50 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter, 71 Fed. Reg. 61,144 (Oct. 

27, 2006). 50 See http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/slml2007lfr.html. 

the policy implications of the key studies and scientific information contained in the 

CD and to identify the critical elements that EPA staff believes should be considered 

in establishing a NAAQS. It is intended to help ‘‘bridge the gap’’ between the scientific review contained in the CD and the judgments required of the EPA Administrator in determining whether it is appropriate to revise the NAAQS. CDs and Staff 

Reports each run to many hundreds of pages, much longer than the Endangerment 

Finding TSD. 

In October 1997, EPA published its plans for the current periodic review of the 

PM NAAQS. As part of the process of preparing the PM CD, EPA’s National Center 

for Environmental Assessment (NCEA) hosted a peer review workshop in April 1999 

on drafts of key chapters pf the CD. The first external review draft CD was reviewed by the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee (CASAC) and the public at a 

meeting held in December 1999. Based on CASAC and public comment, NCEA revised the draft CD and released a second external review draft in March 2001 for 

review by CASAC and the public at a meeting held in July 2001. A preliminary 

Draft Staff Paper was released in June 2001 for public comment and for consultation with CASAC at the same public meeting. Taking into account CASAC and public comments, a third external review draft CD was released in May 2002 for review 

at a meeting held in July 2002. EPA released a fourth external review draft CD in 

June 2003, which was reviewed by CASAC and the public at a meeting held in August 2003. 

The first draft Staff Paper, based on the fourth external review draft CD, was released at the end of August 2003, and was reviewed by CASAC and the public at 

a meeting held in November 2003. EPA held additional consultations with CASAC 

at public meetings held in February, July, and September 2004, leading to publication of the final CD in October 2004. This second draft Staff Paper, released for comment in January 2005, was based on the final CD. The Staff Paper was released 

in June 2005 and then another and final version was released in December 2005 

following further consultation with CASAC. 

The proposed standard was published in the Federal Register on January 17, 

2006. 49 A ninety-day comment period was provided for. The final PM NAAQS was 

published in the Federal Register on October 27, 2006. 50

The 2006 PM NAAQS is now under review for possible revision, and the process 

is equally as extensive. Without going into detail, just since the new Administration 

took office, EPA has published 15 notices in the Federal Register of meetings, comment periods and review drafts in connection with this review process. These include: Notice of CASAC Teleconference–August 25, 2010, Notice of Extension of 

Public Comment Period for Chapter 4–Second Draft Policy Assessment, Notice of 

Availability–Quantitative Health Risk Assessment (Final Report) and Urban-Focused Visibility Assessment (Final Report), Notice of Availability and Request for 

Public Comment–Second Draft Policy Assessment, Notice of CASAC Meeting–July 

26–27, 2010, Notice of CASAC Teleconference–May 7, 2010, Notice of Extension of 

Public Comment Period–First Draft Policy Assessment, Notice of CASAC Meeting 

March 10–11, 2010 and Upcoming Public Teleconference(s), Notice of CASAC Ambient Air Methods and Monitoring Subcommittee (AAMMS) Meeting–February 24–25, 

2010; Public Teleconference–March 26, 2010, Notice of Availability and Public Comment Period for Draft Documents Related to the Review of the PM NAAQS, Notice 

of Availability–Integrated Science Assessment for PM (Final Report), Notice of Extension of Public Comment Period–Second Draft lntegrated Science Assessment, Notice of Extension of Public Comment Period–Draft Assessment Documents, Notice 

of CASAC Meeting October 5–6, 2009 and Upcoming Public Teleconference(s), Notice of Availability and Public Comment Period for Draft Assessment Documents, 

Notice of Extension of Public Comment Period–Second Draft Integrated Science Assessment, Notice of Availability and Public Comment Period for PM ISA–Second External Review Draft, Notice of Planning Documents for Public Review and Comment, Notice of CASAC Meeting–April 1–2, 2009. 51

In sum, the process that EPA used to develop the Endangerment Finding was 

considerably shorter and involved much less intensive review and a far more limited 

comment period than typifies the process for establishing a NAAQS. Yet GHG regulation is just as important, if not more so, that PM regulation, and climate science 

is considerably more complex than the science behind PM effects on health and welfare. 
96 

CONCLUSION 

EPA’s process for developing the Endangerment Finding was characterized by a 

number of flaws that undermine confidence in the substantive conclusions reached 

in that finding. 

I appreciate the opportunity to provide this testimony. 

Chairman HALL. Mr. Glaser, thank you very much. I recognize 

now Dr. Kerry A. Emanuel, Professor of Atmospheric Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, for his testimony. 

STATEMENT OF DR. KERRY EMANUEL, PROFESSOR OF 

ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE, MASSACHUSETTS 

INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY 

Dr. EMANUEL. Thank you, Chairman Hall and Ranking Member 

Johnson, for this opportunity to speak to the integrity of the field 

of climate research. 

The basic physics of climate were established more than 100 

years ago by distinguished scientists such as Jean Baptiste Fourier, John Tyndall, and in particular they established that our 

planet is habitable thanks to gases that comprise less than three 

percent of our atmosphere. 

Already in 1897, the Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius projected that fossil fuel combustion would increase carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, and estimated, by hand, that doubling CO2

would increase surface temperatures by between 5 and 6 degrees 

Centigrade. 

Analysis of paleoclimate records suggest that natural climate 

change is caused by variations in solar output, the Earth’s orbit 

around the sun, aerosols, and in greenhouse gases. In particular, 

elevated greenhouse gases are the primary suspect in explaining 

the very warm climates of some of the Earth’s past. 

The scientific basis for the existence of significant risks from anthropogenic climate change is solid and rests on the principles of 

physics established more than a century ago as well as on records 

of the Earth’s climate as recorded by instruments and in the geological record. 

The conclusions of the scientific community that warming of the 

climate system is unequivocal and that most of the observed increase in global temperatures since the mid-20th century is very 

likely due to the observed increase in greenhouse gas, rests on 

sound scientific research. I need not review for you the fact that 

virtually every major scientific organization that deals with climate 

around the world has issued strong statements warning of the 

risks of climate change. 

Many government agencies and private enterprises are taking 

the risks of climate change quite seriously. For example, our own 

Defense Department has recently issued a report expressing concern about political instability arising from water and food shortages in several locations around the globe. 

Historically, science, including climate science, have tended to be 

conservative and to underestimate risk. I could give you many examples, but a recent and tragic example is the earthquake and tsunami in Japan caused by a magnitude 9 earthquake. The best projections before the earthquake of the largest earthquake that that 
97 

region should experience was 8.3, many, many times lower than 

what was observed. 

Notwithstanding anything I have just told you, there is universal 

agreement among scientists that current assessments of the risk of 

climate change are highly uncertain. In my view, it is unlikely that 

these uncertainties will decline appreciably over the next decade. 

Because of this uncertainty, there is no scientific basis for the confidence expressed by some that the effects of climate change will 

be benign. In respect to the stolen emails, and I know something 

about that, Mr. Chairman, because I served on the scientific advisory panel put together by the Royal Society in England to investigate such allegations. While there is general agreement that the 

preparation of a particular graph by a few scientists shows poor 

judgment in omitting a part of the record that was demonstrably 

false, there is no evidence for an intent to deceive. Efforts by some 

to leverage this into a sweeping condemnation of a whole scholar 

endeavor should be seen for what they are. 

Now, all scientific endeavors entail some diversity of views, including mavericks who challenge accepted science. There are biomedical researchers who do not think that HIV causes AIDS, although surprisingly, recently, there were geologists who thought 

that the theory of plate tectonics is incorrect. While usually wrong, 

such mavericks are indispensible to the progress of science, forcing 

others to constantly test their assumptions, evidence and results. 

But politicians who make mascots out of mavericks are invariably 

engaging in advocacy. They are fond of saying that science is not 

done by consensus. This is true, but if policy is not formulated on 

the basis of a sound scientific consensus, then it is almost certainly 

based on political considerations. 

Dealing with risks entailed in climate change will be extraordinarily difficult, and reasonable people will differ on questions of 

strategy. But citizens expect their representatives to confront this 

issue in an open and honest way. Making mascots of scientific mavericks or shooting the messengers are not rational options. Nations 

that are first off the mark in developing new technologies and policies that address the risks, selling those technologies to rapidly developing countries will prosper. 

Now, let me finish by speaking to you more as a citizen than as 

a scientist. We properly revere our forefathers for making material 

and mortal sacrifices for our benefit. One only hopes that our descendants will hold us in similar regard. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Emanuel follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. KERRY EMANUEL, PROFESSOR OF ATMOSPHERIC

SCIENCE, MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

I am Kerry Emanuel, the Breene M. Kerr Professor of Atmospheric Science at the 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where I have been on the faculty for almost 

30 years. I have taught atmospheric science and climate physics for nearly 33 years 

and am a member of the National Academy of Sciences. I am here today to affirm 

my profession’s conclusion that human beings are influencing climate and that this 

entails certain risks. If we have any regard for the welfare of our descendents, it 

is incumbent on us to take seriously the risks that climate change poses to their 

future and to confront them openly and honestly. 

By the closing decades of the 19th Century, science had firmly established that 

the main constituents of our atmosphere, molecular nitrogen and oxygen—which together comprise about 97% of the mass of the atmosphere—are almost completely 

transparent to solar and terrestrial radiation. Without the handful of trace gases 
98 

that do interact with radiation, notably water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane, 

our planet would be a snowball. Of these so-called greenhouse gases, water vapor 

is the most important, but cycles through the atmosphere on a time scale of roughly 

two weeks. Its concentration is highly variable and is controlled mostly by temperature; warming the atmosphere increases its concentration. The other important 

greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. These gases 

have atmospheric lifetimes of decades to thousands of years and have concentrations 

that are approximately constant over the globe. It is a remarkable fact that these 

long-lived gases, though they constitute a tiny fraction of our atmosphere, make life 

as we know it possible. I reiterate that these basic facts of physics and chemistry 

were established more than a century ago and are not remotely controversial among 

scientists. 

Already in 1897 the Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius predicted that industrial 

activity would increase carbon dioxide concentrations and calculated (by hand) that 

doubling the concentration would cause global surface temperatures to rise by 5– 

6 degrees centigrade. Modern science projects somewhat lower temperature increases, but Arrhenius’s estimate is remarkably close to modern estimates considering the information and techniques at his disposal. Today, students at MIT and 

elsewhere can do hand calculations or use simple models of radiative and convective 

heat transfer to explore climate physics, and they find climate sensitivities in the 

same range as those reported in the first National Academy of Sciences report on 

anthropogenic climate change in 1979. Global climate models were first developed 

in the 1960s and have advanced rapidly over the past few decades; they are used 

as tools to help us understand and predict climate, but it is not the case that they 

are the single or even most important tool for these purposes. Even before the advent of global models, there was enough science to warrant concern, and already in 

1965 President Lyndon Johnson warned Congress that we were changing the composition of our atmosphere at our peril. 

Understanding of climate physics was such that, by 1950 or so, we could state 

with confidence that doubling carbon dioxide concentration would increase global 

surface temperatures by just over 1 degree centigrade if there were no feedbacks 

in the system. The most important feedback—increasing water vapor with temperature—serves to amplify the warming. Other feedbacks involving clouds, aerosols, 

ocean currents, and many other attributes of the complex system remain somewhat 

uncertain, and when codified in the form of climate models are the principal sources 

of the still considerable uncertainty in climate projections. 

Highly accurate measurements of carbon dioxide began in 1958 and show beyond 

doubt that concentrations have been increasing from their pre-industrial value of 

around 280 parts per million to over 390 parts per million today. Analysis of gas 

bubbles trapped in ice cores show that current levels have not been experienced on 

our planet for at least a million years. 

It is hardly surprising the doubling the concentration of the most important longlived greenhouse gas will lead to noticeable climate change. Paleoclimate studies inform us that climate change over the history of our planet has been caused primarily by changing sunlight, owing to changes in the sun itself and to the earth’s 

orbit around it, to aerosol particles injected into the atmosphere by volcanoes, and 

by changing concentrations of greenhouse gases. For example, increased levels of 

greenhouses gases remain the only plausible mechanism for explaining very warm 

climates such as that of the Eocene around 50 million years ago, when tropical 

plants and animals lived near the North Pole. 

Over the past few decades, when solar output, as measured by satellites, has been 

decreasing slightly, there is little doubt that increasing global temperature is attributable to ever more rapidly increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases. We are 

undertaking an enormous experiment, and so far the response of the planet has 

been pretty much along the lines predicted more than a century ago. 

And yet our understanding of the climate system is far from perfect. We do not 

fully understand such issues as the feedback effects of clouds and the cooling effect 

that manmade aerosols have on climate. These uncertainties are reflected in climate 

projections, which at present range from benign to catastrophic. 

It is in such a scientific environment that our generation confronts the various 

risks associated with climate change. These risks have been well catalogued and 

endlessly discussed, but let me here focus on just one: the changing distribution of 

the supply of water. One of the more robust consequences of a warming climate is 

the progressive concentration of rainfall into less frequent but more intense events. 

Dry areas of the world, such as the Middle East, are expected to become drier, while 

flash floods should become more frequent. We are already seeing evidence of these 

changes in rainfall data. Reductions in rainfall in semi-arid regions lead to decreasing agricultural production, which in turn leads to food shortages. The potential for 
99 

1 Available from the CNA Corporation, 4825 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, Virginia, 22311, 

or http://securityandclimate.cna.org/report/ 

political destabilization of these regions is large and is matter of great concern to 

our Department of Defense, as outlined in their 2007 report National Security and 

the Threat of Climate Change. 1 To quote directly from that report: Unlike most conventional security threats that involve a single entity acting in specific ways and 

points in time, climate change has the potential to result in multiple chronic conditions, occurring globally within the same time frame. Economic and environmental 

conditions in already fragile areas will further erode as food production declines, diseases increase, clean water becomes increasingly scarce, and large populations move 

in search of resources. Weakened and failing governments, with an already thin margin for survival, foster the conditions for internal conflicts, extremism, and movement 

toward increased authoritarianism and radical ideologies. The U.S. may be drawn 

more frequently into these situations, either alone or with allies, to help provide stability before conditions worsen and are exploited by extremists. The U.S. may also 

be called upon to undertake stability and reconstruction efforts once a conflict has 

begun, to avert further disaster and reconstitute a stable environment. And, The U.S. 

and Europe may experience mounting pressure to accept large numbers of immigrant 

and refugee populations as drought increases and food production declines in Latin 

America and Africa. 

Among the recommendations of this report is one that states that The U.S. should 

commit to a stronger national and international role to help stabilize climate change 

at levels that will avoid significant disruption to global security and stability. 

In assessing risk, scientists have historically been notably conservative. It is part 

of the culture of science to avoid going out on limbs, preferring to underestimate 

risk to provoking the charge of alarmism from our colleagues. A good example is 

the recent tragic earthquake and tsunami in Japan. Examination of seismic risk 

maps prepared before that earthquake show that the seismologists had estimated 

that the magnitude of the largest earthquake that one could reasonably expect to 

encounter in the region was about 8.2, substantially weaker than what actually occurred. For this reason, the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear power plant was not designed to withstand the magnitude of earthquake and tsunami that disabled it. In 

our own country, the levees that protect New Orleans were designed for storm surge 

events somewhat less severe than we now believe are likely there. And, in the climate arena, summertime arctic sea ice has been declining somewhat more rapidly 

than had been projected. 

Far from being alarmist, scientists have historically erred on the side of underestimating risk. 

In recognition of the potential importance of manmade climate change, scientists 

organized one of the largest efforts ever made to communicate science to the public 

and to policy makers. I speak of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 

developed under the auspices of the World Meteorological Organization in 1988. It 

is strictly a communications enterprise (it neither performs nor supports research) 

and involves large numbers of climate scientists. In my view, the four assessment 

reports it has issued so far continue the conservative tradition in science. For example, in its second report, issued in 1995, fully seven years after climate scientist 

James Hansen told Congress he was 99% certain that increasing greenhouse gas 

concentrations were causing the earth to warm up, the IPCC said rather more cautiously that ‘‘The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.’’ But by the time it issued its most recent report, in 2007, the large 

amount of evidence that had accumulated in the interim forced it to conclude that 

warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and that most of the observed increase 

in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the 

observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. The report, which 

includes the input of more than 1,200 authors and 2,500 scientific expert reviewers, 

goes on to review the evidence in great detail, including projections for the next century, likely risks, and the uncertainties involved. A great many scientists whom I 

know personally took time off from their research and devoted enormous effort to 

this enterprise whose sole aim is to provide information to people and their representatives. 

In addition to the work of the IPCC, essentially all of the professional societies 

around the world that deal in any way with climate have issued strong statements 

drawing attention to the risks associated with anthropogenic climate change. 

Now I want to speak to you not only as a scientist but as a citizen. I am appalled 

at the energetic campaign of disinformation being waged in the climate arena. I 

have watched good, decent, hard-working scientists savaged and whole fields of 

scholarship attacked without merit. Consider as an example the issues surrounding 
100 

the email messages stolen from some climate scientists. I know something about 

this as I served on a panel appointed by the Royal Society of Great Britain, under 

the direction of Lord Oxburgh, to investigate allegations of scientific misconduct by 

the scientists working at the Climate Research Unit of the University of East 

Anglia. Neither we nor several other investigative panels found any evidence of misconduct. To be sure, we confirmed what was by then well known, that a handful 

of scientists had exercised poor judgment in constructing a figure for a non peerreviewed publication. Rather than omitting the entire record of a particularly dubious tree-ring-based proxy, the authors of the figure only omitted that part of it that 

was provably false. If this was a conspiracy to deceive, though, it was exceedingly 

poorly conceived as anyone with the slightest interest in the subject could (and did) 

immediately find the whole proxy record in the peer-reviewed literature. 

The true scandal here is the enormously successful attempt to elevate this single 

lapse of judgment on the part of a small number of scientists into a sweeping condemnation of a whole scholarly endeavor. When the history of this event is written, 

the efforts of those seeking to discredit climate science will be seen for what they 

are; why many cannot see it now is a mystery to me. 

It falls to our generation to confront a global problem of potentially enormous implications. There are three aspects of this problem that make it particularly difficult 

to deal with: 

1. It is global. All countries emit greenhouse gases to varying degrees, and it 

is therefore politically very difficult to regulate such emissions. 

2. The risks, while potentially large, are still very uncertain, and in my view, 

the level of uncertainty is not likely to drop anytime soon. 

3. While the costs of confronting these risks will fall largely to our generation, 

the primary beneficiaries of our actions will be our children and grandchildren, 

not us. 

In facing this highly difficult problem, reasonable people will differ in what approaches to take. But citizens have a right to insist that their representatives confront this complex problem in an open and honest way. In soliciting advice, we 

should be highly skeptical of any expert who claims to be certain of the outcome. 

I include especially those scientists who express great confidence that the outcome 

will be benign; the evidence before us simply does not warrant such confidence. 

Likewise, beware those who deride predictive science in its entirety, for they are 

also making a prediction: that we have nothing to worry about. And above all, do 

not shoot the messenger, for this is the coward’s way out of openly and honestly 

confronting the problem. 

Finally, let me emphasize what many others have pointed out before: Those nations that are first to develop sensible technology and policies to deal with climate 

change and pollution will likely attain great economic advantages. The market for 

clean energy in China alone is of staggering proportions. Nations that invest in energy research and in novel ideas in such fields as carbon sequestration and that foster enterprises that are in a position to sell such technologies to rapidly developing 

countries will prosper. 

In her past, the U.S. helped the world confront such global problems as fascism 

and communism. As a citizen, I hope that my country will once again rise to the 

challenge and assume leadership in this arena too. 
101 

SUMMARY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DR. KERRY EMANUEL, PROFESSOR OF

ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE, MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

1. The scientific basis for the existence of significant risks from anthropogenic climate change is solid and rests on principles established more than a century ago, 

as well as on records of the earth’s climate as recorded by instruments and in the 

geologic record. 

2. The conclusions of the scientific community that warming of the climate system 

is unequivocal, and that most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas rests on sound scientific research. 

3. Historically, scientists have tended to underestimate risk. 

4. Notwithstanding any of the above, there is universal agreement among scientists that current assessments of climate change risk are highly uncertain. 

5. There is no scientific basis for the confidence expressed by some that the effects 

of climate change will be benign. 

6. In respect to the stolen emails, while there is general agreement that the preparation of a particular graph by a few scientists shows poor judgment, there is no 

evidence for intent to deceive. Efforts by some to leverage this into a sweeping condemnation of a whole scholarly endeavor should be seen for what they are. 

7. Dealing with the risks entailed in climate change will be extraordinarily difficult, and reasonable people will differ on questions of strategy. Citizens will expect 

their representatives to confront this issue in an open and honest way; making mascots of scientific mavericks or shooting the messengers are not rational options. 

8. Nations that are first off the mark in developing new technologies and policies 

that address the climate issue, and selling these technologies to rapidly developing 

countries, will prosper. 

9. We revere our forefathers for making material and mortal sacrifices for our 

benefit. One hopes that our descendents will hold us in similar regard. 

Chairman HALL. Thank you. I now recognize Dr. David Montgomery, an economist, Ph.D., from Harvard, for his testimony. 

STATEMENT OF DR. DAVID MONTGOMERY, ECONOMIST 

Dr. MONTGOMERY. Thank you, Chairman Hall, and Ranking 

Member Johnson to testify before the Committee. I am not here to 

question climate science. I am an economist, and instead what I intend to discuss are failures in economic analysis that I believe have 

led scientists and others to reach entirely unjustifiable conclusions 

about public policy. 

The economics of climate policy are in fact shaped by several 

generally accepted propositions from mainstream climate science. It 

is a global phenomenon, driven by global emissions, so it does not 

matter where the emissions came from. Concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are what matter, not emissions in 

a single year, and these concentrations change very slowly. And 

stabilizing global temperatures at any level ultimately requires reducing net greenhouse gas emissions to zero. 

These propositions lead to some important economic principles. 

To avoid unnecessary economic harm, policy must involve comparable efforts by all countries. Mandates for emission reductions 

must not get out ahead of technology readiness, and effective R&D 

policy is essential. 

Now, reducing greenhouse gas emissions will have a cost. All of 

the comprehensive economic models used to study past proposals 

before this Congress have agreed on this point. Model results differ 

about the size of these costs, but the differences stem from the 

model’s varied assumptions, particularly those about future tech-
102 

nology and about the nature of the policies that are assumed to be 

employed. All models find that the deeper the emission cuts are, 

the higher is the cost of making them. Moreover, these costs are 

not just waiting a few months for GDP to catch up as EPA officials 

are fond of saying. Their loss is every year relative to the standard 

of living that would otherwise be achieved, and those costs grow 

over time. 

We keep hearing that we need emission regulations to create jobs 

and new industries. Green jobs claims are simply wrong and come 

from studies that only tell half the story. They add up jobs in producing green energy and ignore what happens to all the rest of the 

economy that would face higher energy costs and an eroded competitive position. This is so obvious to economists that few have 

even bothered to comment. Nor will climate regulations enable a 

U.S. clean energy industry to compete more effectively in global 

markets. Regulations may create a demand for low-carbon energy, 

but the evidence is clear that industries producing that equipment 

are increasingly being located in countries that do not bear the cost 

of reducing their own emissions. 

There are a number of additional ways in which the cost of policy 

is intended to reduce greenhouse emissions have been underestimated in recent studies and their benefits exaggerated. Two points 

are very important. Studies that use current policy baselines ignore 

the cost of greenhouse gas policies that were put in place by past 

legislation, like the Energy Security Act and the stimulus package 

when they look at the cost of, say, a proposal for cap-and-trade regulations. It is like celebrating how much cheaper a home improvement project has become because you paid half the bill in advance. 

You have to look at the whole thing, unfortunately. 

Many of these studies do not model the actual policies being proposed and instead estimate the much lower cost of idealized optimal policies, and you are going to face a very large problem when 

you hear about estimates of the cost of EPA regulations because 

there is no economic model that can really capture all the distortions that they are going to create in the economy, and they will 

probably assume something much more efficient in coming to you 

with cost estimates. 

Now, there are other practices that underestimate costs such as 

widespread use of what many of my colleagues and I call free lunch 

assumptions that I cover in my written testimony. 

If fears about climate change are correct, curbs on greenhouse 

gas emissions will have some benefit, but the harm to the United 

States that can be avoided directly by our action is often greatly 

exaggerated. I discuss the topic of avoided damages from climate 

regulations and how they have been distorted in my written testimony. Right now I would like to just make one point, that efforts 

to reduce our own emissions would make almost no direct difference to global temperature, especially if industrial production 

and associated emissions are simply exported to other countries. 

The Environmental Protection Agency’s own modeling of climate 

impacts of the Lieberman-Warner bill, using a model developed at 

Pacific Northwest Laboratories in the University of Maryland 

called Minicamp shows that the Lieberman-Warner bill which 

would have had massively expensive economy-wide effort to reduce 
103 

greenhouse gas emissions would only reduce global concentrations 

of greenhouse gases by 12 parts per million and that is against a 

target of 550 parts per million. By itself, the U.S. can’t make a difference, and therefore there will be no benefits to the U.S. of unilateral action, and there is no sign that China, India and other rapidly industrializing countries would take actions that would undermine their economic interests. 

Unless we find a more effective approach to international action 

that brings them along, U.S. emission reductions are likely to have 

costs far greater than their benefits. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, 

and Ranking Member Johnson. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Montgomery follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. W. DAVID MONTGOMERY, ECONOMIST

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

I am honored by your invitation to testify today. I am an economist by profession 

and training and am at this moment an independent consultant. I will start with 

a brief word about my qualifications. My work for the past 20 years has concentrated on economic issues in climate policy. I have published many papers in 

peer-reviewed journals dealing with design and economic impacts of climate policies, 

and I was honored by the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists 

with their 2004 award for a ‘‘publication of enduring quality’’ for my pioneering 

work on emission trading. I taught environmental economics at the California Institute of Technology and economic theory at Caltech and Stanford University. I was 

a Principal Lead Author of the IPCC Second Assessment Reports chapter that dealt 

with the costs of climate change policy and until recently I led the group at Charles 

River Associates that developed a pioneering set of economic models and used them 

in studies of virtually every major proposal for national and global climate policy. 

My testimony today will address the Committees concerns about the economic analysis of climate policy. Needless to say, these are my own opinions. 

I. Summary 

Climate change is a global phenomenon driven by global emissions. Concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are what matter, not emissions in a 

single year, and these concentrations change very slowly. Stabilizing global temperatures at any level requires ultimately reducing carbon dioxide emissions from 

energy use to near zero. To avoid unnecessary economic harm, policies must involve 

comparable efforts by all countries, mandates for emission reductions must not get 

out ahead of technology readiness, and effective R&D policy is essential. 

Reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions will have a cost. All the comprehensive 

economic models used to study past proposals have agreed on this point. Model results do differ about the size of these costs, but the differences stem from the models’ varied assumptions about future technology and the effectiveness of a global 

emission trading system. All models also find that the deeper are the emission cuts, 

the higher is the cost of making them. Some recent studies that make claims to the 

contrary have recently garnered undue public attention, but the fact remains that 

regulatory or cap and trade policies will not lead to a net increase in U.S. jobs, nor 

will they create conditions for a U.S. clean energy industry able to compete more 

effectively in global markets. 

Studies that purport to show that GHG controls will produce these outcomes 

make a number of common errors. To be sure, if fears about climate change are correct, curbs on GHG emissions will have some benefit. But the harm to the U.S. that 

can be avoided directly by U.S. action is often greatly exaggerated. Most of the damage from climate change will occur in countries without adequate public health systems and with poor, undernourished and unempowered populations. Four points are 

crucial to keep in mind. First, if the U.S. were to act without solid assurance of comparable efforts by China, India, and other industrialized countries, its efforts would 

make almost no difference to global temperature, especially if industrial production 

and associated emissions are simply exported to other countries. Second, even global 

action is unlikely to yield U.S. benefits commensurate with the costs it would incur 

in making steep GHG emission cuts. Third, globally, even with moderate emission 

reductions, benefits would not be much greater than costs, and, fourth, conflicting 

economic interests will make international agreements on mandatory limits unstable. 
104 

1 Martin I. Offer, Ken Caldeira, Gregory Benford, David R. Criswell, Christopher Green, Howard Herzog, Atul K. Jain, Haroon S. Kheshgi, Klaus S. Lackner, John S. Lewis, H. Douglas 

Lightfoot, Wallace Manheimer, John C. Mankins, Michael E. Mauel, L. John Perkins, Michael 

E. Schlesinger, Tyler Volk, and Tom M. L. Wigley (2002). ‘‘Advanced Technology Paths to Global 

Climate Stability: Energy for a Greenhouse Planet,’’ Science, 298(5595): 981–987. 2 EIA, International Energy Outlook 2010, May 2010, Table A10. 3 http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/thegreengrok/waxmanmarkey-vs-kerryboxer. 

II. Climate economics is driven by three features of climate change 

First, climate change is a global phenomenon driven by global emissions. A ton 

of carbon dioxide put in the air by China causes the same effects on Washington 

DC as a ton from a power plant in Alexandria. And China has already surpassed 

the U.S. as the largest emitter of carbon dioxide, and together with other rapidly 

developing countries will be responsible for the vast majority of emissions over the 

next century. Their growth is so rapid that even if the U.S. and all other industrial 

countries ceased all greenhouse gas emissions tomorrow, climate models would still 

predict global warming to continue unchecked, after a brief pause. 

Second, concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are what matter, 

not emissions in a single year, and these concentrations change very slowly. Emissions today are harmless to those in the vicinity of their sources, and matter only 

because of the consequences of their slow buildup that are predicted by climate models. Most of the carbon dioxide released today will still be in the atmosphere 50 

years from now, so that the time scales on which climate policy must operate are 

very long. 

Third, stabilizing global temperatures at any level requires reducing carbon dioxide emissions from energy use to near zero. The smaller the temperature increase 

society feels is tolerable, the more rapidly this must happen and the lower emissions 

must go. Achieving near-zero emissions is not possible with today’s technology; it 

requires R&D for and deployment of technologies not known today in every aspect 

of energy production and use. 1

These three points have very important implications for the costs and benefits of 

U.S. climate policy: 

1. Reductions in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, taken by themselves, will not 

noticeablely lessen the impacts of climate change on the United States. The Energy Information Administration projects that the U.S. will contribute about 

20% of cumulative global emissions by 2035. 2 But even if the U.S. were to succeed in reducing its emissions to 75% of 2007 levels by 2035, that would make 

only a 3% difference in cumulative global emissions between now and 2035 and 

have virtually no effect on temperature increases. The Kerry-Boxer bill that was 

rejected in the last Congress set the ambitious goals of lowering U.S. emissions 

to 20% below 2007 levels by 2020 and 50% below by 2035. 3 Even these ambitious targets would lead to only about a 7% reduction in cumulative global emissions over that time period. It is no surprise then that the EPA Administrator 

herself has admitted that EPA’s proposed GHG rule will make virtually no difference to global emissions or impacts on the U.S. Action by the United States 

cannot possibly be in U.S. national interest unless it is part of a larger bargain 

in which all other major emitters make similar efforts. 

2. Achieving reductions in emissions at minimum cost requires Where, When 

and How flexibility. Where flexibility means that on a global and regional scale, 

emission reductions must occur where they cost least. A system in which the 

United States adopts costly reductions and China does nothing, in addition to 

being insufficient to prevent the projected rise in temperature, is an excessively 

costly way of achieving whatever reductions do occur. When flexibility means 

that targets for reducing emissions must not get ahead of the availability of 

cost-effective technologies for achieving them. How flexibility means that all 

sources of emissions must be included so that all the lower cost opportunities 

to reduce emissions are used before more costly ones. 

3. Achieving near-zero emissions will require a much more effective program of 

incentives for R&D into low carbon energy sources and energy efficiency technologies than has ever been seen in U.S. energy R&D. I convened a group of 

the most distinguished scholars who have studied the economics of R&D at 

Stanford two years ago. They produced a set of recommendations for R&D policy that would focus government funding on a much more risky program of 

basic and applied research and leave most development and all demonstration 

and deployment to the private sector: it would use stable and credible incentives 

to stimulate private investment in development, demonstration and deployment. 
105 

4 Arrow, Kenneth J., Linda R. Cohen, Paul A. David, Robert W. Hahn, Charles D. Kolstad, 

Lee L. Lane, W. David Montgomery, Richard R. Nelson, Roger G. Noll, Anne E. Smith (2008). 

‘‘A Statement on the Appropriate Role for Research and Development in Climate Policy,’’ The 

Economists’ Voice, 6(1): Article 6. 

It would also avoid any direct funding of the white elephant demonstration 

projects that led to failure of many past energy R&D activities. 4 This would require the Department of Energy to concentrate its funding on high-risk earlystage R&D and require Congress to eschew the earmarking and micromanagement that has produced so little result for so much wasted money on energy 

technology development and deployment of costly and immature technologies. 

III. Common errors that lead to job benefits and deny the existence of costs 

I would like now to discuss a number of areas where I believe that there are serious problems with studies of the economic costs and benefits of climate policy. I 

start with the most questionable studies. These conclude that, by mandating the 

premature retirement of electric generators and increasing the cost of automobiles 

and most other goods and services climate policy would create massive numbers of 

new jobs and stimulate economic growth. I take as an example a series of studies 

by the Political Economy Research Institute on job benefits of climate policy and 

other environmental regulations. The most recent of these was based on studies 

funded by Exelon Corporation and released last month by the Center for American 

Progress and Ceres. 

Telling only half the story about jobs 

The PERI study and its like only reach their happy conclusions about economic 

benefits because they leave out of their calculations all the jobs lost in the rest of 

the economy because of environmental regulations and the costs they impose. In its 

calculations of the net jobs created by Clean Air Act regulations that would force 

retirement of a large number of coal-fired powerplants, PERI did not even include 

the loss in coal mining jobs that would be caused by lower coal demand. And it completely ignored all the jobs affected in the rest of the economy by higher energy costs 

and loss in competitive advantage of U.S. industries. 

Green jobs studies can make these errors because they do not use a model of the 

U.S. economy—they simply uses numbers called multipliers that add to the direct 

jobs involved in producing pollution control and generating equipment an estimate 

of jobs supplying materials used in that production. If PERI used any comprehensive model of the U.S. economy, it would be forced to account for where the mandatory spending on compliance with carbon limits and other environmental regulations 

came from. 

In previous testimony I described how I used CRAs model of the electric power 

sector (that supplied the estimates of investment in generation used by PERI), but 

linked it to CRA’s broad model of the entire economy, I found exactly the opposite 

results from PERI. PERI calculated an increase of 1.5 million jobs from EPA’s utility regulations but it ignored what happened to investment outside power generation. EPA’s regulations would reduce, not increase, total macroeconomic investment, 

by increasing the cost burden on new investment. The reduction in investment 

would be about $150 billion from 2010–2015. If these numbers were used with 

PERI’s multipliers the result would be net destruction of over 1 million jobs. I am 

not espousing either +1.5 million or -1 million jobs as a useful number, my point 

is that people would have had jobs doing something else if these regulations were 

not put in place, and it would be doing something that creates more wealth. 

Even PERI’s calculations of jobs directly associated with compliance are exaggerated because they assume that 100% of the required new equipment will be manufactured in the United States. As I discuss later, there is clear evidence that this 

is not happening. 

The Luddite approach to industrial policy 

Studies like PERI explicitly recommend climate and other environmental regulations because they would favor industries that employ more employees per dollar 

of output and would direct investment away from industries that employ less workers per unit of output. This is nothing more than the Luddite program to save jobs 

by breaking up productivity-enhancing machines. 

More output per worker is the major indicator of technical progress and increasing productivity in the economy. Increasing labor productivity through capital investment and technology improvement is what drives economic growth and 

undergirds our standard of living. The overall effect of restructuring the economy 

toward labor intensive industries and processes can only be to lower output per 

worker and to lower average wages. 
106 

5 Adam B. Jaffe and R. N. Stavins. ‘‘Energy-Efficiency Investments and Public-Policy.’’ The 

Energy Journal 15. 2 (1994): 43–65. Mark Jaccard and W. David Montgomery ‘‘Costs of Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the USA and Canada.’’ In Energy Policy, Vol. 24, No. 10. pp. 

889–898. October/November 1996. 6 Randall Lutter and Richard Belzer, EPA Pats Itself on the Back, Regulation Vol 23, No. 

3. 7 USITC, Wind Turbines: Industry and Trade Summary, Office of Industries, Publication 

ITS–02. 

Indeed, the logic of the PERI report implies that the greater the unproductive investment caused by a regulation, the greater its beneficial impact on jobs. If that 

logic were really valid, rather than seeking cost effective regulation we should seek 

out the highest cost way to achieve environmental goals. The result is absurd because the ‘logic’ upon which it is based is nonsense. 

Believing there is a free lunch in energy efficiency and green energy 

There is a long tradition of ‘‘bottom-up’’ studies that do not examine macroeconomic effects or market responses, but conclude based on simple engineering 

models that greater investment in energy efficiency would produce direct monetary 

savings in excess of their costs. My experience with these studies goes back to the 

early 90s when a series of studies by the ACEEE, UCS and OTA produced analysis 

and conclusions virtually identical to the ‘‘McKinsey Curve’’ that has become so popular in recent years. Despite a series of detailed criticisms by economists, these conclusions are repeated over and over again. 5

All the studies contradict the basic principle that ‘there is no free lunch’ unless 

specific market failures or government interventions distort the incentives that are 

conveyed by market prices. Unless these market or government failures exist, the 

free lunch conclusions imply that households and businesses are consistently mistaken in a major way in making choices about energy use that it is in their own 

economic interest to get right. And the policy conclusion that energy efficiency 

standards, technology mandates, or subsidies are the remedy implies that government agencies could do a better job of making those decisions for them. 

This has come to be known as the ‘‘conservation paradox:’’ simple engineering 

studies find that certain energy conservation practices and technologies should on 

balance save money while observations of actual behavior show that those practices 

and technologies are not adopted. The technologists’ answer is that people are in 

general wrong or some hidden and unspecified market failure must exist. The economists’ answer has been that the engineering studies are missing hidden costs, barriers, or other consequences of adopting more energy efficient vehicles, appliances, 

structures, and equipment that matter to people. 

Considerable research remains to be done on the conservation paradox. Stanford’s 

Energy Modeling Forum is conducting a workshop in which leading bottom up and 

top down models, including that which I developed at CRA, are participating. An 

institute at Stanford University headed by Professor James Sweeney is conducting 

behavioral research. Perhaps the most comprehensive work has been done by my 

co-author in the IPCC Mark Jaccard at Simon Fraser University in Canada, who 

finds that upon closer examination the claims of net cost energy savings are almost 

universally false. 

Any claim that a regulation or standard will on balance save money should be 

regarded with a high degree of skepticism unless accompanied by a well researched 

and peer reviewed demonstration that the specific action will cure a market failure, 

and do so without administrative costs great enough to wipe out the gains. As EPA 

and Congress move more and more into regulating greenhouse gas emissions 

through traditional command and control regulations and technology mandates and 

subsidies, this becomes a critical element of sensible policymaking. And the gutting 

of the agencies that provided critical review of regulatory analysis, such as the 

OIRA at OMB and OPA at EPA, has just about eliminated that review in the Executive Branch. 6

Claiming that climate policy will promote a new clean energy industry in the U.S. 

Costly greenhouse gas regulations are not likely to create industries producing 

clean energy equipment for export or domestic use. The experience of the past decade has proven that environmental standards or clean energy mandates will not create industries in the United States that will export clean technology to the rest of 

the world. To the contrary, the cost of such mandates is borne where they are imposed, but the equipment may well be produced by workers in other countries. For 

instance, in 2008 U.S. wind turbine imports were $2.5 billion and exports were $22 

million; less than half the wind turbines installed in the U.S. in 2007 were manufactured by U.S. companies. 7 China is becoming the world’s largest manufacturer of 
107 

8 ‘‘With their government-bestowed blessings, Chinese companies have flourished and now control almost half of the $45 billion global market for wind turbines. The biggest of those players are now taking aim at foreign markets, particularly the United States, where General Electric has long been the leader.’’ Keith Bradsher, New York Times, Dec 14, 2010. 9 Edward L. Glaeser: Why Green Energy Can’t Power a Job Engine—NYTimes.com. http:// 

economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/18/why-green-energy-cant-power-a-job-engine/?ref=business. 10 Steven Pearlstein, Good for GDP not good for workers, Washington Post March 13, 2001, 

G–1. 11 See paper by Robert Mendelssohn on impacts of climate change on land-based activities 

and comment by David Montgomery in forthcoming book published by the Lincoln Land Institute. 

wind equipment, 8 and exporting that technology to the U.S. solar manufacturers, 

including some of the technologically advanced, are moving to China to manufacture 

the solar arrays. 9 German experience has been similar; its huge subsidies for wind 

energy largely drew electric power from Denmark where the generation capacity 

had already been installed. And now Vestas (Denmark’s largest wind producer) recently closed all or most of its Danish manufacturing, despite the large EU demand 

for such technologies. 

Economic theory and the experience in Europe and the United States with renewable energy policies show the effect is the opposite of stimulus to clean technology 

industries. Clean energy equipment will be produced where it is least costly to do 

so, and domestic policies that raise energy costs can shift that comparative advantage against the U.S. Regulations create a demand in the U.S. for that equipment, 

but leave it open to all to supply that equipment. At the same time, environmental 

regulations increase the cost of doing business in the U.S. relative to other countries. Thus domestic manufacturers of mandated equipment and its components are 

put at a cost disadvantage relative to competitors located in countries that do not 

incur the cost of regulation. The result is to shift the supply chain for pollution control and electric generation equipment offshore toward less regulated regions where 

companies are better able to compete in producing components for powerplants and 

pollution controls. The result is that regulation increases demand for pollution control equipment but reduces domestic supply. 

Even if the goal of industrial policy were accepted, mandatory reductions on 

greenhouse gas emissions are the wrong way to go about it. A study by economist 

Michael Spence that was discussed in the Washington Post 10 confirms this point. 

Spence points out that what he calls the tradable sector—which includes manufacturing—has grown in output but not jobs, while the nontradable sector—principally 

government and health care—has provided the job growth. He then addresses the 

challenge of how to create U.S. job growth in the tradable sector—which means policies that improve the productivity of U.S. workers so that growth in output is not 

accompanied by increased outsourcing. Modeling of greenhouse gas regulations that 

I will discuss later shows that they increase costs and lower worker productivity, 

thus leaving U.S. workers even more vulnerable to competition from cheaper foreign 

suppliers. This is not to say that climate policy should be abandoned, but it does 

imply that it must be designed carefully and sparingly because it does make the 

task of spurring job growth and income equality more difficult. 

IV. Common errors in discussing climate benefits or avoided damages 

The most fundamental error is failing to admit how little is known about the direct causes of damage to human and economic systems that have been attributed 

to climate change. Climate models predict various geophysical consequences of increasing greenhouse gas emissions—change in global average temperature is the 

fundamental outcome of interest. Different models produce increasingly inconsistent 

results when they attempt to predict the regional distribution of temperatures or 

of other climatic variables such as rainfall. In order to predict effects on agriculture, 

the range of disease vectors, or other land related effects an even finer scale on 

which the models produce nothing of value is required, as are many other assumptions about levels of institutional development, public health systems, and on and 

on. 11 Some changes may be beneficial, such as increased growing seasons and carbon dioxide fertilization in high latitudes, and some are negative, such as drought 

or storms in tropical areas. But the range of possibilities and whether it adds up 

to a positive or a negative in any particular region is impossible to predict with confidence. Therefore, any economic evaluation of damages is equally uncertain. 

Another, and more intentional distortion, is describing total effects of climate 

change rather than damages avoided by actions under consideration. Many times 

the argument for action starts by describing all the potential damaging consequences of temperature increases above today’s level and the costs they would impose, and then uses this image to support a particular action or proposed legislation 
108 

that cannot avoid more than a fraction of that damage. In analyzing any particular 

policy the costs of that policy must be compared to the damage it avoids. It is shocking how rarely this fundamental economic principle is violated. 

Benefits are also overstated by exaggerating fears of health effects and other damages to the U.S. based on what is only likely to happen in poor countries without 

adequate public health infrastructure and with populations vulnerable due to poverty and poor diet. Concern about greater prevalence of tropical disease in the 

United States is the most egregious example, when the U.S. public health system 

already eliminates that risk through vaccination and vector eradication. It is not because of temperature that malaria stops at the US–Mexican border. 

There are a number of other more technical errors that lead to overestimation of 

damages. The first is ignoring how individuals and businesses will adapt to climate 

change in order to avoid harm. This error was labeled the ‘‘dumb farmer’’ approach 

in pioneering work by Robert Mendelsohn of Yale who showed the large reduction 

in damages when it is assumed that farmers adapt through changing farming practices rather than continuing with practices that are more vulnerable to changes in 

climate. 

Another error is including avoided damages that occur in all the rest of the world 

in estimates of the social benefits of greenhouse gas reductions in the United States. 

This approach was adopted by the U.S. government in its guidance for calculating 

the social cost of carbon for use in cost-benefit within the U.S. government. It leads 

to choices that have significantly higher costs than the benefits they provide in the 

United States. 

The final error that exaggerates distant benefits relative to near term costs is the 

use of low discount rates derived from ethical arguments rather than economically 

meaningful discount rates that represent economic costs of displacing more productive investments with less productive ones. 

V. Common errors that lead to underestimating costs 

A review of modeling studies of costs of climate regulations reveals four common 

errors that lead to underestimating costs. 

The first I call hiding policy interventions in the baseline. This is particularly a 

problem because of the incremental approach we have taken to adopting a climate 

policy. Fuel economy and renewable fuel standards were adopted in ACES. Subsidies for renewable technologies were expanded in the stimulus package. Fuel economy standards have been tightened again under the Obama administration. Each 

time this happened, the EIA included the new regulations in its reference case and 

lowered its emission forecast. This means that each time it analyzed the cost of a 

cap on greenhouse gas emissions—even when it had exactly the same provisions as 

a previous year’s proposal—its costs came down. The prior regulatory programs hidden in the baseline appeared to be providing emission reductions at no cost. It is 

only by stripping out all explicit climate measures from the baseline—even those 

put in place in the past—that it is possible to calculate the full cost of committing 

to mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions. 

A second common practice is assuming more efficient policies than are actually 

under consideration. This occurred in the Clinton Administration when the official 

estimate of the cost of the Kyoto Protocol assumed that all countries would participate in unrestricted emission trading, when under the actual provisions of the Protocol only industrial countries would do so. I observed the same thing in estimates 

in the cost of the Lieberman-Warner bill, when some of EPA’s estimates assumed 

levels of availability of offsets that were not possible under the provisions of the law, 

and when estimates by other groups were based on earlier, less stringent legislative 

proposals. It is necessary to make sure that cost estimates are actually representing 

the policies on which a decision is to be made. This is going to be a major problem 

in evaluating EPA’s proposed greenhouse gas regulations, because many models are 

incapable of incorporating the intricacies of those regulations and will simplify them 

to be no different from a carbon tax or cap and trade program. 

This leads to a gross underestimate of the full cost of command and control regulations. The reason in simple terms why command and control regulations cost more 

than cap and trade is that they are designed by bureaucrats who know next to nothing about the circumstances of individual businesses. Therefore, their orders cannot 

possibly lead to the same cost-effective solutions that managers would find for their 

own businesses when facing a price on greenhouse gas emissions. Likewise, no 

model can incorporate sufficient detail to capture all the costs imposed by imposing 

uniform mandates or standards on a highly diverse population of households and 

businesses. 

Costs are also underestimated in models that assume unproven ‘‘learning curves’’ 

for all green technologies (and no others). EPA’s recent ‘‘Prospective’’ cost-benefit of 
109 

12 William D. Nordhaus, The Perils of the Learning Model For Modeling Endogenous Technological Change. Yale University December 15, 2008. 

Clean Air Act regulations is a case in point. A substantial economics literature has 

arisen questioning whether the empirical observation that costs of some complex 

processes or equipment (semiconductors, airframes, for example) to decline as cumulative output increases indicates a causal connection that could be attributed to 

‘‘learning.’’ Several alternative explanations are equally compelling and have more 

support in case studies of actual R&D processes. These include the hypothesis that 

cost reduction comes from a combination of R&D to create new and less costly processes, followed by a limited period of learning; the likelihood that learning is specific 

to the worker, company or establishment and not able to be transferred to an entire 

industry, and the fundamental problem that costs may be falling because of general 

technology improvement over time that cannot be accelerated by producing the item 

more quickly. 12 Yet many studies of the cost of climate policies assume aggressive 

‘‘learning curves.’’ 

Finally, some studies that reach only a single optimistic conclusion have failed to 

recognize adequately the uncertainty of future technologies. For example, the low 

costs found in some studies by the EIA are based on a highly questionable premise 

of the growth of nuclear generation. 

VI. Findings of studies based on broadly accepted models and economic 

principles 

Before turning to global issues, I would like to present some findings from broadly 

accepted models that have been used to estimate the costs of climate legislation in 

the United States. I will base these observations on presentations made at workshop 

held by the Electric Power Research Institute in May 2007 to which authors of all 

extant studies of the then-pending Lieberman-Warner bill were invited. This included the Energy Information Administration (EIA), the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Massachusetts Institute 

of Technology (MIT), Charles River Associates (CRA), the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF) and the Clean Air Task Force (CATF) 
110 

13 Tom Wilson, Understanding Model Estimates of the Economic Costs of Climate Policy 

EPRI Modeling Workshop, May 8, 2008. 

Although the graph that I have reproduced above 13 of costs per ton of emission 

reduction appears to show great diversity in estimates of impacts, all the models 

found that there would be costs to adopting emission controls, and the costs would 

become larger as deeper cuts are made in emissions. 

It is striking that the variation within a single model due to different assumptions 

is far greater than across the economic models. Looking at 2030, CRA and MIT fall 

in about the same place on the cost per ton of emission reductions, EPA spans all 

the results of other models save those from ACCF, and EIA’s model NEMS which 

was used by EIA, ACCF, and CATF spans an even wider range than EPA. 

Moreover, the Chair pointed out that ‘‘While there are important differences in 

the modeling approaches and models used, much of the variation in the cost estimates appears to be driven by a handful of key assumptions, several of which are 

highlighted here: 

Reference case 

Most modeling efforts rely on the Energy Information Administration’s Annual 

Energy Outlook (AEO) to develop their reference case. In general, models that 

use an earlier projection of the baseline (AEO2006 or AEO2007) have to find 

more emission reductions to achieve the Lieberman-Warner targets and have 

higher costs—everything else equal—than those using the recent AEO2008 projection . . . 
111 

14http://my.epri.com/portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=342&&PageID=223366&mode=2&inlhiluserid=2&cached=true. 15 Lee Lane and David Montgomery (2010), ‘‘Political Institutions and Greenhouse Gas Controls,’’ AEI Center for Regulatory and Market Studies (Revised August 2010). 

Technology Cost and Deployment 

In general, scenarios that limit the use of advanced, low and non-emitting electricity generation technologies result in higher costs; those that let them enter 

freely result in lower costs. Model results presented at this workshop show dramatic variations in renewable, coal with CCS and nuclear capacity additions 

. . . 

Emission Offsets 

In general, scenarios that allow for compliance using offsets (emission reductions that are made outside of an emissions cap) show a much lower cost than 

those scenarios without offsets. Most groups do not model offsets in detail, but 

rather make relatively crude assumptions about their cost and quantity. Several 

teams did not include any international offsets in their analyses based upon 

their interpretation of the bill. 

Time Horizon 

The EIA’s NEMS model runs (used by several groups) extend through 2030, but 

most of the other models run through 2050. Different time horizons can affect 

compliance behavior (e.g. banking of extra credits), choice of technology deployments, and other aspects of model economics. 

Discount Rates 

The models use discount rates (which define the time preference for money) 

ranging from 4 to 7%. This affects the time period in which emissions reductions are viewed to be most attractive from an economic point of view, and leads 

to differences in total economic cost.’’ 14

VII. Common errors in dealing with global nature of climate change 

I have concentrated on costs of climate policies in the U.S. to the U.S. Let me 

say a few words about estimates of global costs and benefits of climate policy. Studies that avoid the errors and biases that I have described generally conclude that 

globally the benefits and the costs of even modest temperature goals would be of 

roughly of the same magnitude—if they could be achieved with perfect where, when 

and how flexibility. 

But these studies are also overly optimistic, because they ignore two huge obstacles to achieving where, when and how flexibility: 

• They ignore the institutional realities that are likely to prevent most countries 

from adopting the most cost-effective policies to reduce missions within their 

borders, and 

• They ignore clear evidence that no global agreement on mandatory emission reductions is likely to be in the national interest of the countries that must participate for it to be effective. 

Excessively costly national policies 

Even national governments are complex institutions, and their workings can frustrate the adoption and enforcement of comprehensive emission limits or lead to the 

use of policies that are needlessly costly. There is good evidence that this will occur 

in the case of domestic GHG limits. In a recent study, a colleague and I used two 

examples, the United States and China, to illustrate how the systematic study of 

institutions and the political economy of choices can expand understanding of current policy choices and likely future progress in countries with very different kinds 

of political and economic institutions. 15 This analysis suggests several conclusions: 

• There is a strong, systematic and comprehensible political logic that leads to 

choice of policies that differ widely from the economist’s ideal of a single price 

on all greenhouse gas emissions. 

• In the United States, the most cost-effective approaches, a carbon tax and cap 

and trade, were respectively never on the agenda and defeated in Congress. Instead we appear to be embarking on a piecemeal approach of command and control regulation through the Clean Air Act and technology mandates and subsidies through legislation. This outcome was completely predictable given the 
112 

16 William D. Nordhaus, A Question of Balance: Weighing the Options on Global Warming 

Policies, New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008. 17 Lee Lane and David Montgomery (2008), ‘‘Political Institutions and Greenhouse Gas Controls,’’ AEI Center for Regulatory and Market Studies. 18 Richard S.J. Tol (2009), ‘‘An Analysis of Mitigation as a Response to Climate Change,’’ Copenhagen Consensus on Climate. 19 Valentina Bossetti, Carlo Carraro, Enrica De Cian, Romain Duval, Emanuele Massetti and 

Massimo Tavoni, ‘‘The Incentives To Participate In And The Stability Of International Climate 

Coalitions: A Game-Theoretic Approach Using The Witch Model, OECD Economics Department 

Working Papers No.702. 

history of comprehensive energy legislation and the nature of legislative institutions. 

• In China it is likely to be difficult or impossible for the central government to 

enforce comprehensive and binding limits on greenhouse gas emissions; a related finding is that the outcome of China’s adopting a comprehensive cap-andtrade policy is likely to be very different from that predicted by economic models 

that assume costless enforcement and efficient markets. 

Impossibility of a single global commitment to mandatory reductions 

Globally, the asymmetric distribution of costs and benefits implies that the national interests of even the most important states that must agree to a global climate regime are inconsistent with any agreement on mandatory emission limits. 

Most studies of the distribution of damages from climate change conclude that 

under the most likely scenarios the greatest harm will occur in poor countries located in tropical regions. The United States and Europe will suffer little direct harm 

in relation to the size of their economies, at least if sensible measures for adaptation 

are undertaken. Russia is very likely to benefit from warmer temperatures. Yet the 

distribution of present and future emissions is exactly the opposite. In other word, 

the countries that would have to undertake the largest emission reductions gain the 

least benefits. China and India are possible exceptions; they have very large emissions and are also threatened by great potential harm, at least in some regions. 

This pattern of costs and benefits is not a formula for a successful agreement in 

which industrial countries make drastic emission reductions while also covering the 

cost of emission reductions and adaptation in poor countries. Only a willingness to 

incur high costs for the benefit of the poor countries of the world could motivate the 

U.S. to agree to such an outcome, and our current allocation of resources to aid 

gives no indication of such willingness. China and India might well find an agreement in their national interests, but both are hard bargainers and face their own 

institutional and political obstacles to carrying out meaningful reductions in emissions. Far from receiving compensation and adaptation assistance, poor countries 

would have to make payments to the rich in order to make an agreement be in the 

national interests of the wealthy countries of the world. 

VIII. The net result 

1. Even on a global scale, costs and avoided damages are quite similar. 

The global net benefits of even optimal GHG controls appear to be relatively modest. One recent estimate pegged their present discounted value at slightly more than 

$3 trillion over the next two hundred and fifty years. 16 Compared to the size of the 

global economy, this is not a very big number. Also, controls are certain to be far 

from optimal, 17 and costs could easily exceed benefits. 18 The rewards of an agreement on controls may, then, be offer only a weak incentive. 

2. No global agreement to keep temperature increase to 2 deg C or less will be stable. 

The most comprehensive formal analysis of the resulting outcomes that I have 

seen concludes that 

‘‘Only coalitions including all large emitting regions are found to be technically 

able to meet a concentration stabilization target below 550 ppm CO2eq by 2100. 

Once the free-riding incentives of non-participants are taken into account, only 

a ‘‘grand coalition’’ including virtually all regions can be successful. This grand 

coalition is profitable as a whole, implying that all countries can gain from participation provided appropriate transfers are made across them. However, neither the grand coalition nor smaller but still environmentally significant coalitions appear to be stable. This is because the collective welfare surplus from cooperation is not found to be large enough for transfers to offset the free-riding 

incentives of all countries simultaneously.’’ 19
113 

Chairman HALL. 

I thank all of you for your testimony, and I once again remind 

our Committee and the Members that I would ask you to limit your 

questioning to five minutes. I will open with some questions, and 

I thank all of you for your good testimony. 

This is a group that I have wanted from the beginning. We have 

asked for it. We asked for it in letters from the opposite side and 

been turned down, and the Ranking Member said I think in her 

closing statement that I hope this is not the beginning and ending 

of the record on climate science in the 112th Congress with this 

hearing. It won’t be. We are going to have others because we want 

to finally get to those who did indicate that it was, as you have, 

that it was bad science and had the right to question that science 

and find out those that will question. We will have that committee 

at a later time here. 

Let me start mine. I don’t want to call you doctor if you are not 

a doctor. Mr. Glaser, is that right? In your testimony you discussed 

the timeline of the issuance of the endangerment finding, and I appreciate you bringing that up. With respect to the promulgation of 

standards for reducing greenhouse gas emissions for motor vehicles 

worked out with the White House, automakers, California state 

regulators and environmental groups, you state that the timing of 

the auto rules suggest that the endangerment finding was predetermined. Do you want to enlarge on that a little bit? How often 

does the EPA change the direction of its rule-making between the 

issuance of the proposed rule and the release of the final rule? 

Dr. GLASER. Yeah, I can address that. It happens. In fact, it has 

happened very, very recently. One good example of EPA’s substantially changing a regulation in response to public comments is the 

so-called boiler MACT rule which is a rule to address hazardous air 

pollutant emissions from commercial and industrial boilers. In that 

case, EPA made a proposal. They got very, very significant comments in opposition, and in the final rule that was just issued, EPA 

made very significant changes to the rule, and they say they are 

going to consider further changes still. 

So the integrity of the public comment period is very important. 

The process flaws that I talk about in my testimony are not technicalities. They are meant to protect the integrity of the ultimate 

decision that is reached. So when we have a situation as we had 

here, when the Administration came to office determined to regulate greenhouse gases, through the Clean Air Act if necessary, and 

therefore pretty early in the Administration committed to the 

motor vehicle regulations for which the endangerment finding was 

the necessary predicate, it undermines the integrity of the process. 

It undermines the ability of the public to affect that process with 

comments and therefore undermines the integrity of the ultimate 

decision reached. 

Chairman HALL. I thank you, sir. How does that predetermination of the final rule affect the usefulness and the legitimacy of the 

rule-making process? 

Dr. GLASER. Yeah, well, as I said—— 

Chairman HALL. You touched on that, but I have a couple of 

minutes left. I hope you will give us an answer on that. 
114 

Dr. GLASER. Yeah, sure. The whole purpose that we have notice 

and comment rule-making which EPA undertook for the 

endangerment finding is for the public to comment and to be able 

to present information and studies and affect what the ultimate decision would be. Keep in mind that the fundamental question that 

EPA was asking when it put the endangerment finding out for public comment was should we be making this endangerment finding? 

Do we have a basis for making this endangerment finding? There 

are lots of comments that were submitted saying no, you should not 

do that, but it did not appear to me anyway and to many others 

that that was an outcome that was possible. In other words, the 

EPA would change its mind and not make an endangerment finding. One way we know this is that EPA only allowed a 60-day comment period for the endangerment finding, 60 days to comment on 

this massive amount of scientific information. It wasn’t enough 

time. But in my view, EPA had determined that it wanted to move 

very quickly on the underlying regulations which drove the 

endangerment finding process forward more quickly than it should 

have been and therefore really made it difficult for companies, 

members of the public, private institutions, public institutions to 

make comments and ultimately to affect the process. 

Chairman HALL. I thank you, sir. Dr. Montgomery, if the United 

States were to drastically reduce carbon dioxide emissions, electric 

utilities would have to rapidly retire traditional and coal-fired 

power plants which currently make up approximately 45 percent of 

America’s current generation mix, and the EIA anticipates, that is 

the Energy Information Administration, anticipates that coal will 

remain an important part of our electricity generation producing 43 

percent of our total generation by the year 2035. So considering the 

EIA projects, that they project electricity demand will increase in 

the United States by 21 percent by 2035, what would be the repercussion from removing coal, say, from the generation mix? 

Dr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, removing coal from the generation mix would impose very large costs and potentially disruptive effects on electricity markets. It all depends on how fast it is 

done and the extent to which technologies such as carbon capture 

and sequestration become available and make it possible actually 

to continue to use coal through clean-coal technologies which capture carbon and sequester it. But all of those technologies are 

unproven, in the future, at best in an experimental stage and are 

themselves subject to a number of regulatory and environment objections. 

We looked just at the retirements—when I was at Charles River 

Associates, we looked just at the retirements that would be associated with EPA’s greenhouse gas regulations and concluded that 

they would produce very large increases in electricity costs, maybe 

something like and I am relying on memory now, 40 to 50 percent 

increase in whole electricity prices over the next ten years or so 

and quite large impacts on the standard of living. I remember 

something on the order of $500 to $1,000 say loss in income to the 

average worker. 

Chairman HALL. Okay. I thank you. Recognizing that China, 

Russia, Mexico, India and on and on are not going to participate 

with us financially, and that is a fact, is it not? Yes or no. Yes? 
115 

Dr. MONTGOMERY. Yes, it is. We see very little evidence that 

China—— 

Chairman HALL. And does it surprise you that we spend over $30 

billion just on research with no expectation of any money from 

them? So somebody has got to go by the cash register. Now, you 

are an economist. There is a cash register in every store in this 

town, and there will be a cash register involved here. And I think 

they ought to consider that. I think that is your opinion, isn’t it? 

Dr. MONTGOMERY. Yes, it is. There will be costs to what we do. 

Chairman HALL. Thank you. I yield back my time. At this time 

I recognize Mrs. Johnson for five minutes. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like 

to pose this question to the three physical scientists on the panel, 

Dr. Christy, Dr. Muller, and Dr. Emanuel. There seems to be some 

attitudes that is an elaborate hoax orchestrated by the scientific 

community on global change, and I don’t know that I have heard 

you argue whether or not there is global change happening and 

human activity as a factor. Instead, it is more of a disagreement 

over the magnitude of warming and the degree of which human activity plays a role. 

Based on your work, the three of you, do you agree that the global temperature is rising and will continue to rise and that greenhouse gas concentrations are at least partly to blame? 

Dr. CHRISTY. The global temperature might continue to rise, it 

might not, but greenhouse, the extra greenhouse gases we are putting into the atmosphere are indeed a warming influence. The 

question is what are the other gazillion things that affect global 

temperature going to do as a result. But greenhouse gases in and 

of themselves do exert a warming influence on the planet. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Dr. MULLER. I agree with Dr. Christy. Greenhouse gases do exert 

a warming. I believe we are seeing that warming. The issue in my 

mind is not whether we are seeing but what is the degree. Is it 

something which, if it is at the high end, we really do need to move 

very rapidly, although we do have to engage the other countries because as Dr. Montgomery said, most of the warming is not going 

to come from the United States? Most of the carbon dioxide will 

come from other countries in the world. 

On the other hand, if the warming is a little bit less, the models 

have the ability to account for less. There are unknowns in the 

models having to do with cloud cover feedback and water vapor 

feedback, and so if the warming is a little bit less than we thought 

previously, then we have time to implement some more long-term 

solutions that currently some people object to because they 

wouldn’t work within the next short period of time. 

Dr. EMANUEL. I think all three of us are in pretty good agreement on this point. The planet is warming up. The bulk of evidence 

suggests that increasing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases 

have something to do with it, and we are all in agreement that unfortunately when we try to project forward, the risks are poorly 

quantified at this point. And projections that have been made by 

modelers range from the benign to the catastrophic. So the problem 

for all of us is how do we deal with the risk that is so uncertainly 

quantified? 
116 

Ms. JOHNSON. Do you think we have the answers now or do we 

need to continue, do the research? 

Dr. MULLER. I believe that continued research is essential and 

should be expanded. You asked about a conspiracy earlier. I don’t 

believe there is a conspiracy, but I do believe that many of the scientists who have been involved in this field are so deeply concerned 

about what they found that they work as advocates. And when they 

work as advocates, there is a danger that they lose their impartiality. I fear that this is happening. I fear that the scientists are 

not trusting the public enough. They feel they have to make it clear 

how scared they are, and they are advocates and no longer scientists. The bad effect of this is that the public then loses some of 

its trust in science, and that is deeply unfortunate. In Berkeley 

Earth, our goal is to not have any political views, not to become 

advocates, simply do the best job we can on the science. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Dr. CHRISTY. You are asking a scientist if he wants more research? I will leave that answer there. But I would say this. One 

of the things I do is I test climate model output that has been 

talked about here, and what we have found is that the climate 

model output does not match up to the real world. So I would say 

we have many questions out there that do need to be addressed. 

And so that is a foundation for more research, yes. 

Dr. EMANUEL. I would just chime in here that there are regions 

of disagreement between observations and models, and some of 

those disagreements have shown demonstrably that the model projections have been too conservative. So once again, I emphasize 

that anyone who pretends to a certainty in a benign outcome is 

probably kidding himself. 

Now, I think of course it is ridiculous that there was ever a notion that thousands of scientists all over the world would be engaged in some kind of hoax. It seems to me a hoax itself that that 

kind of statement ever got made. I don’t understand that. 

I want to say one thing about the IPCC because I have a sense 

of widespread misperception, probably not among the panel but 

perhaps among the Members. It is not a research organization. It 

does not conduct research, it doesn’t fund research. It was set up 

I think in response to requests from broad segments of the public 

as a communications exercise between scientists and the public. 

One can certainly claim that it hasn’t been perfect in this regard, 

but that is what it is. 

And so when people say you shouldn’t trust IPCC research, you 

are not actually speaking about that body correctly. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. My time has expired, but 

I think we can finally say that global warming is happening. The 

details of it and the various ranges of concern and opinion will rest 

with continual research. 

Chairman HALL. The Chair at this time recognizes Mr. Sensenbrenner, Vice Chairman of this Committee, for five minutes. 

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

want to have a few questions for Dr. Emanuel, but as a predicate, 

you know, let me say that I think that the scientific community has 

wrapped itself too tightly around the axel rod of the fatally flawed 

Kyoto Protocol which let 134 countries off the hook, and we are see-
117 

ing, you know, huge increases in emissions from countries like 

China and India, and as a result with draconian increases in the 

cost of energy, this is no longer an environmental debate but it is 

a debate on jobs and economics and who wins and who loses in jobs 

and economics. 

Now, Dr. Emanuel, on December 10 of 2009 which was a couple 

of weeks after the release of the emails, you were at a forum at 

MIT which you kind of had very advocacy comments on that. And 

about three months afterwards, you were appointed to the 

Oxborough Panel which was supposed to look into the circumstances around the emails and the release of the emails from 

the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. And 

you know, I question the objectivity of that panel, but since you 

were a member of it, I want to ask you five questions about seriatim, and if the answer is yes to any of them, please let us know. 

If the answer is no to all of them, let us know. 

The first question is does the panel have any written terms of 

reference and if so, what were those terms? Did the panel issue a 

call for reference? Did they hold any public hearings? Did the panel 

interview any of the critics of the Climate Research Unit’s scientific 

work, and were the panel interviews with CRU staff recorded and 

released? Now, are any of those questions to be answered yes? 

Dr. EMANUEL. I must confess, I couldn’t write them down fast 

enough. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Okay. Would you like me to repeat? 

Dr. EMANUEL. But let me say, because I was on the panel, we 

did have clear terms of reference. That much I can tell you. We did 

write a report whose release was public, and let me say that the 

scope of that panel was very narrowly defined. As I am sure you 

are aware, there were several panels—— 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. If I may interrupt you, the question that 

I asked was not whether the report was released but were any of 

the panel interviews with CRU staff recorded and released? 

Dr. EMANUEL. No, I don’t believe so. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Okay. Go ahead. 

Dr. EMANUEL. I was going to simply say that our objective we 

were told was to determine whether there had been any sort of 

breach of scientific integrity in this particular unit, CRU. It wasn’t 

a comprehensive review of the quality of the science, anything like 

that. It was a very narrowly defined objective. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Okay. Well, this has called into question 

the quality of the science and whether the scientific community put 

the wagons in a rather tight circle, and I have a press release from 

the British Parliament, and there is a Labor Party MP named 

Graham Stringer who said Oxborough didn’t go as far as I expected. The Oxborough report looks more like a whitewash. And 

then I go back to the fact that Lord Oxborough is the Vice-Chairman of an environmental group called Globe International, the 

CEO of carbon capture and storage and Chairman of Falk Renewable Enterprise. All of them are advocacy groups. Two of them have 

the potential of making a lot of money if all of this is implemented. 

And isn’t that a conflict of interest? 

Dr. EMANUEL. All I can say in response to that is that as part 

of this commission which involved some very gifted scientists who 
118 

have no ax to grind at all in this climate debate, the papers we 

read, the interviews we conducted showed that the entire enterprise was one of great integrity. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Well, that is not what the Labor Party MP 

says, Mr. Stringer, and he is a Member of the Select Committee on 

Science and Technology and has a Ph.D. in chemistry. He said it 

was a whitewash, and here the chairman of this group ends up, I 

think, having a very clear conflict of interest, you know. I can tell 

you that if the President or the Congress appointed somebody with 

those types of conflicts to head an investigation over something 

that has cropped up, I think that that chairman would get 

drummed out of office because of the conflict of interest. You know, 

I don’t know how we can believe the report of the commission that 

you were on simply because there was no real sunshine in on the 

process. There wasn’t any public hearings, they didn’t interview 

any critics of their scientific work, and the interviews with the CR 

staff were neither recorded nor released. Now, you know, we are 

just saying that you who have been an advocate, witness your comments at MIT, should state that the commission that you were on 

is objective. And I don’t think anybody who wants to be fair-minded 

of this can buy it. 

My time is up and I yield it back. 

Chairman HALL. Thank the gentleman. The Chair recognizes Mr. 

Miller, the gentleman from North Carolina for five minutes. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to begin by 

moving into the record a paper that comes from Professor Armstrong’s website on predicting elections from politicians’ faces. It 

concludes that surveys of voters taken a year out before an election 

are predictive of how elections will come out based upon voters’ 

snap judgments of the competency of the politicians’ faces. It appears to forecast that Hillary Clinton will run away with the 2008 

presidential nomination and that the Republican nomination will 

be a dead heat between John McCain and Duncan Hunter. 

I would now move this into the record. 

Chairman HALL. Let me ask, did my staff have an opportunity 

to review it? Staff hadn’t had an opportunity to review it, so I reserve the right to object to the inclusion.— 

Mr. MILLER. I really don’t think—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Quick question at this point about the relevancy—— 

Mr. MILLER. I don’t have time. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. —of what you have just put into the record? 

Chairman HALL. It is not in the record. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. It is not? Thank you. 

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Glaser, your testimony is the most peculiar testimony I have ever heard before a Congressional Committee. You 

know, if you went to the Player’s Retreat, a bar in Raleigh, tonight 

you can find a set of lawyers who are sharing a pitcher or two and 

complaining about the rulings that judges made against him the 

previous week, and they would say, you know, he didn’t even listen, he had his mind made up, and on and on. But I have never 

really heard testimony by a lawyer before a Congressional Committee to that effect. 
119 

Now, you take some pains to say both in your written testimony 

and in your oral testimony that you are offering your own personal 

opinions in your testimony here, that you are offering your personal opinions about the very same matters about which you have 

appeared as an attorney. Now, it is unethical for a lawyer to offer 

their own personal opinions in any matter in which they represent 

a client? Isn’t that correct? I have heard judges admonish lawyers 

from the bench when they say Your Honor, I think. The judge will 

say, counsel, you are not here to tell me what you think. You are 

here to tell me your clients’ position. That is correct, right? 

Dr. GLASER. Not in front of this body, sir. 

Mr. MILLER. No, it is not in front of this body, but in front of this 

body you are saying now these are your personal opinions. I don’t 

think many clients would really like their attorney going out and 

saying here is how I disagree with my client. Is there any point on 

which you disagree with your client? 

Dr. GLASER. In what respect, sir? 

Mr. MILLER. Well, I mean, in any respect. I mean, you have offered us as your testimony today what is clearly a lightly edited 

version of a brief you wrote on behalf of your clients. But while you 

are saying to a court or to the EPA in a rule-making matter that 

that is your client’s opinion, you are now saying it is also your personal opinions. So is there any way in which your personal opinion 

that you offer here today differs from the opinions of your clients 

on facts or on law? 

Dr. GLASER. You know—— 

Mr. MILLER. I take that as no, isn’t it? 

Dr. GLASER. Wait. You know what? I don’t know the answer to 

that question because I have not reviewed the testimony in detail 

with all of my clients. I can tell you I hope they don’t, sure. 

Mr. MILLER. Well, you have submitted to this Committee filings 

that you have made with EPA and with the court. 

Dr. GLASER. Yeah, I did—— 

Mr. MILLER. As part of your testimony to us. 

Dr. GLASER. I did submit an attachment that I thought would be 

valuable. That of course is a public document that was filed, and 

so I did submit it. The Committee of course is free to review the 

record—— 

Mr. MILLER. Okay. 

Dr. GLASER. —and then—— 

Mr. MILLER. Certainly I will have to look at it. 

Chairman HALL. Don’t interrupt. Just let him repeat and answer 

your question, please. 

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, I have never heard that as the rule. 

The rule has been that it is my time and that I get to control my 

time. And if a witness is filibustering, I can cut them off so that 

I can get answers. 

Chairman HALL. All I am asking you to do is to be fair with 

these people who have given a lot of time. 

Mr. MILLER. I will try to be fair—— 

Mr. MILLER. I will try to be polite—— 

Chairman HALL. Just be fair with them is all I ask of you. That 

is not asking too much, is it? 

Mr. MILLER. No. So—— 
120 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I would move that we give 

our colleague an extra minute. 

Chairman HALL. I will give him extra five minutes because he 

is just getting more and more in trouble all the time. 

Mr. MILLER. So Mr. Glaser, you have not convinced the EPA of 

the correctness of your position? You have not yet convinced the 

court of the correctness of your client’s position but you have convinced yourself of the correctness of your position? 

Dr. GLASER. Yes, we will be bringing this to the court. I had been 

asked to come here and testify about the process under which the 

endangerment finding—— 

Mr. MILLER. Okay. 

Dr. GLASER. —was prepared. I have done so, sir. 

Mr. MILLER. All right. And how much then have you or your law 

firm been paid by your clients for appearing on their behalf before 

the EPA and in litigation? 

Dr. GLASER. Sir, I cannot disclose confidential communications 

between myself and my client. 

Mr. MILLER. Including how much they paid you? 

Dr. GLASER. Absolutely. I hope that you can appreciate that, that 

I cannot breach attorney/client privilege. 

Mr. MILLER. You have said, you have told this Committee, that 

obviously we should think poorly of the EPA. They really didn’t listen to your arguments. They didn’t follow the law. They violated 

the law, on and on. If the court doesn’t hold for you, if the court 

also disagrees with you, what should we think of the court? 

Dr. GLASER. I think that you should first of all wait and see what 

the court says, number one, but number two, I am offering my 

opinions here both on law and on proper administrative policy. You 

could say for instance is it a violation of law for EPA to have only 

allowed a 60-day comment period. You could differ on that. The 

court might say, okay, 60 days. That is enough. Is that good policy? 

Is that good administrative policy? My recommendation would be 

no. That is not good administrative policy. 

Mr. MILLER. I mean you seem to have or it is odd that you were 

asked to testify with respect to a matter pending before the courts 

and to give basically a legal argument, the same legal argument 

that you made before the courts, but one obvious difference between appearing before this Committee and appearing before the 

court is before the court there will be more than one argument. 

There will be another lawyer there representing the other point of 

view, isn’t that right? 

Dr. GLASER. Certainly before the court there will be multiple 

points of view expressed. You do have to understand that the cases 

that you are talking about in court have been challenged. EPA’s 

regulations have been challenged by a very large segment of the 

business community. There are states’ pros and con, there is EPA 

on one side, there are interveners. The court will definitely hear a 

variety of arguments. I can’t dispute that. 

Mr. MILLER. All right. And another important distinction is before courts, you will be appearing before a neutral judge with no 

interest, not before politicians who have received large campaign 

contributions from your clients? 
121 

Dr. GLASER. I am going to dispute that last part, but I would 

agree with you that there are definitely differences between the 

legislature and the judiciary. No question. 

Mr. MILLER. Okay. Mr. Chairman, it appears I do not have any 

time, but if I do, I will yield it back. 

Chairman HALL. Thank you. The Chair at this time recognizes 

Mr. Bartlett, the gentleman from Maryland, for five minutes. 

Mr. BARTLETT. By way of full disclosure, I would like to note that 

I think the EPA frequently makes erroneous assumptions which 

lead to wildly excessive regulations. 

I think that it is probably not easy to increase greenhouse gases 

without increasing general air pollution, and I am having some 

trouble understanding why everybody wouldn’t like to be breathing 

cleaner air. 

I gather that most of those who are opposed to the case for global 

warming or climate change would simply like to continue our aggressive exploration and use of fossil fuels. There are three groups 

that have common cause and the solution that those who are concerned about global warming or climate change have. Of course, 

the solution to their problem is stop using so many greenhouse 

gases that emit CO2 and start using alternatives. There are two 

other groups that have common cause in this. They have very different problems with exactly the same solution. One of those 

groups is those that are concerned about our national security. We 

have only two percent of the world’s oil. We use 25 percent of the 

world’s oil. We import about 2/3 of that and much of that from 

countries that don’t like us a whole lot. The solution to that problem, of course, only one solution to it, that is either find more oil 

here, and we have been producing less and less oil every year since 

1970, so that isn’t going to happen in any meaningful terms here, 

or to move to alternatives. So this group has exactly the same solution to their very different problem. 

The third group is a group that recognizes that fossil fuels are 

finite. By the way, the first person I think to recognize that, probably the first person to recognize that was M. King Hubbard in 

1956 who predicted that in 1970 the United States would reach its 

maximum oil production. We did that right on schedule, and in 

spite of drilling more oil wells than all the rest of the world put 

together, today we produce half the oil that we did in 1970. And 

by 1980 we knew that that had happened because looking back in 

1980 we could see we were already over the other side of Hubbard’s 

hypothesis. 

I cannot understand how rational people could just stand by and 

not conclude that if the United States reached its maximum oil 

production in 1970 that someday the world was going to reach its 

maximum oil production. That is a given. The only uncertainty is 

when would the world reach its maximum oil production, and that 

is a question that was not asked. 

There is now abundant evidence that the world has reached its 

maximum ability to produce oil on a daily basis at about 84, 85 

million barrels a day. Obviously, the solution to that problem is to 

move away from fossil fuels which just aren’t going to be there in 

the future and to move to alternatives. 
122 

So we have these three groups, very different problems. Common 

interest, same solution. Move away from fossil fuels to renewables. 

Why aren’t these three groups locking arms and marching forward? 

Why are we sitting here today with many of us concerned about 

national security? A few of us—concerned about peak oil. Why are 

we here criticizing the premise of others? They may be dead wrong. 

It is irrelevant to me whether the global warming climate change 

people are right or wrong because the solution to their problem is 

exactly the right solution to two other very real problems. One of 

those is the national security problem. We have got to move away 

from fossil fuels in our country. They just aren’t there. And the 

other is the peak oil people who understand that the energy just 

isn’t going to be there. 

By the way, I led a codel of people. Nine of us went to China just 

a bit over four years ago to talk about energy. They began their 

discussion of energy by talking about post-oil, and they had a fivepoint plan. And that fifth point in that five-point plan was international cooperation. They knew as many of you noted that we 

can’t do it alone. Well, they plead for international cooperation. 

They planned it as if there won’t be any. 

Very little time remaining. Sir, I would like your comments. And 

you know, why am I wrong? 

Dr. MONTGOMERY. Thank you, Mr. Bartlett. I remember appearing before this Committee a couple of years ago, and I enjoyed an 

interchange with you, and I am looking forward to it again. 

I think the main place that I would disagree with you is they are 

not the same solutions. Climate change in the near term, if this 

body decided it wanted to make a serious reduction in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, to be cost-effective, that would have to be occurring as Mr. Hall suggested by reducing the amount of coal that 

is used for electricity generation. The substitute for that is likely 

to be natural gas which is itself to some extent produced domestically but is also something that we import. 

A cost-effective solution for climate change has next to nothing 

to do with our consumption of oil. So it is different. 

Mr. BARTLETT. I think I talked about fossil fuels generally. Oil 

we have been following more precisely. Gas is finite, sir. That, too, 

will run out. So does coal. 

Dr. MONTGOMERY. So there are three problems. The problem of 

climate change needs to be addressed over a longer term period 

with R&D and it really, largely involves getting off coal for power 

generation. That doesn’t help with the national security part. The 

national security part, you are right, we need to produce more. We 

need to use Canadian oil, and we need to deal with the regulations 

like low carbon fuel standards that could prevent us from using an 

oil deposit that is larger than Saudi Arabia’s and is sitting right 

north of us. We might think about a gasoline tax to discourage consumption. But peak oil is a problem that the market will take care 

of. 

So the problem is there are different solutions to all these real 

problems. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Just in closing, Mr. Chairman, the market will 

not take care of peak oil. Remember I said it here. 
123 

Chairman HALL. Make a note of that. Mr. McNerney, the gentleman from California for five minutes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I personally 

want to thank the witnesses for coming today. It is a contentious 

issue, so it is good to have this interchange. There is going to be 

some moments, but I appreciate your attendance here this morning 

and your testimony. 

Dr. Christy, do you deny that the IPCC process is open and 

transparent? 

Dr. CHRISTY. I would say the IPCC is not open and transparent 

as the experience, as a lead author and what went on behind my 

back as a lead author in that very chapter. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, there were two major reviews, including 

your comments in the 2007 report. So that doesn’t agree with what 

you are saying. 

Dr. CHRISTY. There is confusion here about what peer review is 

and what IPCC is. The lead authors of the IPCC have what is 

called review authority. They review their own material. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. So there were no outside reviews of the IPCC? 

Dr. CHRISTY. There were outside reviews, but remember, after 

that, there were further edits by the lead authors. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. So in previous Congressional hearings, you have 

discussed your processing codes for generating satellite based estimates of tropospheric temperature change but when asked if you 

had made your codes freely available for scrutiny by other scientists, you said it was too complicated for other scientists to understand. Is that still the case? 

Dr. CHRISTY. No, in fact we are releasing—we already released 

some of the code to the National Climatic Data Center, and by 

June they will have all the parts. There are about ten parts, many 

thousands of lines of codes that they don’t understand. And so we 

are in the process of—— 

Mr. MCNERNEY. I have been a computer modeler, computer forecaster. I know what is involved. But it is very important that your 

code be available for others to examine. And so right now today you 

are saying that your code is going to be available and freely transparent for other scientists to examine? 

Dr. CHRISTY. Yes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Good. Now, you said that the data was fraudulently included in IPCC reports. I just heard you say that this 

morning. Do you still believe that? 

Dr. CHRISTY. I don’t believe I said fraudulently. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. You said fraudulently. I heard you say it this 

morning. Fraudulent. I wrote it down. I was shocked that you said 

that. 

Dr. CHRISTY. I will have to look at my testimony. I don’t remember typing—— 

Mr. MCNERNEY. It is not in your written testimony, it is in your 

verbal testimony. 

Dr. CHRISTY. Right. I have that right here. Referring to which 

part because I don’t remember saying anything like that. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, your conclusion was that there is fraudulent data in the reports. That is what I heard you say this morning. 
124 

Dr. CHRISTY. What I said this morning was biased, false, overconfident and/or misleading. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. That was one statement, and you said another 

statement and you included fraudulent. 

Dr. CHRISTY. Well, okay. We can look at the tape on that but—— 

Mr. MCNERNEY. All right. I am going to—— 

Dr. CHRISTY. —if you have a question—— 

Mr. MCNERNEY. —move on here. 

Dr. CHRISTY. —about the particular thing I was talking about, I 

would be happy to answer it. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, I am going to move on. Mr. Montgomery, 

or Dr. Montgomery, excuse me, you criticized studies suggesting 

that forward-thinking climate policies will create jobs suggesting 

that the studies are the product of a biased group. But it is welldocumented that large oil companies spent massive amounts funding the studies that question climate science. Now isn’t it true that 

you served as an expert eyewitness on behalf of Exxon Mobil and 

which according to one well-known report spent $16 million funding initiatives to spark doubt on climate science? 

Dr. MONTGOMERY. I can’t quite put that together, but I have testified as an expert witness on entirely unrelated issues about market shares in regard to other—sorry. I have testified as an expert 

witness on behalf of Exxon Mobil on entirely unrelated cases that 

have absolutely nothing to do with my opinions here, nor have I 

stated in, and I think I probably should have done as Mr. Glaser 

pointed out, that I am appearing today on my own behalf. I am not 

being compensated by anyone for this testimony. I have my—— 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Okay. Well, I—— 

Dr. MONTGOMERY. —own opinions, and I don’t expect to be paid 

attention to here because of who I represent. I expected to because 

of the logic of the arguments that I present. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. You said that there is no benefit to the U.S. for 

taking action on climate change. 

Dr. MONTGOMERY. I believe that that is a conclusion that I 

am—— 

Mr. MCNERNEY. No—— 

Dr. MONTGOMERY. —perfectly happy to discuss with you at greater length. The point of that is that—— 

Mr. MCNERNEY. My personal experience—— 

Dr. MONTGOMERY. —what the U.S. will do—— 

Mr. MCNERNEY. —contradicts that because I have worked in the 

wind energy field. We created technology here in these United 

States, and it went to Germany because they had climate policies 

that encouraged local utility companies to buy those wind turbines. 

We are now buying their manufactured products, manufactured by 

Germans, we are buying that product in the United States. So no, 

I disagree with you. 

Dr. MONTGOMERY. And you were doing exactly what I described 

in my testimony. You were telling precisely half the story. You are 

not looking at what the people who were producing those wind turbines would have been doing if there were not a renewable portfolio 

standard that put them to work producing equipment that is a 

more expensive way of producing electricity than the alternative. 

They would have been producing other things which would have 
125 

led to a higher level of GDP and no difference in employment. That 

is an economic argument. I am perfectly happy to carry it out, but 

it has nothing to do with whether Exxon funds bad science. It is 

an argument about economics, and it is an argument about facts 

and data, not about who pays for what. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, I know that research money that was 

spent in these United States is now developing products, is now 

manufacturing products in Germany because they had policies that 

encouraged them to buy wind power and green power so—— 

Dr. MONTGOMERY. Actually, what is happening is exactly what I 

described in my testimony. The United States is creating a demand 

for renewable energy, but actually China is producing it because 

they are subsidizing their industries, and that is so well-documented that we filed a 301(b) case against them. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Right, and they are going to be importing their 

product to us as well. 

Dr. MONTGOMERY. Yeah. They are going to be exporting it to us, 

but they are going to be exporting it to us because we have regulations that force people to use it and we have higher costs of producing it than they do. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, I guess my time is up. 

Chairman HALL. Final question you want to close with. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I don’t even know where to begin 

with my next question, so—— 

Chairman HALL. All right. Well, thank you, Mr. McNerney. The 

Chair at this time recognizes Dr. Broun, gentleman from Georgia. 

Mr. BROUN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will direct my questions 

to Dr. Christy, but I am from Georgia, and if the others on the 

panel want an interpreter, I am sure the Committee will be glad 

to provide you an interpreter. Dr. Christy, in your testimony you 

speak in great lengths about process issues associated with climate 

science in general, the processes used by some at the University of 

East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit and the IPCC as a whole. As 

a scientist who actually builds data sets, and as someone who has 

witnessed what you call ‘‘my side bias’’ or ‘‘groupthink’’, would you 

trust data from individuals trying to ‘‘hide the decline’’, refine peer 

review when inconvenient and destroy documents, rather than 

comply with the law? 

Dr. CHRISTY. I wouldn’t, but I would say that because the process 

has become more open that I think those doing these data sets now 

are a little bit more concerned about the fact that they will be exposed if they do make any mistakes. 

Mr. BROUN. I hope so. We have seen all those e-mails, but several relating to the state of the unlined computer code haven’t received as much attention. The desperate e-mails of a computer programmer offer us a glimpse into the data control issues at CRU 

with quotes such as, ‘‘What the hell is supposed to happen here? 

Oh, yeah? There is no ’supposed’. I can make it up, so I have.’’ Another quote, ‘‘You can’t imagine what this has cost me, to actually 

allow an operator to sign false WMO codes. Well, what else is there 

in such situations? Especially when dealing with a master database 

of dubious prominence.’’ The next quote, ‘‘Oh’’—F-bomb—that is not 

what it says here. ’’Oh, F this. It is Sunday evening. I worked all 

weekend, and just when I thought it was done, I am hitting yet an-
126 

other problem that is based on the hopeless state of our databases.’’ 

Next quote, ‘‘This whole project is such a mess.’’ 

In his testimony, Dr. Emanuel states that all of this is nonsense, 

just as he did before any review was actually conducted. Does any 

review of the Climategate issue actually address the underlying 

science? 

Dr. CHRISTY. Well, I think the exoneration panels that have occurred have not addressed the underlying science, nor the actions 

of the people there. You don’t have the typical things you do in the 

legal proceedings, where you cross-examine the evidence and witnesses, and anyone can be called to testify, and so on. That has not 

occurred. Your description of those computer—as a programmer 

myself who has written thousands and thousands of lines of code 

on these very kind of station records, and Dr. Muller probably understands this too, is that it is a nightmare looking through data 

coming from different countries in different formats, and mistakes 

that are made. Fahrenheit, Centigrade, missing 100 or something 

like that, it is really problematic. 

Mr. BROUN. So it is all a mess, obviously. Has any re-do—review 

of the Climategate issue addressed the entirety of the allegations 

that were raised? 

Dr. CHRISTY. Well, not in my opinion. I think much more could 

be done, but hopefully the peer review literature, as we go along, 

will just make that unnecessary. I hope we just get to the point we 

can trust what we publish these days. 

Mr. BROUN. As a scientist myself, I hope so too. Do you believe 

an independent review of these allegations is warranted? 

Dr. CHRISTY. I would rather see just an independent assessment 

of climate, as the IPCC has done, but without the IPCC cadre, the 

establishment. I think you could have a very reputable and credible 

report that would come to slight—somewhat different conclusions 

than the IPCC has. 

Mr. BROUN. Well, as a scientist, again, I hope we do that. To the 

best of your knowledge, has the IPCC adopted all of the recommendations from the IAC review conducted last summer? 

Dr. CHRISTY. Well, obviously not, because the first thing they recommended was that the head leave, and he is still the head. So, 

starting from there, they have not. 

Mr. BROUN. Very good. I have just a half minute left. Dr. Emanuel, it should be noted that MIT received 100 million from the 

Cokes for Cancer Research Institute. MIT is a prestigious organization, with a world class reputation in science, but according to logic 

we are witnessing here today, its research should be dismissed because it receives any funding from the organization that the party 

dislikes. Would you agree with that? What are you asking me? 

Mr. BROUN. I am asking about—have you all—have you received 

funding—— 

Dr. EMANUEL. Yes. MIT has, yes. I don’t, of course, do cancer research, but I am well aware of what you are saying. 

Mr. BROUN. So, in other words, the—calling in question people 

who have—entities that have received funding, seems that some 

would call their testimony in question today, and I just wanted to 

point out that you all have too. Thank you very much. My time has 

expired. I will yield back, Mr. Chairman. 
127 

Chairman HALL. Thanks, Doctor. This time i recognize Mrs. Edwards from Maryland. Recognized for five minutes. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What a shock, I 

thought I wasn’t quite up yet. I just want to clarify for the record 

that I have here, and we have entered these into the record before, 

Mr. Chairman, seven scientific, you know, independent reports that 

have evaluated this question of—and some describe Climategate emails that have really exonerated the—these individuals in question, in terms of their research and research capacity. And I just 

think that we need to get off of this and really get down to the real 

questions in front of us. 

I just want to be clear, and each of you can as—answer this individually. I want to be clear whether any of you have been paid or 

compensated for any of your research, analyses, testimony or a 

speech in any form, at any entity, by a company or trade association that is represented by the oil, coal or energy industry? Dr. 

Armstrong? That is a yes or no. 

Dr. ARMSTRONG. Well, I received $3,000 from the State of Alaska 

for a report, but that did not result in a published paper. 

Ms. EDWARDS. I asked about the industry, not a State government. 

Dr. ARMSTRONG. Yeah. No, —— 

Ms. EDWARDS. I didn’t—— 

Dr. ARMSTRONG. —my way down here. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thanks so much. 

Dr. ARMSTRONG. I have had no—— 

Ms. EDWARDS. Dr. Muller? 

Dr. MULLER. Yes. 

Ms. EDWARDS. And who paid you, and how much? 

Dr. MULLER. I am sorry, I don’t have those figures available—— 

Ms. EDWARDS. Who paid you? 

Dr. MULLER. I have been a consultant for BP. I have done a lot 

of work with—does the U.S. Department of Energy count? They 

have given me a lot of funding. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Company, trade association, with the industry. 

With the oil, coal or energy industry. 

Dr. MULLER. I believe—it is really hard to pull this out without—— 

Ms. EDWARDS. Okay. Please—— 

Dr. MULLER. —anticipating—— 

Ms. EDWARDS. —submit for the—please submit for our record 

any compensation that you have received from the oil, coal or energy industry for the work that you do. Thanks so much—— 

Dr. MULLER. I believe—— 

Ms. EDWARDS. —Dr.—— 

Dr. MULLER. I believe it was only BP, and that was—— 

Ms. EDWARDS. Just submit it for the record. Dr. Christy? 

Chairman HALL. Ma’am, please, let him answer, please. 

Ms. EDWARDS. He—— 

Chairman HALL. Go ahead—— 

Ms. EDWARDS. He can’t pull it out of his head, and I would like 

it for the record. And that is true, if you can’t just remember it, 

I would appreciate it if you could submit it for the record. Dr. 

Christy? 
128 

Dr. CHRISTY. No. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Glaser? 

Dr. GLASER. As an attorney, I have represented and been compensated by energy industry companies. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

Dr. GLASER. That is a fact. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Dr. Emanuel? 

Dr. EMANUEL. No. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Dr. Montgomery? 

Dr. MONTGOMERY. As an individual, I cannot remember ever 

being compensated directly. Of course, I have made my living for 

20 years as a consultant doing a very large number of things, and 

my company had as clients just about every company in the 

United—in—just about every large company in the United States, 

including energy—— 

Ms. EDWARDS. Great. I would appreciate if you would submit 

that for our record, your compensation from representatives, trade 

associations or corporations associated with the oil, coal or energy 

industry. Thank you very much. 

Dr. MONTGOMERY. May I—— 

Ms. EDWARDS. Let me just—— 

Dr. MONTGOMERY. —question? I believe what I said was I have 

received no direct compensation. My company’s record—the company’s records, I am no longer an employee there, and I have absolutely no way of providing you with information about what 

Charles River Associates received over the years, and I am sure 

they would object to it in any event. But I cannot do that. 

Ms. EDWARDS. And you haven’t received any compensation as a 

consultant for any of those in the industry? 

Dr. MONTGOMERY. My salary is paid by Charles River Associates—was paid by Charles River Associates, and I have not received direct compensation as an individual from anyone except 

Charles River Associates for about 20 years. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you very much. Just as my time is running 

out, I think that in any field of science there is continual study of 

science. We see breakthroughs, we see setbacks. There is an evaluation process that goes forward, and we never stop asking questions, because that is the nature of science, and so I think we have 

to be willing to change. Change policy, change direction, continue 

that kind of analysis, because you never quite get to an end—to the 

end to it. We look at those things all the time here on this Committee. 

I represent a district where the county that I live in is the home 

to NASA Goddard and also to NOAA. They have—they play an extreme—a really important role in the analysis and use of climate 

research, and it is important to me that—and should be important 

to people here that we keep this investment in the field of climate 

research in our monitoring capacity and satellite capabilities and 

research abilities, because otherwise—I share the view of my colleague from Maryland, Dr. Bartlett, that we are never going to 

solve these big problems by just burying our heads in the sand. 

And just as I close here, for the scientists who are on the panel, 

Doctors Muller, Christy, and Emanuel, I hope that you would agree 

that we need to continue investment in climate research, even 
129 

though you might quibble about whether your minority view was 

included in a particular evaluation or assessment. And with that, 

I yield. 

Chairman HALL. Gentlelady does a good job of representing her 

district. She went right exactly five minutes. Dr. Armstrong, did 

you get to answer her question? 

Dr. ARMSTRONG. Yes, I did. The answer is no. 

Chairman HALL. You yield back, Ms. Edwards? Do you want to 

follow up anything? 

Ms. EDWARDS. No. Dr. Armstrong did answer the question. 

Chairman HALL. Okay. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

Chairman HALL. Dr. Harris is next, recognize you for five minutes. 

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 

holding the hearing today. First, Dr. Emanuel, thank you very 

much for appearing here. Your summary of written testimony, 

number five, there is no scientific basis for the confidence expressed by some that the effects of climate change will be benign. 

Do you believe the converse is true too, that there is no clear scientific basis for the confidence expressed by some that the effects 

of climate change will be risky? 

Dr. EMANUEL. I don’t tend to believe anybody who is confident 

about this at all. I—— 

Mr. HARRIS. Okay. Well, then, in your—thank you. In your statement, though, you actually say—in your very statement, the first 

paragraph, you said, ‘‘It is incumbent on us to take seriously the 

risks that climate change poses.’’ It doesn’t say climate change 

might pose, says climate changes poses. And actually, you also say, 

with regards to the report by the Department of Defense, that the 

U.S. should commit to a stronger national and international role to 

help stabilize climate change at levels that will avoid significant 

disruption to global security and stability, clearly implying that 

there will be significant disruption to global security and stability. 

So are you skeptical about those statements as well, which don’t 

say might do it, or—— 

Dr. EMANUEL. Well, Representative Harris, I think there is a 

confusion between forecasts and an assessment of risk. If I say that 

I feel that there is certain risk in my house burning down and buying—— 

Mr. HARRIS. Right. 

Dr. EMANUEL. —an insurance policy, I am not forecasting either 

that my house will burn down or not burn down. But I would take 

seriously any actuarial information that gave me information about 

the probabilities of risk. That is what—— 

Mr. HARRIS. Sure. 

Dr. EMANUEL. —I am referring—— 

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much. Mr. Glaser, you make a great 

point, I think, that, you know, public health—if you graph use of 

energy and use of greenhouse gases versus public health, you 

would probably also see, you know, an advantage in that. For instance, I assume that what you mean by that is that—when we 

mean increased greenhouse gas, we mean use of energy. We 

produce energy so that we do things like have energy for refrigera-
130 

tion, which has made great public health advances keeping food 

safe. We have energy to, oh, buy gas for ambulances, or diesel for 

ambulances, that actually bring people to a hospital a little quicker 

in an emergency. Or, you know, we have MRIs at our hospital with 

these huge electric cables going into them. I am assuming that, you 

know, energy does good things, it doesn’t just do bad things. Is that 

your point, that these good things aren’t taken into consideration? 

Dr. GLASER. Yes, that is—I think that is exactly my point, and 

it is not a coincidence that the 20th century witnessed an explosion 

in all of the benefits that we consider to be a part of modern life. 

At the same time, the greenhouse gas emissions were increasing. 

The underlying cause is the same. The underlying cause is the use 

of energy. 85—— 

Mr. HARRIS. Sure. 

Dr. GLASER. —percent of the energy we use in the United States 

comes from fossil fuel. 

Mr. HARRIS. Sure. 

Dr. GLASER. That is where the energy comes from. 

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you. That is what I thought your point was. 

Dr. Montgomery, to close with, you know, we have got this situation in our state, and, you know, you mentioned about how frequently the economic costs of these subsidized, you know, creating 

these greenhouse jobs and these things like—you know, we have 

got a situation in our state where there is a move to put offshore 

wind farms, which would require an economic subsidy. Interestingly enough, the bill that is now in front of our legislature would 

cap somehow the cost of the—that you could add to someone’s electric bill when you build a windmill, as though, you know, I guess 

we could pass a law that says everybody ought to pay $10 a month 

for electric. I mean, I guess that is the same economic sense. 

But let me summarize what it sounds like to me what we are 

doing with some of these subsidies, particularly in what we are 

going to do off our coast if this passes. We are going to borrow 

money from the Chinese to pay for these subsidies, because we 

have no money here. We are broke. We borrow money, China is our 

biggest exterior—external lender now. So we are going to buy these 

funds from the Chinese, perhaps to buy either German or Chinese 

windmills, because, as the Congressman from California suggested, 

these really aren’t made in the United States predominantly, and 

then we are going to place them in our economy, causing our electric prices to go up, then placing us at competitive disadvantage to 

China. 

So we borrow the money from China, we buy the windmill from 

China, and then we pay more for domestic electric, putting our 

homes and our businesses at competitive disadvantage. Is that 

kind of what you are getting along when you say, you know, when 

we create these green jobs that sound good, when you scratch a little deeper, what you see are real problems in a global competitive 

world economy? 

Dr. MONTGOMERY. Yes, Mr. Harris, I would say that that is correct, that Congress and regulators can move around who pays for 

something, but they can’t make the cost disappear. And the cost to 

the United States of these subsidies is basically more expensive 

forms of generation that provide exactly the same service of mak-
131 

ing MRI machines work, but that are absorbing resources that otherwise could be used for producing something that people will enjoy 

and be able to use. 

Mr. HARRIS. That is what I thought. And how can you imagine, 

you know, how can you cap the cost of an—of a, you know, you 

build a windmill that costs a certain amount to produce energy, exactly how do you cap that cost—I mean, as an economist, this must 

be frustrating to you, because in the laws of the marketplace, there 

must be—there is no way to cap a cost—that your impression? 

Dr. MONTGOMERY. If you require an—a company that is under 

your jurisdiction to do something and then say, you can only charge 

for this less than it costs you, it is either a taking, or you are simply saying their shareholders are going to pay for it, and their 

shareholders are everybody. 

Mr. HARRIS. Sure. That is what I thought. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yield back. 

Chairman HALL. All right. Chair recognizes the gentleman from 

Michigan, Mr. Clarke, for five minutes. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry. 

Chairman HALL. State your inquiry. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Yes. There is a letter that has been presented to 

the minority staff from the majority staff. It is a letter from a Mr. 

Anthony Watts that he requested would be read in—read and entered into the record of the hearing. And as I understand it, the 

letter purports to try to set straight some errors that Professor 

Muller made in his testimony. This is highly unusual for the Committee to receive a correction to a witness’s testimony before the 

testimony has even been delivered to the Committee. 

So my question is, is it your intention to enter this document into 

the record? 

Chairman HALL. It is my understanding we have not yet asked 

it to be in the testimony. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Well, okay. 

Chairman HALL. Is that the basis of your inquiry? 

Ms. WOOLSEY. We would like to know if it is—because—since we 

heard his testimony without the corrections, is this going to be entered into the record? And has Dr. Muller even seen this document? Does he want to add comment to the record, and how does 

this impact his testimony? 

Dr. MULLER. Is that a question addressed to me? 

Ms. WOOLSEY. I am asking my—this is between the Chairman 

and myself. The Chairman that I love very much and myself. 

Chairman HALL. You are showing it. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Just to keep you on edge. 

Chairman HALL. Well, I respect this lady very much, and she 

knows it. I understand that you have seen it, and you have the letter. Now, are you asking now to submit it into the—— 

Ms. WOOLSEY. No, we want to know if you are going to submit 

it into the record, and if it is—— 

Chairman HALL. I don’t even know what it says. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Well, that is the point. I mean, you—Congressman 

Miller was told—his testimony—I mean, he had something to add 

into the record. You hadn’t seen it yet—— 

Chairman HALL. Yeah. 
132 

Ms. WOOLSEY. —so you said no, you—it couldn’t go into the 

record—— 

Chairman HALL. Yeah. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. —until you had read it. 

Chairman HALL. And Congressman Miller is a very famous lawyer from his district, and he knows that when we say we haven’t 

seen it yet, that we hadn’t seen it yet. He didn’t question—— 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Well, you haven’t seen this yet either, so—— 

Chairman HALL. I haven’t seen it yet, so it is not admissible into 

the record. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank—that is what we want. Thank you. 

Chairman HALL. Now, do you want to put it in the record? Would 

you like to put it in the record? 

Ms. WOOLSEY. No, sir. 

Chairman HALL. All right. The lady withdraws her request. Who 

is up—who is next? Mr. Clarke, I will recognize you for the second 

time. That doesn’t mean you have 10 minutes, but you have been 

very patient with us, so we recognize you at this time, sir. 

Mr. CLARKE. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And the reason why I am 

patient, because I have firsthand have seen the pain and suffering 

caused by the decline of our market share of U.S. manufactured vehicles in the United States, a market share that we lost to Asian 

imports. I represent metro Detroit. I am born and raised in Detroit, 

and we knew that this threat was coming, and that we had to be 

competitive. But those concerns weren’t effectively heated, and 

young guys like me back in the ’80s couldn’t even get a job in the 

auto plants because there wasn’t anything available. And I am— 

that is why I am very grateful that this administration did provide 

aid to General Motors, and now they have seen four consecutive 

quarters of profitability, and I believe that that is evidence that the 

taxpayers’ investment is going to pay off. 

But in the same way, I am concerned right now that we could 

be missing a huge opportunity to export great new green energy 

technology globally. And I am concerned, because of recent findings, that for the very first time U.S. investment in new green energy technology has now fallen from first place globally. Now China 

is in first place. Not only that, we are not even in second place, 

’’Germany is. We are now in third place. 

Some of you have indicated in your testimony that you believe 

that green jobs is just a pipe dream. Here is my concern with that. 

You have got great companies like General Electric, they are investing very heavily now in wind, in solar, in energy efficiency. You 

have corporate CEOs, such as the CEO of GE, stating that we are 

at risk of losing out to other countries, like China. Is China wrong 

to invest? Is Germany wrong? Are executives like the CEO of General Electric working contrary to their bottom line when they say 

we have got to invest in new green energy technology? I welcome 

any of your feedback on this. 

Dr. MONTGOMERY. If I could start—I have spent some time in my 

career looking at various forms of industrial policy. I think where 

I would start is a quotation from Professor Richard Schmalensee, 

who was dean of the Sloan School at MIT. ‘‘We can’t regulate our 

way into prosperity.’’ If we feel that—the United States economy 

does not need the government to tell each industry, or to provide 
133 

industries with regulations and subsidies in order to make them 

succeed. Our economy grows on its own, and industries depend on 

the government to create a market for themselves at their own 

risk. And this is what we have seen consistently in the past when 

we have tried to create industries, the United States or other countries, through industrial policy. 

Denmark decided to take the lead on wind industry—on wind energy. Its wind energy industry has collapsed, and has moved almost exclusively to China. China is a—I mean, China is an enigma. 

China has clearly decided to put subsidies into one particular industry. But I remember the fear that we were—that our—that we 

were going to collapse as an economy if we didn’t fight off the Japanese effort to produce high definition TVs back in the ’80s, when 

I was at the Congressional Budget Office. It was a terrible decision 

for Japan to make. They have lost tons of money on it. The industry was nowhere near ready to go on technology. 

I think it is critically important for the U.S. to invest in R&D, 

but I see no reason that the—that a company like General Electric 

would want to—okay. 

Mr. CLARKE. —but I appreciate what you are saying. Back many 

decades ago, after the Wright Brothers, with their great innovation 

in creating flight, we lost competitiveness to Europe, in terms of 

airplane technology. President Wilson decided to respond, and we 

subsidized air mail routes, which resulted in the growth of air 

flight technology here in the U.S. Same with Bell Labs and their 

technology in semiconductors. It was the U.S. military that was 

their strongest customer. So, in light of that track record, we have 

got to compete. We can’t lose this opportunity. I yield back. 

Chairman HALL. Chair recognizes Mr. Cravaack, gentleman from 

Minnesota. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for all our 

distinguished people that are involved in this today. I would like 

to start off with Dr. Christy. Dr. Christy, you seem to be of my 

genre, and back when I was graduating from high school, I remember the great global cooling. Is this great global cooling very similar 

to the great global warming that is going on today? 

Dr. CHRISTY. Well, I don’t know what you mean by genre. Anyway—I have four grandkids, but—in this sense, yes. Our ignorance 

about the climate system is just enormous, and we have much to 

learn and much to do. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Yeah. I remember the time when I was going 

through high school the polar caps were going to expand, and the 

whole world was going to flip upside down and everything else. It 

is kind of funny how history just repeats itself, except instead of 

freezing to death, we are all going to fry. So it is amazing how this 

has gone through. I would also like to talk to Dr. Montgomery, if 

I could. Sir, I come from Minnesota, in the 8th District of Minnesota, which has a very proud tradition of mining. Can you tell 

me how this regulation of CO2 is going to affect mining operations 

within the United States? 

Dr. MONTGOMERY. For the next decade or two, there is no way 

to achieve deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions without substantially cutting down the use of coal for power generation. Every ton 

of coal that is not burned in the power plant is a ton of coal that 
134 

is not going to be mined, so it translates directly. Best we can see 

is a valley of death for the coal industry in which, after shrinking 

back as gas and other technologies replace coal in the short run, 

it might be able to revive, if clean technologies, like carbon capture 

and sequestration, come along in the future. That could be avoided 

with a different pace of control, but in the next decade or so, it is— 

coal mining is going to be where the reductions occur. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Okay. Thank you, sir. Dr. Christy, if I can bounce 

back to you again? If everybody—if all the United States—we go 

totally green, but other countries throughout this world, they don’t 

follow suit, can you tell me what kind of tick that is even going to 

put on the CO2 emissions? 

Dr. CHRISTY. Well, I have run those scenarios for a number of 

different situations, and you are looking, at most, at a tenth of a 

degree after 100 years. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. So a tenth of a degree after 100 years? 

Dr. CHRISTY. Yes. And global temperature changes by more than 

that from month to month. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Okay. And could you be positively—could you 

positively state that because of what—the United States going totally green would actually commit to that tenth of a degree? 

Dr. CHRISTY. That is a good point. You might claim it is a tenth 

of a degree, but you never could devise an experiment to attribute 

it to your legislative action. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Okay. All right, sir. So—Dr. Montgomery, back to 

you now, sir. So for that tenth of a degree, that we are not sure 

actually was attributed by the United States going totally green, 

can you tell me the economic impact that that would have upon the 

United States if we are the only ones that went green and the rest 

of the world did not? 

Dr. MONTGOMERY. Yes. I have to look back in my memory for a 

study that was comparable to what Dr. Christy is talking about, 

but I would say the kind of work we did last year on the WaxmanMarkey Bill would suggest costs in the range of 1,000 to $2,000 per 

household, a lost of one to two percentage points of GDP, what it 

would be otherwise, and perhaps a—close to a doubling of electricity prices. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Could you even comment on the amount of jobs 

that would be lost within the United States of America? 

Dr. MONTGOMERY. Well, I am not sure about jobs, but I can say 

that the impact on compensation to workers would be really substantial. Some industries it would happen in the form of lower 

wages, keeping people at work. Other industries, where that can’t 

happen, people would be losing their jobs, but it would be a couple 

of percentage points off the total compensation to labor, and—figure out how much of that is job loss in the long run, and how much 

of it is just you have less money to take home in your paycheck. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Okay. All right, sir, I think—Mr. Chairman, I 

think I have answered my questions. I yield back my 32 seconds, 

sir. 

Chairman HALL. Thank you. And do you recollect when Dr. 

Holdren was here? He is the President’s advisor on sea level rise, 

and his testimony was that it would rise 12 feet, you know, when 

the ice all falls and melts into the ocean. And the proper person 
135 

measured it—as you know, the very next year, the so-called gold 

standard of scientific consensus by global warming advocates projected that the oceans would rise between seven and 23 inches. So 

that is who is advising the President. That is the reason we are 

in all the trouble we are in right now with all this. Does that help 

your record any? 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Well, we can’t let a crisis go to waste, sir, so 

there you go. 

Chairman HALL. Thank you. Now I would recognize the 

gentlelady from California for five minutes—— 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HALL. —10 minutes, whatever she wants. Ms. Woolsey 

is a very valuable Member of this Committee, and gives me an 

awful lot of trouble, but I respect her highly. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, this morning the 

Democratic caucus had the privilege of hearing from and asking 

questions of Dr. Steven Chu, the Secretary of Energy, and then I 

came right from there up here. I feel like I am living in a parallel 

universe. I mean, it has got my head going boing, boing, boing. It 

is tough. 

So, my first question is based on Dr. Armstrong’s testimony, 

who—he said—Dr. Armstrong, you said, I believe that EPA’s decision to ban DDT was based on bad science. So I would like to ask 

the rest of you, would you reintroduce DDT into our world now, 

today, if you could? 

Dr. ARMSTRONG. You are not asking—— 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Yes or no? 

Dr. ARMSTRONG. You are not—— 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Oh, no, I think I got—you said no. You thought 

it would—should—we should not have done what we did in the 

first place. I can ask you would you reintroduce it? Sure, I would 

be glad to. I just didn’t want to waste your time. Just yes or no. 

Dr. ARMSTRONG. Yes, I definitely would—— 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Would reintroduce it. Okay. Dr. Muller? 

Dr. ARMSTRONG. —DDT, yeah. 

Dr. MULLER. It is way beyond my credentials to answer that professionally. I have read books on the subject—or read articles on 

the subject, and I think there is—I have seen a reasonable case 

that introducing it would actually save lives. 

Mr. WOOLSEY. Dr. Christy? 

Dr. CHRISTY. I have lived in Africa, saw people die of malaria. 

Absolutely, yes. 

Mr. WOOLSEY. Mr. Glaser? 

Dr. GLASER. I have no idea, and have no opinion. 

Mr. WOOLSEY. Dr. Emanuel? 

Dr. EMANUEL. Far beyond my expertise. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Dr. Montgomery? 

Dr. MONTGOMERY. I have read a good bit on the subject. Roger 

Bate, I think, is a great expert. I agree with Dr. Christy. Millions 

of millions of children and poor people in Africa are dying because 

of the lack of DDT to—as an effective way of getting rid of disease 

vectors. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Well, okay, I didn’t want to go too much farther 

on this, except I am on the—I served on the Africa World Health 
136 

Subcommittee. We have just about, using other technologies and 

other methodologies, done away with malaria, if we provide the 

right preventions for African people, like we would have had to provide DDT. So I think it has proven itself, from my opinion. 

Dr. Emanuel, I understand that you have not always—I mean, 

that you didn’t—you weren’t born recognizing the link between 

greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, so how did you get 

to where you are today? How did you form your current beliefs on 

climate change? 

Dr. EMANUEL. Well, Representative Woolsey, science is based on 

evidence, and evidence is often ambiguous. It evolves with time, it 

changes. Science progresses, but it doesn’t progress monotonically. 

It goes up and down. In the ’80s, when I first started to study the 

issue of climate change, back in those days I didn’t feel that the 

evidence was conclusive. I didn’t have the opinion that this wasn’t 

happening or otherwise. But in the intervening 20 years, because 

of the wonderful work done in paleoclientology, to some extent because of models—my own involvement with the physics, radiative 

transfer, convective heat transfer, I and many of my colleagues 

came to the conclusion that the evidence is very strong for this. 

And let me take the opportunity to say that one has to distinguish between what groups of scientists come to over a long period 

of time, and what a few say that get amplified by the press. We 

heard that there was no difference between the scare of cooling in 

the ’70s and the concern of warming. That couldn’t be further from 

the truth. To the best of my knowledge, not one scientific organization back in those days raised any alarm. It was a few scientists 

that expressed some concern amplified hugely by a big cover in 

Time magazine. It is not comparable to today, not at all, all right? 

One should not make that mistake. 

Mr. Chairman, I think you misquoted Mr. Holdren. He was referring to what would happen if all of Greenland’s ice disappeared. 

That is not projected to happen, but his numbers are correct. If it 

did, we would see a sea level rise of about 22 feet. Unfortunately, 

it is a risk. It is way out there because we don’t understand the 

physics of ice, but I think that is what he was referring to. 

Chairman HALL. We will add on to your time. We won’t take 

from you the time, but in a recent interview Dr. Holdren was sitting right where you are there, and I told him—he stated that the 

Republicans needed to be educated on the issue. In an August of 

2006 interview with the BBC News, he reportedly said that if the 

current pace of change continued, the catastrophic sea level rise of 

four meters, that is 13 feet, not 12 feet, I was wrong, was within 

the realm of possibility, and while you were going to the interview, 

how sure were you about your prediction? And the hard cold facts 

were the very next year the so-called gold standard of scientific 

consensus by global warming advocates projected that the oceans 

would rise between seven and 23 inches between now and 2100. 

How sure was the scientific community of their prediction? That is 

my recollection of it. You probably know more about it than I do. 

Dr. EMANUEL. I mean, I would only simply add to that, the IPCC, 

in making that projection, very explicitly excluded any calculation 

of the melting of land ice. They—I think they were wise to do that, 

because we don’t understand the physics very well. 
137 

Chairman HALL. All I was trying to emphasize was that he 

guessed at 13 feet, and he is just 12 feet wrong. 

Dr. EMANUEL. I don’t—I think his statement that it was within— 

correct. 

Chairman HALL. —I am not very good at math. 

Dr. EMANUEL. No. 

Chairman HALL. There are three things I couldn’t do, and that 

is add and subtract. 

Dr. EMANUEL. I think—but the notion that it is within the realm 

of possibility is correct on his part. 

Chairman HALL. Okay. 

Dr. EMANUEL. That is different from a projection. 

Chairman HALL. All right. So you made your point. You made a 

good point. You have been a good witness. I am sorry I haven’t 

been as good a Chairman. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. On that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield the remainder 

of my time. 

Chairman HALL. Okay. Now, let us see, we have Mo Brooks from 

Alabama. Gentleman from Alabama. 

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It has been most entertaining seeing you folks act up on the higher row. Dr. Christy, 

would it be fair to say that pretty much the one constant about the 

weather is that it is always changing? 

Dr. CHRISTY. The climate is always changing. 

Mr. BROOKS. And in looking at Earth’s climatological data, have 

there been cooler periods than what we are now experiencing? 

Dr. CHRISTY. Yes. 

Mr. BROOKS. And do you have any way of expressing a judgment 

as to how often the world has experienced cooler periods of what 

we are now incurring? 

Dr. CHRISTY. If you go back through the entire history of the 

world, most of the periods have not been cooler than today. They 

have been warmer. 

Mr. BROOKS. Well, let us get into the warmer periods. Have there 

been warmer periods? 

Dr. CHRISTY. Yes, much warmer, yeah. 

Mr. BROOKS. And do you have any way of expressing a judgment 

as to how often, during whatever period of time you want to use, 

that it has been warmer than what it is today? 

Dr. CHRISTY. I cannot give you a percentage of time, but it is— 

just to say most. I can’t call up that graph in my brain right now. 

Mr. BROOKS. And looking at the materials that you all handed 

to us, this one is by Dr. Christy, I am going to read a part of it. 

‘‘To compound this sad and deceptive situation, I have been quite 

impressed with some recent results by Doll, Jensen, et al, in which 

Greenland ice bore hole temperatures had been deconvolved into a 

time series covering the past 20,000 years. This measurement indeed presented intercentury variations. Their result indicated a 

clear 500 year period of temperatures warmer than the present 

centered around 900 AD, commonly referred to as the medieval 

warming period.’’ When it says ‘‘warmer than the present’’, does 

that mean that consistently for that five century period of time, according to the Greenland ice bore hole measurements, we had had 

a global warming period then? 
138 

Dr. CHRISTY. Yes, in a smooth and average period. About a century smoothing. Each one of those centuries are considered to be 

warmer than the present. 

Mr. BROOKS. So the temperatures that we are experiencing right 

now, do you consider them to be an aberration, or just a part of 

the Earth’s normal warming and cooling cycle? 

Dr. CHRISTY. I think most of all they are part of the normal ups 

and downs of climate. 

Mr. BROOKS. And do you have a judgment as to what has been 

the warmest climatological year in the past two or three decades? 

Dr. CHRISTY. That would be—in the bulk atmosphere, 1998. 

Mr. BROOKS. And would it be fair to say, then, that there has 

been cooling of global temperatures at least over the last 13 years, 

compared to 1998? 

Dr. CHRISTY. Well, I can say that there certainly hasn’t been a 

warming of temperature since that time. 

Mr. BROOKS. And the last four or five years, have they been cooler or warmer? 

Dr. CHRISTY. They have been up and down. Some have been cold, 

some have been warm. 

Mr. BROOKS. And Congressman Cravaack kind of jumped on 

some turf I wanted to hit on. It is nice to have these little cell 

phones where you can pull up things, and I couldn’t help but pull 

up the Time magazine front page article dated April 28, 1975, 

where we have a penguin on the cover, and it says, ‘‘How to survive 

the coming ice age’’. And those are the days back when I was on 

the Grissom High School and Duke University debate teams, back 

in the early ’70s. Of course, this was one of the topics that came 

up from time to time in extemporaneous speaking, so I happen to 

recall that. For you young folks, I envy you not having that recollection, but for us older folks, you know, we can remember that far 

back. How do you compare that global cooling claim versus today’s 

global warming claim? Is there any consistency or inconsistency? 

Dr. CHRISTY. Well, I think the consistency there is—like I said 

before, there is a large amount of ignorance about the climate system, and that is just the way it is. It is such a complicated system. 

I think there has been too much jumping to conclusions about seeing something happen in the climate and saying, well, the only way 

that could happen is human effects. When you look at the possibility of natural unforced variability, you see that can cause excursions that we have seen recently. 

Mr. BROOKS. Would it be fair to say, then, that within the scientific community it literally is asking too much of them for them 

to be able to tell us whether 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years from now 

Earth’s temperatures are going to be warmer or cooler, much like 

it is pretty unreasonable to ask a meteorologist whether we are 

going to have rain in Washington just two or three weeks from 

now? 

Dr. CHRISTY. Well, there are some differences in that kind of 

thing, but I do yield to Dr. Emanuel over here in the sense I agree 

with him that it is very risky making predictions that far out. 

Mr. BROOKS. Well, if I could just make this one concluding statement, in my judgment, based upon what I have heard and learned 

over the decades, the fact of the matter is nobody knows whether 
139 

we are going to have global cooling or global warming over the next 

half century or century, but we are being asked to undermine 

America’s economy based on this guesswork, speculation and surmise. And we need to be very careful as a Congress before we start 

eliminating jobs that people in our nation so badly need. And with 

that having been said, I very much appreciate the time each of you 

all have spent with us today. 

Chairman HALL. Yield back your time? Was Dr. Armstrong trying to get his attention? Okay. Anyone else? Thank you, Mo. Thank 

you for your—— 

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you. 

Chairman HALL. —good questions. Chair at this time recognizes 

the very patient Mr. Sarbanes. And you won’t be last today. It is 

the gentleman from Maryland, five minutes. 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the witnesses. Your testimony is helpful, and this is a complicated issue. 

I wonder who among you would be prepared to declare that climate 

change is not happening. Is there anyone at the table who would 

say that? Okay. 

Dr. ARMSTRONG. Do you mean in either direction, or—I mean, my 

position is it is just as likely to go up as down, so I am sure it is 

going to change. It is absolutely certain it is—— 

Mr. SARBANES. Okay, but you are not refuting the notion that climate change is occurring? 

Dr. ARMSTRONG. Definitely not. 

Mr. SARBANES. And who among you would dispute that human 

activity has some role to play in climate change? Okay. What is interesting to me about the testimony is, when I look at each of the 

witnesses, Dr. Christy, you clearly have concerns about the IPCC, 

the process, whether they are taking into account all the things 

that they should, including some of the things that you have urged 

upon them and so forth. But you don’t appear to reject out of hand 

the possibility that human activity can be a factor in climate 

change. You are not predicting it necessarily one way or the other, 

but you are not rejecting that out of hand. Is that correct? 

Dr. CHRISTY. Yeah, that is correct. 

Mr. SARBANES. Okay. 

Dr. CHRISTY. Carbon dioxide is increasing. That will—— 

Mr. SARBANES. All right. 

Dr. CHRISTY. —have some effect. 

Mr. SARBANES. And then, Mr. Muller, you also had some concerns about the IPCC, but appear to recognize climate change is 

very real, as being caused or heavily driven by the greenhouse gas 

emissions. I accept your point that it is fair to worry about whether 

other countries are going to take steps to meet this challenge, and 

whether we are sort of going to be out there on our own if we push 

for it, and that is a subject for discussion and formulation of policy. 

But you have clearly acknowledged climate change and a human 

activity component to that. 

Dr. MULLER. That is correct. I—— 

Mr. SARBANES. Okay. 

Dr. MULLER. The degree of the human component—— 

Mr. SARBANES. Fair enough. 

Dr. MULLER. —is, in my mind—— 
140 

Mr. SARBANES. Fair enough. 

Dr. MULLER. —quite uncertain. 

Mr. SARBANES. Right. And, Mr. Armstrong, you also challenge 

the IPCC. Obviously that is one of the parts of the agenda here 

today is to raise questions, and I am going to come back to that. 

But, again, don’t appear to be dismissing—as you just indicated, 

not dismissing out of hand the connection of climate change and 

potential human activity’s influence there. Dr. Glaser, you are a— 

I mean—Dr. Glaser, you are a lawyer. Well, that—you are a doctor. 

But you are not really here to speak to the science so much as raise 

questions about the EPA and the Clean Air Act and all the rest of 

it. And Dr. Montgomery, you are focusing on the economics, but, 

again, don’t appear to be issuing a major challenge to the underlying science when it comes to climate change and the potential 

connection to that of human activity. 

So I think it is important for us to recognize this. It is fair to 

raise questions and have a debate on the process by which we are 

trying to reach some good judgment as we make policy with respect 

to climate change. But the public needs to understand that climate 

change is real, that human activity is a contributing factor to that, 

and that that is—that it is fair to gather up that kind of information going forward. 

Now, Dr. Emanuel, I would like to ask you—what emerges to me 

from these discussion of what, you know, some mistakes that were 

made by some of the folks involved with the IPCC’s—and, you 

know, we can say that, but what I get the impression of is that the 

IPCC, you know, can take it. That this is a group that, you know, 

is made up of a significant number of scientists that participate 

over almost 200 countries that participate. And they recognize the 

importance of the work they do, and they are going to make corrections to try to make sure in going forward that they are an important resources. 

My time is running out, but I did want you to confirm for me 

that, in addition to the IPCC being a robust source of expertise 

with respect to climate change, there are others that we rely on, 

because the suggestion was made earlier in the hearing that we are 

sort of putting all our eggs in one basket. There is the InterAcademy Council, is there not, which has issued some important 

recommendations with respect to climate change, and there is the 

U.S. Global Change Research Program, among many others, that 

are there as well. Can you just confirm that there is a lot of different and independent sources of conveying this real concern 

about climate change? 

Dr. EMANUEL. There are indeed, and let me simply remind the 

Committee that the IPCC is not a research organization. It communicates published research. You could throw away the IPCC, throw 

away that one graph that some people are focused on, that had one 

piece of one curve a minute. The evidence remains very strong, 

very robust, and very worrying. And anyone who says that we 

shouldn’t be worried is just kidding himself. Is the outcome certain? We have heard here, we all agree, it is not. But to suggest 

that we are not facing a significant risk going forward, and that 

we should not sacrifice immediate economic goals in order to deal 

with that risk, I think is being colossally irresponsible. 
141 

Dr. GLASER. Mr. Chairman, if I could just respond? Mr. Sarbanes 

characterized his view of what I am saying here, and I just want 

to be precise about this. My view on the science is that the record 

that the Environmental Protection Agency created in the 

endangerment finding does not provide a basis for EPA to make 

that endangerment finding, and therefore to regulate. I don’t want 

my silence otherwise—to be construed otherwise. Thank you. 

Chairman HALL. I think your emphasis is what I believe is Mr. 

Sarbanes is saying, that this hearing really is about process. And 

that is what we would hope it would be about, because that is the 

only honest way to approach it. And, Mr. Sarbanes, you can add 

on to any question or statement you want to make. 

Mr. SARBANES. I will yield back my time. 

Chairman HALL. All right. I thank you. Gentleman yields back. 

Recognizes the gentlelady from Florida, Sandy Adams—— 

Mrs. ADAMS. Thank you, Mr.—— 

Chairman HALL. —for five minutes. 

Mrs. ADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I do want to talk about 

the economics of it. Based on our economy today, and the fact that 

I don’t believe that there is—I think there is some kind of correlation between the regulation, the unemployment rate, the high 

spending rates in the Congress, all of this is going up at record 

rates together. Our debt, our deficit, I think it is all correlated together. 

Dr. Montgomery, I want to discuss the questions with you, and 

it is on the economic side because, as many of my colleagues have 

said, we are broke. We are looking at it. We have a high record of 

unemployment. People are making very hard, tough decisions in 

their homes today on how to pay the bills, and, if they can’t pay 

all the bills, then how to prioritize their bills. So, with that, I have 

a couple of questions. I want to know if any of your data that you 

used to formulate your opinions about the economic impacts of the 

climate related to regulations have ever been called into question? 

Dr. MONTGOMERY. No. Economists, like other researchers, have 

disagreements about the emphasis to put on different things, but 

the models and the data that we have used have been accepted in 

major peer reviewed groups. We have published them. We have argued, but they have been accepted by all of our colleagues, and I 

think the academic community. 

Mrs. ADAMS. Okay. Does the so-called danger posed to the economy by not acting to reduce what some may call—some call man 

made effects on climate change outweigh the economic costs to the 

country, in your opinion? 

Dr. MONTGOMERY. No, it does not. 

Mrs. ADAMS. Will the proposals that we have heard about from 

this administration, such as the cap and trade regimen create jobs 

and stimulate the U.S. economy? 

Dr. MONTGOMERY. No, it will not. 

Mrs. ADAMS. Will it lose jobs, will it cost jobs? 

Dr. MONTGOMERY. In the short run, I think you raised all of the 

right issues, that we are looking at a problem of deficits that are 

hanging over the economy and discouraging investment because of 

the prospect we have to pay them back someday, we have to pay 

more taxes. I think that the onslaught of additional regulatory re-
142 

quirements are imposing costs on business and making them unwilling to hire. And I think that adding additional regulations at 

this point is going to have an effect on employment. 

In the long run, people are going to have work. People are going 

to find work. The question is, how much will they be producing, 

and how much will they be earning for it, and how much does the 

country as a whole get out of their effort? And that, clearly climate 

change regulations will diminish. 

Mrs. ADAMS. And we have already been at a record high of 

months—coinciding months, side by side, of unemployment, so this 

would just add to it, is basically—on the short term? 

Dr. MONTGOMERY. Yes, and if I could add to that, there have 

been a number of claims that we need to have environmental regulations because it is a way of getting more spending to happen. If 

we need more spending, which I would question in terms of our 

overall fiscal policy, then that is the issue, and the issue needs to 

be looked at in terms of fiscal policy and whether it makes sense 

or not. Using regulatory measures to force businesses to spend 

money on things that we cannot justify for other reasons does not 

make sense as a stimulus measure. 

Mrs. ADAMS. And I think earlier someone asked you about if we 

were, in the U.S., to bring our carbon emissions down to zero within 20 years and invest all of this, even though countries such as 

China, India and the EU do not, there would not be much of a difference in what is going on today, correct? 

Dr. MONTGOMERY. We would not notice a difference to the U.S. 

in anything that was happening to us because of climate. 

Mrs. ADAMS. If the Kerry-Boxer Bill, which it was rightly rejected by last year’s Congress, had passed, and we were on track 

to lower U.S. emissions by 20 percent, below 2007 levels by 2020, 

do you think the economic damage created by that bill would have 

been worth the carbon emissions decrease it was estimated to 

achieve? 

Dr. MONTGOMERY. No, because they were very similar, very 

small reductions to ones that I mentioned, and that Dr. Christy 

mentioned, that the costs of that by itself would have far outweighed any benefit we could have gotten from those fiscal 

changes. 

Mrs. ADAMS. Okay. I am going to quickly conclude with these two 

questions. How much of an investment in research and development initiatives would you estimate is necessary for us to cut its 

emissions in half by 2035, our emissions, and if we were successful, 

how much would global emissions decrease as a result of that success? 

Dr. MONTGOMERY. I have no idea of what it would take for R&D, 

and I am not sure that 2035 is a target that R&D would get us 

to in any event, but in none of these cases would it change global 

emissions. Where the R&D could pay off is if it developed over the 

longer term the kind of technologies that we need much further out 

in the future to get our—to get the world completely to a zero carbon economy. And we have to remember, that is the goal. It is not 

a little bit of change now, it is a wholesale change in the entire 

world’s energy system that you commit yourself to when you say, 

we are going to go for preventing global warming. 
143 

Mrs. ADAMS. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman HALL. Thank you. Ms. Lofgren? I think she just 

stepped out. Somebody tell her she is up next. Yeah. She waited 

a long time. You want to make him right now? She is asking if we 

have closing remarks, and we don’t usually, but if—I have been 

waiting 30 years to be Chairman so I could make closing remarks, 

and I don’t have any closing remarks, but—because you all have 

been so generous with your time, and—let me tell you, don’t be discouraged by the empty chairs here because this is all taken down. 

The gentleman right over there is taking everything down, and 

your total testimony will be in the record for all the other Members 

to read, and they will be read, so you are not wasting your time 

on empty chairs. This is the lady that is worth waiting for. She has 

been in—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. You are so nice. 

Chairman HALL. —Congress for a long, long time, and we recognize you now for—if you are ready to go. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I am ready to go, and I apologize. I was on the 

phone. This has been a—quite a busy morning. I was unable to be 

here during the delivery of the testimony because of—I am the 

ranking Member of a Subcommittee that was meeting at the same 

time, but I did have the opportunity to read the written testimony. 

And, you know, I—as I am listening to some of the questions 

here, Dr. Emanuel, it seems like some people are confused about 

the difference between climate and weather, and I am wondering 

if you could give us a short summary of what the difference is. 

Dr. EMANUEL. Well, my favorite answer that I have heard to this 

question that you raise is one that was given by my late colleague, 

Ed Lorenz, the father of chaos theory, who says climate is what 

you expect and weather is what you get. It is a murky line. One 

of the things that one tries to do is to look in climate records at 

long term fluctuations, and depending upon what is causing the climate to change, you have to average over a lot of weather—a good 

example is the weather in Washington today. A few weeks ago, it 

was very warm, right? The trees were blooming. The temperature 

is clearly lower today than it was a few weeks ago, but nobody in 

this room would say, okay, because of that, we are not going to 

have summer here in Washington. They don’t make that mistake. 

They understand that we are looking at a short term fluctuation. 

The temperature of the planet was very hot in 1998 because we 

were experiencing a very large El Nino that year. And people say, 

well, it has gotten cooler since then. It is true. It means nothing, 

on the other hand, about the longer term changes. 

What we are relatively sure of is to see what is happening with 

carbon dioxide, its influence, we need at least 30 years of time series. And looking at what has happened over the last five or ten 

years is virtually meaningless. 

Ms. LOFGREN. One of the things that—the—in terms of my reading—and I read as a lay person. I mean, I am not a scientist, but 

if you take a look at some of the historical records, it seems that 

the influence—temperature influence in global climate change does 

relate to sunlight and variability of the sun, but right now we have 

got a decrease, and yet an increase, an up ramp. And I remember 

about a decade ago, decade and a half ago, I went to Stanford, and 
144 

the analysis that they were doing is—just look at the planet chemistry. Don’t worry right now about measuring the temperatures, 

look at the planet chemistry. And everybody, I think, agrees that 

the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has spiked. 

And—but one of the concerns I have is how conservative scientists are by nature. You don’t want to predict something that you 

can’t prove. And yet, if these things are occurring—I worry about 

methane. When you take a look at the melting of permafrost, I 

mean, if we were to stop all emissions today, we are still going to 

have a very large spike in carbon dioxide, methane, and other 

greenhouse gases. 

Let me ask you about whether the scientific community is in a 

posture where—I mean, you can’t prove that the ice on Greenland 

will melt. I mean, no one knows that. And yet, were that to happen, that would be a rather catastrophic event. Can you explain to 

me where the scientific community is, relative to risk analysis, 

when you can’t prove an unknown such as that? 

Dr. EMANUEL. You have put your finger on what makes the 

whole enterprise so difficult. So one thing we do know beyond 

much doubt is that current levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have not been experienced for at least a million years on our 

planet. We also know that that Greenland ice disappeared naturally in one of the previous interglacial periods over the last 

800,000 years, so we know it can happen. 

And you had mentioned, and I think it is true, that science tends 

to be conservative. I personally think that, you know, people say 

the IPCC will turn out to be wrong. Yes, but with equal probability 

it will turn out that they have underestimated the effect, rather 

than overestimated. So in the last IPCC report, scientists who were 

the authors of that report concluded that they understood the 

Greenland ice problem so poorly that they weren’t even able to venture. And I said, well, we are going to project an increase in sea 

level just based upon what we know reasonably well, which is the 

thermal expansion of sea water. And they said, we are not going 

to consider the ice. 

But if you want to consider the full range of possible outcomes, 

given that Greenland ice has largely disappeared in the past, one 

has to regard that as John Holdren correctly did, as a possibility. 

You are talking about seven meters of sea level rise. I think it is 

these issues that keep us all awake at night. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, it certainly does me. And I will—I know my 

time is up, but I would just like to say, I come from Silicon Valley 

and, you know, some—the hottest part of our economy right now 

is green technology. I mean, it is employing thousands of people. 

It is a fast expanding part of technology, venture backed. And so 

when I hear, gosh, you know, this is an economic problem, wow, 

where I come from, it is an economic opportunity. So—and I just 

think it is important that someone point that out. I thank you, Mr. 

Chairman, for allowing me to come back and still ask my questions, and I yield back. 

Chairman HALL. Thank you. You are always worth waiting for. 

And then—yeah. Mr. Rohrabacher, the gentleman from California, 

recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr.—— 
145 

Chairman HALL. And you have been patient too. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, this is a very significant issue, and deserves the type of honest debate that—we have seen some of that 

here today, but we have also seen examples of some of the type of 

debate that we have had in the past on this issue. Let me note that 

Dr. Emanuel’s statement earlier about the disinformation and some 

of—have been going on in terms of posturing and—which had not 

been conducive to a good scientific discussion. 

There is some validity to what you had to say there, Dr. Emanuel, but let me just note, I have sat through two decades of having 

those people who disagree with your position—seen them belittled, 

seen their arguments dismissed without having to address the actual scientific judgments that is based—we have all heard case 

closed. How many of us have not heard the phrase case closed, 

which is nothing more than an attempt to shut off debate and honest discussion? Over and over again we have seen these tactics. 

During the Clinton Administration, we saw this even reach the extent where people who I know were complaining that research 

grants were not available to people in the scientific community unless they had a predisposition towards proving man made global 

warming. 

Mr. Chairman, what we have needed in this issue is an honest 

debate and an honest discussion. I think today was a first good 

step. Let me note that even with this first good step, my colleagues 

on the left have been unable to prevent themselves from trying to 

call into question the integrity of the people who disagreed with 

them. One of my colleagues from North Carolina just mentioned 

that—basically talking about unethical lawyers or whatever, but 

could not prevent himself from suggesting that campaign donations 

have something to do with people’s honest disagreement with his 

position. Well, people could honestly disagree with this. And what 

is the central issue? The central issue is whether or not mankind 

is causing a change in the climate, especially with mankind’s use 

of fossil—what is called fossil fuels, and whether or not man made 

CO2 is actually having a major impact on the climate of this planet. 

And it is not whether it has some impact. Everything has some impact. It is whether or not it has a major impact. 

And I would just like to ask our scientists here, Dr. Armstrong, 

do you believe that the sun and natural causes may have more to 

do with the climate cycles that the Earth is going through, including the current one, than mankind’s use of fossil fuel? 

Dr. ARMSTRONG. I work with Willie Soon, who does a lot of research on this particular topic, and that is what he tells me. I actually try not to learn a lot about climate change. I am the forecasting guy. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. Well, I would ask that everyone— 

I would like to make a couple more points before we ask—by the 

way, just so you will note, again, asking people whether or not they 

have received any money—research money from any corporation I 

think, again, is an attempt to basically steer away from the arguments as to whether someone has a scientifically based argument, 

and what that argument is, and trying to instead poison the well 

so you don’t have to confront the actual science. 
146 

And that is why, frankly, Dr. Emanuel, when you started belittling people as making mascots out of scientific mavericks, well, no, 

you can’t dismiss someone as a mascot. Maybe some of these scientific mavericks have something to say worthwhile without having 

to be belittled by calling them mascots. And I have been—we have 

been sitting through this dishonest debate on this issue for 20 

years. And thank God we have at least one forum that present— 

is presenting the other side today. What about you, Dr. Christy and 

Dr. Muller? Do you think that the sun and natural causes has at 

least as great an impact as humankind on climate change that has 

always existed? 

Dr. CHRISTY. Well, actually, the natural unforced variability, 

which is not really the sun or volcanoes or anything, but just the 

complexity of the system itself can create those variations on its 

own. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Dr. Muller? 

Dr. MULLER. The amount of global warming we have had so far, 

one degree Celsius, is hardly enough for anybody to even notice, 

other than scientists who are bringing together large numbers of 

instruments and measurements. I would say that claims that global warming has harmed the Earth so far as not scientific. 

What worries me, however, is not that we have had global warming which has impacted us. I worry that the excess reported by the 

IPCC, this fact that the solar activity has turned down a little bit, 

but the warming has gone up, is simply a risk. It is a risk for the 

future. We have not had significant global warming, enough to 

have many of the effects that are attributed to it. But that doesn’t 

mean that the carbon dioxide is going up on a way that has been 

unprecedented during human existence. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Um-hum. 

Dr. MULLER. And that concerns me, and I think it means we 

need to take a measured look at it and take—have a measured response. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, we have had a—and by the way, Dr. 

Emanuel, you are just excusing the manipulation of information, 

calling it poor judgment rather than unethical activity on the part 

of the—— 

Dr. EMANUEL. Absolutely correct. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. It is shocking. 

Dr. EMANUEL. And many panels—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Hold—— 

Dr. EMANUEL. —who are in much better position to know than 

you—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Doctor—— 

Dr. EMANUEL. —concluded the same thing. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. It is my time, let me just note, and I am 

going to give you a chance to answer that, but I do want—I—I am 

running out of time right now because I wanted to get to a science 

thing, but—an actual science question. 

Chairman HALL. We will give the witness time to answer, if he 

chooses—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. Thank you. Dr. Christy, there was a 

period—this—what we call this medieval warming period. Is there 

any suggestion that that was caused by an increased level of car-
147 

bon—CO2, especially by human beings? And if not, if the use of 

CO2 was actually less than it is now, how can we then—and it was 

warmer then, how can we say that, scientifically, that today’s cycle, 

it seems to be a little bit warming anyway, is caused by CO2? 

Dr. CHRISTY. I think you are thinking like a lawyer. It is hard 

to convict carbon dioxide of warming back then when it wasn’t 

there. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. 

Dr. CHRISTY. So the crime happened without the presence of carbon dioxide. If you think of it as a crime, I think the—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. 

Dr. CHRISTY. —we might like warmer, actually. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And I will be happy to let Dr. Emanuel answer my challenge to his dismissal of the significance of the alteration of information by scientists in presenting their case to the 

American public and the world. 

Dr. EMANUEL. Thank you for the opportunity to make some clarifications. Let me first state that, if you read my testimony, I was 

very careful to say that mavericks are a very, very important part 

of the scientific enterprise. I, in other issues, am a maverick, and 

I know many of them, they appreciate—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. But you are not a mascot. 

Mr. EMANUAL. I was criticizing extra-scientific organizations who 

made mascots out of mavericks, and that is a very different matter. 

And I just simply want to be clear about that. Now, on the issue 

of this one proxy record, let us talk about what it is. It was a tree 

ring proxy record, and the—there is a well known problem that had 

been published for several years before this report came out that 

noted that several of the tree ring proxies diverged from the instrumental record in modern times. There is clearly a problem. It is 

discussed all over the literature. It is called the divergence problem. 

And the graph in question, the authors chose—and this was not 

part of a peer reviewed report, by the way. It was supposed to be 

kind of a popular report. They chose to take away that part of one 

proxy record that was demonstrably false. I think what they should 

have done, and what we all feel they should have done, was taken 

that whole proxy away because it was provably wrong, all right? 

There is no question that that was scientifically wrong. 

What we concluded, that there was not, on the other hand, an 

intent to deceive anyone. If it was, it was very poorly conceived, because anybody who wanted to could immediately find, and did find, 

the original records. You could throw all of that away. You could 

take away all the science done by anybody in that group that you 

thought was questionable, and it wouldn’t change anything about 

the conclusions, because the weight of the rest of the evidence is 

so large. 

Chairman HALL. —have an answer from any of the others, have 

you? Do you want to answer, Doctor? 

Dr. CHRISTY. I would just say I think that minimizes what actually happened in that situation. It was the icon of the TAR, the 

third assessment report. And what the tree ring record did, in 

showing that it did not agree with temperatures, indicated that the 

icon itself, which was based primarily on tree rings prior to the 
148 

16th century, was therefore not very good at explaining what the 

temperature was. So both were improperly shown as—one was cut 

off, and one was shown as a correct representation of temperature 

when it really wasn’t. Had no scale on that thing. 

Chairman HALL. Go ahead. 

Dr. MULLER. Thank you. I was trained in science by Luis Alvarez, who not only won the Nobel Prize and lots of other discoveries, 

but is sort of a hero. He was over Hiroshima, measuring the size 

of the blast when it happened. Luis Alvarez taught me the fundamental scientific rule, which is you have got to show everybody 

your dirty laundry. I remember vividly the first time I was at a 

seminar in his home when Lena Gautieri, a great physicist, got up 

there, and I heard she had made a discovery. And she spent the 

first 35 minutes of her 45 minute talk showing all of the evidence 

against what she was going to claim. In the end, when she showed 

her evidence, it was compelling because it was stronger than everything else. 

My problem with the way the hockey stick was derived was that 

there was none of this. Luis Alvarez taught me that if you hide 

something, if you don’t show something, that you are afraid people 

will draw the wrong conclusions, the person you are most likely to 

fool is yourself. 

Chairman HALL. Thank you. 

Dr. GLASER. May I respond too, Mr. Chairman? I think—a couple 

of things here. First of all, Climategate was about a large number 

of things. The hockey stick has gotten all the publicity, as rightly 

it should, because the hockey stick was the fundamental way—it 

was the fundamental piece of evidence on which climate change 

was presented to the public in the IPCC report. So Climategate is 

about that, that is fundamental, but Climategate is about a bunch 

of other things as well. It is a large pattern of activity. And I think 

we have heard discussion today about the various review panels 

that were undertaken, mostly in England, and there are a few 

things that you need to understand about those review panels. 

First of all, the fact that the English felt that it was necessary 

to investigate what had happened is something that we wish EPA 

had done as well. They felt that there was enough here to take a 

look and to have some kind of process, and that is all that we have 

asked EPA to do here, is just take a look at this, let the public comment. EPA looked at it and said, nothing here. We are not even 

going to let the public comment. That is a process flaw. That is 

number one. 

Number two, none of these review panels, including the Oxboro 

panel, operated according to any kind of procedures that would 

even remotely approach the standards that we would use here in 

the United States. We have heard about interviews that weren’t 

made public, failure to hear dissenting points of view. That is all 

important also. 

And then the third thing I would have to say is that although 

this doesn’t get publicized very much, all of those review panels, in 

fact, were very critical of a lot of the procedures that were used by 

the scientists that they were reviewing, including the review panel 

that Dr. Emanuel served on that said in specific that they were actually very surprised. And that the statisticians in question, or the 
149 

climatologists in question that were producing material like the 

hockey stick, which is fundamentally a statistical analysis, did not 

think it necessary to consult with disinterested professional statisticians. 

There was concern expressed across all of these review panels 

about failure to respond to Freedom of Information requests, operating in a culture of secrecy, not providing information to scientists 

who didn’t share their views. That is ultimately what Climategate 

is all about, and that is why it is created so many questions. 

Chairman HALL. Does that do it? Mr. Montgomery? 

Dr. MONTGOMERY. Just one thought, which is that even if all of 

the climate science was accepted as good science, we still need to 

worry about the bad economics and bad policy analysis that have 

been used to leap from conclusions—to leap to conclusions about 

what should be done from that basis. 

Chairman HALL. Okay. Mrs. Woolsey is—wants to make a closing remark. Recognize you for—— 

Ms. WOOLSEY. A minute. 

Chairman HALL. —for a couple or three minutes. Whatever time 

you take, as long as you don’t take over five minutes. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. I won’t, I won’t. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I 

would like to respond to Mr. Rohrabacher about today’s panel representing the other side, because I don’t think that that is the conversation we have had today, because every single person said that 

global warming is happening. Every single person said that human 

activity is a factor, and that science must be continued. I think 

there is agreement in that. And I think the challenge is exactly 

how we are going to have science that is understandable and acceptable. So—without giving up real science. 

So—now, you know, it is clear, Mr. Chairman, this debate has focused a lot on the IPCC, but, you know, even if you reject the report—I don’t, but I need to point out that there are many other 

reputable sources of scientific information, like the United States 

National Academy of Sciences, and we have to—we accept their reports. In addition, every significant relevant scientific society has 

put out statements that are in agreement with the mainstream 

view of climate science. And, obviously, all of those groups cannot 

be wrong. 

So as I said when I came in, after hearing the esteemed Secretary of Energy, Secretary Steven Chu, this morning at nine 

o’clock, and then came in here, I really could be living in a parallel 

universe, and I thank you for keeping me sane through it. 

Chairman HALL. Gentlelady’s time has finally expired. 

Dr. ARMSTRONG. Could I make a comment on that? I think I was 

misrepresented by her. 

Chairman HALL. I recognize you for a minute, two minutes if you 

need it. 

Dr. ARMSTRONG. She said every single person was recognizing 

that global warming was happening. I did not say that. I said it 

had happened, and that we would have no idea whether the temperature is going to go up or go down. Secondly, the whole notion 

of voting by scientists is not scientific method. In fact, it is antiscientific method. It is the way that scientists prevent change. 
150 

Chairman HALL. Okay. Let me just say that this is a group that 

I had heard had some questions about the science. You have expressed that somewhere, or you wouldn’t be here. We have asked 

you to come. Dr. Montgomery, your testimony has been very valuable because in a mile of here there is probably 1,000 places of 

business. Every one of them have a door people walk through. They 

go in there and they pick out something, and what is the next 

thing they have to do? They have to pay for it. They have got to 

go by a cash register. 

And I ran into some witnesses about five or six weeks ago had 

they ever been to Wal-Mart, and had they—they said yes. Did you 

buy anything? Yes. And what did you next do? They didn’t know, 

or they just didn’t say anything. Did you see anything unusual? 

And—did you see a thing called a cash register? And I had a dictionary with me, and I wrote—I called out to these Phi Beta Kappa 

people what a cash register was, read them two or three paragraphs of it, still didn’t agree. 

You know, we have spent 30 billion dollars, and we are in debt 

14 trillion right now on our children, and we have only got pamphlets to show for this since it came out in the ’90s. And we needed 

this hearing today, and we are going to have other hearings that 

will give those other folks a chance to justify their findings and answer the question just like you all have. We are going to put them 

under oath. I hope they will come. I hope they are as kind as you 

all have been in giving us your time. And I certainly want to thank 

you for that. 

And I will just close with this. I was a paperboy in the ’30s, and 

I served Bonnie and Clyde one time from a drugstore. I gave them 

curb service. They wanted two Coca-Colas, a carton of Old Golds 

and all of the newspapers we had. And—anyway, I called the 

Greenville Police—it was just one road from Los Angeles to Miami 

then, that was Route 66, came right through my town—told them 

that they were headed in that direction. And they said, well, dogs 

been killing some sheep out on the north part of town. We are 

going out there and shoot them dogs, so—you can always do the 

wrong thing with good information. 

But we also had—let me finish. I haven’t used up all my time. 

We also had a fellow named Dr. Something that came to Dallas 

with something that we had never heard of before. He was a 

weather predictor, and he had a sling cyclometer. My God, I had 

no idea what it was, but he would use that sling cyclometer six 

o’clock every morning on WORR and tell what the weather was. 

Now, we used the word maverick up there. There was a maverick 

projector up at Paris, Texas. He listened to him, and he predicted 

just the opposite. He didn’t have a sling cyclometer or anything, 

and he was right 80 percent of the time. I guess that is the way 

it goes. 

Thank you very much for your time. Thank all of you, and I 

thank you for your valuable testimony and answering the questions. The Members of this Committee may have additional questions for any one of you, and we will ask you to respond to those 

in writing. Record will remain open for two weeks for additional 

comments from Members. Witnesses are excused, and this hearing 

is adjourned. 
151 

Whereupon, at 1:05 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(153) 

Appendix I: 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
154 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Dr. J. Scott Armstrong, Professor of Marketing, 

the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania. 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 

Responses by Dr. Richard Muller, Professor of Physics, University of California, 

Berkeley and Faculty Senior Scientist, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 

Responses by Dr. John Christy, Director, Earth System Science Center, 

University of Alabama in Huntsville 

Questions submitted by Chairman Ralph Hall 

Q1. In your testimony, you describe that lead authors of IPCC chapter are usually 

experts in the field the chapter discusses. While this would make sense on its 

face, you also state that since the lead author has essentially the final say on 

what goes in the chapter, it creates a conflict of interest if there is information 

submitted that is counter to the views of the lead author. 

a. How could the process be changed to remove that conflict of interest and allow 

for differing views to be incorporated into the final product? 

A1 (a) I have suggested a number of ways to improve the process. First is to remove 

the controlling bureaucracy from being led out of the U.N. Second is to create an 

electronic climate assessment system in which there is much greater transparency 

and acceptance of alternate views with the decision-process for conclusions made 

visible to the community. Third, is to explicitly provide a means, i.e. a chapter or 

two, whereby alternate views to be expressed (which to date have been shut out) 

by credentialed scientists which deal with the scientific evidence for, as examples, 

low climate sensitivity, inappropriate paleo-reconstructions, the role of natural 

unforced variability, and the lack of evidence for catastrophic weather and climate 

developments. Oversight would be governed by those who do not have an agenda 

to promote (i.e. no conflict of interest), but are careful to see that fairness is adhered 

to. For an issue that has such tremendous impact on the economy, the Congress 

needs to see the full range of evidence regarding climate change. Given the lack of 

diversity in the current IPCC process, I would recommend the U.S. congress ask for 

its own assessment developed along the lines above. Please note that those who perform research under federal programs may be viewed as ‘‘conflicted’’ because the 

current system is biased to support those trying to make a case for dangerous 

human-induced climate change rather than understanding natural, unforced variability. 

b. Has there been anything suggested to or adopted by the IPCC that would alleviate 

this conflict of interest problem? 

A1 (b) I understand that there is a new document that appears to make some effort 

at reducing conflict of interest problems (see discussion here http:// 

rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/04/ipccs-proposed-coi-policy.html). However, as suggested in Pielke’s report, rulings regarding COI will be rather non-transparent. And, 

as mentioned, one wonders if scientists who are government employees or do research on government grants (of governments with strong agendas regarding greenhouse-gas controls) would ever qualify as not having COI. I suspect not much will 

actually change here as the IPCC continues to be led by an establishment of scientists and bureaucrats who believe humans are having a catastrophic impact on 

the climate system and who desire strong greenhouse gas controls. It is important 

to remember that the IPCC provides one view of climate change and that there are 

other views equally backed-up by evidence but which have been marginalized or 

eliminated from the IPCC venue. As such, at least one other venue independent 

from the IPCC, such as a ‘‘Red Team,’’ is necessary. 

c. Have other lead authors expressed this concern or pointed out this deficiency as 

well? 

A1 (c) I would point to Dr. Richard Lindzen and Dr. Richard Tol as two former Lead 

Authors of the IPCC and Roger Pielke Sr as a former CCSP Lead Author who are 

critical of the methodology and conclusions of the IPCC. This may seem to be a 

small group, however, scientists critical of the IPCC process are, in effect, excluded 

from the opportunity to serve as Lead Authors since the IPCC itself selects whom 

they want. There are certainly many other scientists who were never asked to serve 

as Lead Authors whose credentials are exemplary and are well-qualified to provide 

climate science information. 

Q2. You discuss in your testimony Climategate email exchanges between the lead author in the third assessment report with other scientists regarding the Hockey 

Stick graph. 

a. Are you aware of any group discussion about this matter with all the lead authors 

and coauthors present? 
168 

A2 (a) To my knowledge, the elimination of the ‘‘decline’’ in Briffa’s tree-ring data 

was not discussed with all of the Lead Authors in an open session—I certainly don’t 

recall such a discussion. From the now exposed email evidence, the deletion of the 

Briffa data (because it disagreed with the Hockey Stick) occurred in late Sept. 1999 

-after the IPCC meeting in Arusha Tanzania and before the meeting in Auckland 

NZ—through behind -the-scenes email discussions. These behind-the-scenes exchanges were never entered into the formal review process. 

b. Does the IPCC spell out a process requiring discussion of an issue like this between all the authors or is there no process at all thereby allowing a great amount 

of discretion to the lead author? 

A2 (b) Controversies were intended to be discussed in the open. However, much of 

what the Lead Authors did for the IPCC was rather ad hoc, and of course done on 

a voluntary basis (if one is not a government scientist.) At the time of the writing 

of the TAR, the Lead Authors had considerable authority over the text and the review process, and there was really no serious oversight on what individuals did relative to formal review procedures. In this case a Lead Author with some close associates somehow managed to truncate data without the rest of the Lead Authors’ 

knowledge. 

c. The IPCC has stated it has changed some of its processes in response to the report 

by the Interacademy Council. Was this process deficiency addressed in the changes 

recently implemented? 

A2 (c) Yes and no. The IPCC has announced changes, but it remains to be seen how 

openly and honest the authors will be or how well they will adhere to the new 

guidelines including rules about conflict-of-interest. It must be understood that the 

IPCC is a well-established organization with a need to affirm its past activity and 

to bolster the perception that its documents are the best science on climate change 

available today. The IPCC will continue to control its own message, and will do so 

by selecting Lead Authors who will support this emphasis. That basically implies 

that they will not address past failures and will seek to make ever-more confident 

announcements about their view of climate change. This is one of the reasons that 

a separate climate science assessment be initiated with one of its missions to expose 

past IPCC failures (which the IPCC will not do on its own, e.g. the Hockey Stick 

and the Yamal paleo-record.) 

Q3. I’d like to ask you about the ‘‘hide the decline’’ trick referred to in the 

Climategate emails. 

a. Am I correct in saying that this trick was to use tree ring data to show temperature changes, but only up to a certain date, after which satellite or surface temperature data was used to finish the graph? 

A3 (a) There are three issues tied up together here that are discussed to some extent in the Climategate emails. (1) The first issue concerns the problem created 

when Mann’s Hockey Stick and the Briffa’s tree ring result did not agree—Briffa’s 

result showed a decline in temperatures after 1960. But, Briffa’s result was legitimately constructed and published. To avoid showing this disagreement, the Briffa 

result was simply chopped off after 1960 to ‘‘hide the decline’’ so it wouldn’t disagree 

with the Hockey Stick. (2) The second issue then dealt with the splicing of thermometer readings into the various proxy depictions in one way or another even though 

the proxy records didn’t agree with the thermometer records. This gave the impression of a rapidly rising temperature after 1960 even though the proxy records did 

not have such a feature. To describe this as a ‘‘trick’’ is accurate. (3) The third issue 

deals with the Hockey Stick itself and the poor mathematics and data utilized in 

that product. 

b. How would one be able to discern what part of the data set was from proxy data 

and what part was from real measurements? 

A3 (b) One would never know about the real measurements from the Briffa proxy 

dataset because they were amputated after 1960. The intentional splicing-in of instrumental data was done in various ways at various times during this period, so 

I can’t be more specific here. However, the splicing was a relatively minor problem 

compared with the brutal truncation of data after 1960 in Briffa’s dataset and the 

poor analysis that went into the Hockey Stick. 

c. Is this accepted scientific practice? 

A3 (c) Eliminating data which were never shown to be ‘‘wrong’’ is not acceptable 

scientific practice, indeed this is the antithesis of the scientific method. Splicing in-
169 

strumental data onto proxy data in this way is comparing apples to oranges, and 

not acceptable in my view. 

Q4. The IPCC describes itself as a scientific organization. Would you agree with this 

characterization? If not, how would you describe the IPCC and the assessment 

reports it generates? 

A4. The IPCC is an organization of IPCC-selected authors and editors, many of 

whom are scientists. The IPCC is not a scientific organization in the sense that it 

does not sponsor or perform scientific research. See also response to 2.c. above. The 

assessment reports by the IPCC are simply one version of climate science generated 

by a U.N. body and do not represent the complete view of evidence on climate 

change. 

Q5. The 2006 National Academies report on temperature reconstructions indicated 

that there were methodological problems in reconstructions that have led to uncertainties which were subsequently underestimated. Although you did not participate in the Fourth Assessment Report, did you find that these methodological 

problems were addressed by the IPCC when they reviewed temperature reconstructions? Or did the reconstructions used in the IPCC report reflect the same 

deficiencies identified by the National Academies report? 

A5. I participated in the AR4 (Fourth Assessment Report) as a ‘‘Contributing Author’’, however, I did not participate in the section referred to in this question (reconstruction of paleo-temperatures.) What was disappointing in the AR4 was the 

fact they did not address the problems from the previous IPCC report (outlined in 

the NAS report) concerning the Hockey Stick and ‘‘hide the decline’’ even though 

they were asked to do so in the review process. In AR4, they continued to NOT show 

the full Briffa tree ring series, (i.e. continuing to ‘‘hide the decline.) This truncation 

of data was done over and over -see Briffa and Osborn (Science 1999), Jones et al 

(Rev Geophys 1999), Briffa et al (JGR 2001) Plate 3, Jones et al 2001 Plate 2A, 

Briffa et al 2004 Figure 8, Hegerl et al Figure 5b. (CRU conceded most of this in 

their March 1, 2010 submission to Muir Russell, see page 38). [From http:// 

climateaudit.org/2011/03/31/disinformation-from-kerry-emanuel/ ] 

There continued to be another important deficiency, only obliquely mentioned in 

the NAS report, regarding proxy reconstructions and the common practice of selective use of tree rings (Yamal) which bolstered a Hockey Stick shape while ignoring 

much larger and robust tree ring samples (Polar Urals and Taimyr) which did not 

support Hockey Sticks (see http://climateaudit.org/2011/04/09/yamal-and-hide-thedecline/ ). This amounts to selective use of input data to provide an output that is 

agreeable to the researcher. The IPCC AR4 did not address this selective use of 

data. As one paleoclimate researcher (Jan Esper) astoundingly admitted, ‘‘The ability to pick and choose which samples to use is an advantage unique to 

dendroclimatology.’’ Picking and choosing allows the bias of the scientist to create 

the result he/she desires but this is not the way science should be performed. 

Q6. In your testimony, you describe a situation where text was inserted by the lead 

authors after the close of peer review. Could you please elaborate how the peer 

review process in the IPCC is supposed to work and its importance to the legitimacy of the overall assessments? 

A6. Fundamentally, the way the IPCC review process works is ‘‘trust us, we are 

Lead Authors.’’ In this sense, the IPCC peer-review process boils down to whether 

a Lead Author can be completely objective about the material. As indicated elsewhere, this was not to be. 

It must be understood that the IPCC is not a peer-reviewed document in the classical sense. The Lead Authors of the IPCC KNOW that their work will be published, 

largely as they wish it to be published. One would hope that the Lead Authors 

would accommodate the reviewer comments in fairness, even if they did not agree 

with them. However, having the ‘‘final word’’ after the review is closed prevents this 

fairness from occurring. Then, one would hope that the handful of IPCC Review Editors would raise red flags when something was amiss. However, Review Editors 

were largely ineffective since the Lead Authors were the main authorities for determining the content. Indeed, in an email from IPCC Chair Susan Solomon who responded to a question (arising out of a FOI request from David Holland) states on 

14 Mar 2008 the following: 

The review editors do not determine the content of the chapters. The authors 

are responsible for the content of their chapters and responding to comments, not 
170 

REs [Review Editors]. Further explanations, elaboration, or re-interpretations of the 

comments or the authors responses, would not be appropriate. 

In the way that the IPCC operates, it really comes down to whom the IPCC selects 

to serve as Lead Authors as to the type of content and emphasis contained in the 

final report. As I’ve noted several times in the past, there was a disturbing homogeneity-of-thought in those who were selected in the AR4 and now AR5. 

In the case referred to here concerning Ross McKitrick, the IPCC authors made 

a specific, but unsubstantiated, statistical claim in response to criticism of their own 

dataset. This was done perhaps to give them the comfort of providing cover for their 

own work, but to which they knew there would be no rebuttal since the IPCC ‘‘expert peer-review’’ process was over. It was only through the incredible efforts of 

McKitrick that the information was eventually published (McKitrick, R., 2010: Atmospheric oscillations do not explain the temperature-industrialization correlation. 

Statistics, Politics and Policy, Vol 1, No. 1, July 2010) which demonstrated the IPCC 

authors apparently fabricated their response for the official text (see also McKitrick, 

Ross R. (2011) ‘‘Bias in the Peer Review Process: A Cautionary and Personal Account’’ in Climate Coup, Patrick J. Michaels ed., Cato Inst. Washington DC.) 

During the Muir Russell Inquiry in the UK, IPCC Author Jones was asked if he 

could produce the statistical basis of the claim he and his chapter coauthors had 

inserted. He was unable to do so, and even claimed no such evidence was necessary 

(http://www.cce-review.org/evidence/15%20April%20Jones%20follow%20up.pdf). The 

peer review process at academic journals would almost surely have prevented unsubstantiated material like this from going into print. By contrast the IPCC process 

shielded it from review. For this reason the current IPCC process should be seen 

as detracting from the legitimacy of the overall assessment, and certainly does not 

qualify as peer-reviewed science in the traditional sense. 

Q7. Dr. Christy, you state that the current establishment dismisses information that 

questions the belief that greenhouse gases are the dominant cause of observed 

climate change. Would you agree that a generally accepted methodology of the 

scientific process is that theories gain credibility if they are rigorously tested, 

supported by multiple lines of evidence and can rule out competing explanations? If that is the case, can the actions of the climate establishment of dismissing contrary information be considered as ruling out competing explanations? How is this not adhering to the accepted process of scientific inquiry? 

A7 Dismissing contrary evidence based on opinion does not qualify as rigorous hypothesis testing of multiple lines of evidence. If the question here refers to the disagreement between models and observations regarding temperature trends in the 

tropics, the evidence is substantial that models fail a direct hypothesis test. Multiple 

publications and multiple lines of evidence have demonstrated this disagreement. 

However, the IPCC establishment seems to be impenetrable to these results because 

they demonstrate a critical model failure – and models are the basis for the IPCC 

alarm. 

Q8. For its endangerment finding, EPA relied heavily on the IPCC and the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the U.S. Global Change Research Program. 

a. Are these groups independent of each other? 

A8 (a) Absolutely not. If one reads the authorship and those who had key roles in 

drafting these various reports, one will find the same names again and again and 

the same material used in all three. 

b. Can you tell us how much of the information generated for the IPCC came from 

the U.S. programs and vice versa? 

A8 (b) With regard to the one CCSP (U.S. Program report) addressing surface and 

upper air trends, the CCSP report came out first, and the IPCC adopted it almost 

entirely. 

Regarding the EPA report in general, the Finding indicates at the outset that it 

relied on the IPCC for the basis of its conclusions. 

Q9. During the hearing, you mentioned that you have estimated the impact of the 

proposed reductions in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions on the global temperature. 

Can you provide your analysis for the record? 
171 

a. What climate sensitivity is assumed in your analysis? Why did you choose that 

level? 

A8 (a) The result above uses the IPCC median climate sensitivity (about +3.0 °C 

for CO2 doubling) and shows virtually no impact even with drastic emissions reductions from the United States and even if one accepts the IPCC model simulations. 

This climate sensitivity was selected as it was the ‘‘best estimate’’ used in the IPCC 

assessment. 
172 

This result uses the sensitivity that is closer to that which has been observed 

(about +1.5 °C for CO2 doubling), and shows even less impact from drastic U.S. 

emission reductions (0.07 °C by 2100 for 50% reduction and 0.11 °C for 80% reduction.) 

Both studies utilize the MAGICC climate model tool also used by the IPCC. 

Questions submitted by Representative Randy Neugebauer 

Q1. Supporters for a political action sometimes utilize extreme and alarmist actions 

to gain favor with the public in order to encourage government officials to act. 

Does the science currently available to us prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that 

human activity will result in catastrophic and irreversible climate changes and 

disasters in the very near future? 

A1. In my opinion the evidence does not support catastrophic and irreversible climate changes due to enhanced greenhouse gas concentrations. I have examined numerous datasets of such ‘‘change’’ parameters (i.e. temperature, storms, tornadoes, 

snowfall, hurricanes, etc.) and do not find remarkable changes outside of natural 

fluctuations. Indeed, direct calculations of one key aspect of climate sensitivity indicate the climate is not very sensitive to rising greenhouse gases. 

Q2. Even if one believes that human activity makes some contribution to changes in 

the environment, is it possible to be fully confident that it is the one driving force 

behind those changes or is the modeling of such change too complicated? 

A2. The climate system is extraordinarily complex, and no one can say for certain 

what the cause and effects are when it comes to any particular observation or 

whether greenhouse gases might be partly responsible. Thus attributing an observed 

change in climate to greenhouse gases is almost impossible to do. This is so because 

similar events (i.e. a few-decade rise in temperature, a series of storms, etc.) have 

occurred in the past so that an increase in greenhouse gases can’t be blamed. This 

provides evidence that greenhouse gases might not be the guilty party in any current ‘‘change.’’ Fundamentally, natural, unforced variability is a key and large uncertainty in any attribution exercise. The climate system contains within it all of 

the freedom to generate extreme events or long-term trends through natural, 
173 

unforced variability. And, since such variability is poorly modeled, one cannot assume climate models tell the truth about cause and effect. 

Questions submitted by Representative David Wu 

Q1. If you surveyed climate scientists in 1990 and then again in 2010, would the 

results indicate: 

a. an increased consensus that climate change has been occurring? 

A1 (a) ‘‘Consensus’’ is a political notion, not a scientific notion, thus the question 

deals with a political idea and is mostly irrelevant to science. I would speculate that 

every scientist would say that climate change is occurring because the climate is 

never stationary – it is always changing (with or without human intervention.) No 

matter what period one might choose from the history of our planet, one would find 

a changing climate. 

b. that climate change is due to an increase in greenhouse gases? 

A1 (b) What scientists believe as expressed in polling exercises and what is real can 

often be two different things. I have not seen specific polling data on this question 

(nor do I suspect the term ‘‘climate scientist’’ is ever accurately assessed.) This is 

a rather odd question as it asks for survey of opinion rather than hard facts. However, I can speculate that a majority of those individuals who thought of themselves 

as climate scientists in 1990 and still do in 2010 would tend to think that increasing 

GHG concentrations is at least partly a cause of some temperature rise (whether 

that might be called ‘‘climate change’’ is another matter.) 

c. that the increase in greenhouse gases is primarily due to human activity? 

A1 (c) Without any regard for what the climate might be doing, it is clear that the 

increase in GHG concentrations is due primarily to human progress through (again 

primarily) carbon-based energy production which is directly related to the improvement of human civilization and the reduction of the terrible consequences of energy 

poverty. The human desire to be free from the poverties of food, health care, light, 

transportation, etc. is exceedingly strong, and it is energy that alleviates those poverties. 

Questions submitted by Representative Donna F. Edwards 

Q1. Have you ever received either direct or indirect compensation for any of your research, analyses, publications, testimony or a speech in any form, at any entity, 

by a company, trade association, institute or foundation that is represented, supported or funded by the oil, coal or energy industry? 

A1.: 

Research–No. 

Analysis–No. 

Publications–I don’t believe so. 

Testimony–No. 

• Speeches–My policy is that I do not take honoraria for speeches that may be 

viewed as supported by the energy industry. It is possible that in 2003 I received 

an honorarium from participating in a debate (i.e. not a speech) sponsored in part 

by the CATO Institute. 

Q2. If you answered yes to question number one above please indicate: 

A2 I have not found records of the 2003 event noted above, but will try to answer. 

a. The name of the entity that provided this compensation? 

A2 (a) CATO 

b. The year it was provided? 

A2 (b) 2003 

c. The amount of compensation? 

A2 (c) I don’t remember 

d. A brief description of what specifically you were compensated for doing? 
174 

A2 (d) I participated as one side of a debate about climate change. 

Q3. Please indicate if you have ever appeared as an expert witness in a civil or 

criminal court case? 

A3. Yes, as an expert witness in U.S. District Court, Case Number 2:05–CV–302 

and 2:05–CV–304. 

Q4. If you answered yes to question #3 above please indicate: 

a. The name of the court case? 

A4 (a) Green Mountain Chrysler-Plymouth-Dodge-Jeep v. George Crombie, et al. 

b. The name of the court where the case was held? 

A4 (b) United States District Court for the District of Vermont 

c. The name of the plaintiff or defendant that you testified for? 

A4 (c) Green Mountain Chrysler Plymouth Dodge Jeep; Green Mountain Ford Mercury’ Joe Tornabene’s GMC; Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers; Daimlerchrysler 

Corporation; and General Motors Corporation 

d. Please indicate the amount of compensation you received either directly or indirectly for your testimony in each case mentioned above and the name of the entity 

that paid your compensation. 

A4 (d) No compensation for the testimony. 
175 

Responses by Mr. Peter Glaser, Partner, Troutman Sanders, LLP 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
181 
182 
183 

Responses by Dr. Kerry Emanuel, Professor of Atmospheric Science, 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 

Questions submitted by Chairman Ralph Hall 

Q1. You state in your testimony that the controversy over the ‘‘hide-the-decline’’ email 

is much ado about nothing, and that data excluded by scientists was ‘‘provably 

false.’’ Dr. Muller had a different take, stating in a widely circulated Internet 

video that the ‘‘justification [for erasing the data] would not have survived peer 

review in any journal that I’m willing to publish in.’’ 

a. Please explain how the ‘‘hide the decline’’ data is ‘‘provably false.’’ 

A1. The ‘‘hide the decline’’ remark appeared in an informal email communication 

and has been widely taken out of context. The graph that it was referring to was 

published in Science, among other places, and Richard Muller has published in that 

journal. The heart of this issue is the comparison between directly measured temperature and temperature inferred from proxies, in this case, tree rings. Proxy inferences are almost never perfect, and often multiple proxies are used to make the best 

possible estimates of temperature in the period before the instrumental record begins in the middle of the 19th century. There are certain tree rings, especially in 

the northern part of Russia , that agree well with the instrumental record up until 

about 1960, at which point they ‘‘decline’’ while the directly measured temperature 

increases. No one in the climate profession would prefer a proxy-derived inference 

to a direct measurement, so when I said that the proxy records in question were 

‘‘provably false’’, I meant that they would be regarded as false by anyone in the profession when they disagree with directly measured temperature. 

The serious question in publishing a proxy with problems such as that mentioned 

above is whether to exclude the whole proxy record when it is demonstrably false 

for part of the period in question. A case can be made to omit only the false part 

of the record, if, for example, there was something unusual about the period during 

which the proxy fails. If the graph is published, it is imperative to state carefully 

that a part of the record has been dropped and to state the reasons for dropping 

it. In the peer-reviewed literature on this subject, for the most part, such descriptions were either made explicitly or were implicit, in that other graphs in the same 

paper showed the whole record. But in a (non peer-reviewed) report published by 

the World Meteorological Organization in 1999, a graph was presented without such 

qualifiers. While graphs are often simplified for non peer-reviewed reports directed 

at broader cross-sections of the public, one might legitimately question the judgment 

of omitting the qualifiers in this case. But if this was a conspiracy to deceive, it was 

poorly conceived since the graph with the qualifications was (and is) readily available in published literature for anyone with a serious interest in the subject. 

Q2. In response to comments questioning the independence and objectivity of the people selected to peer review the EPA’s endangerment finding, the Administrator 

said that she relied on people who were familiar with the assessment literature, 

even if those people participated in the creation of that assessment literature. 

a. Would you consider an editor of a journal having a co-author of a paper review 

their own paper and calling it peer review since that co-author was familiar with 

the paper an analogous situation to the actions of the Administrator? 

A2 (a) I would not. If I understand the question correctly, the EPA sought peer review of the EPA’s endangerment finding from scientists some of whom were authors 

of assessment literature (and not authors of the endangerment finding). I am not 

sure why being an author of an assessment disqualifies one from peer-reviewing an 

endangerment finding. 

b. Does this practice fall within the normal and accepted processes of peer-review? 

A2 (b) Again, I am not sure how to compare the normal process of peer review of 

scientific literature with peer review of a finding by the EPA. If the peer review of 

the finding had been conducted by authors of the finding, this surely would have 

been outside normal accepted practice. 

Q3. The National Academy of Sciences’ (NAS) Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research states that ‘‘When a scientific paper or book is published, other researchers must have access to the data and research materials needed to support the 

conclusions stated in the publication if they are to verify and build on that research . . . [G]iven the expectation that data will be accessible, researchers who 

refuse to share the evidentiary basis behind their conclusions, or the materials 
184 

needed to replicate published experiments, fail to maintain the standards of 

science.’’ (http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record id=12192) 

a. What steps can the Federal government take to ensure that these scientific data 

sharing standards are upheld and enforced? 

A3 (a) In my view, the culture of and policies concerning sharing data and research 

materials work quite well in this country. For a more comprehensive statement of 

current policy, I refer you to the American Meteorological Society’s statement on 

this issue, Free and Open Exchange of Environmental Data: 

http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/freeopenexch—final.html 

This statement does not cover the issue of the availability of such items as computer programs and other tools that researchers might develop in the course of their 

work. This is murkier territory. For example, it would be unreasonable for a researcher in chemistry to demand that another researcher make available his entire 

experimental apparatus, though it would not be unreasonable to request a detailed 

description of the apparatus. At the moment, most of us consider computer programs we write to be our own property, but many of us share them on request anyway. 

There are more serious problems in other parts of the world, and in Europe in particular. In many western European nations, environmental data collected by governments are regarded as proprietary, and members of the public, of other nations, and 

even of scientific research communities are often forced to purchase the data, sometimes at very high cost. At the time they purchase the data, they are usually forced 

to sign nondisclosure agreements that prevent them from redistributing the data. 

Thus they are legally prohibited from giving the data they purchased to another researcher. Most American scientists (and indeed many European scientists) hold 

these policies to be destructive of the ends of science, and at various times since 

these policies originated in the 1980s the U.S. government has pressured governments of western Europe to abandon them in favor of the U.S. model of free and 

open exchange of research data. 

b. Should researchers that refuse to uphold the Academies’ standard requiring sharing of data and materials necessary to support research conclusions continue to 

receive Federal funding? 

A3 (b) In my view, it would be counterproductive to move these issues into the legal 

arena. There are some delicate cases where judgment is called for, so that upholding 

a simple standard is not always straightforward. Here is an example: A scientific 

researcher devotes many years of his professional life to the development of an instrument to fly on a space mission. Finally, the mission is flown, and scientifically 

valuable data are collected using the researcher’s instrument. Should that data become immediately available to all researchers, so that the fruits of the instrument 

designer’s labors are reaped by another researcher? It is the practice, at least here 

in the U.S., for the federal agencies that fund the instrument development to grant 

the developer a short period of exclusive rights to the data. This issue is addressed 

in the above-quoted AMS policy on free and open exchange of environmental data. 

I believe that handling issues like this is best left up to the agencies. I might add 

that a hypothetical gross violation of the National Academy policy you quoted in 

your question would cast the offender in a very poor light and would almost certainly induce the agency that funded the collection of the data to take action. I do 

not personally know of any instances of this nature here in the U.S. 

c. Should such research be excluded from use in authoritative scientific assessments 

such as those prepared by the Academies or the IPCC? 

A3 (c) I find it difficult to imagine that an authoritative assessment would quote 

research results that were regarded by the scientific community as unreproducible. 

If they did, they would soon be taken to task for it. 

Q4. Dr. Emanuel, you strongly defend the IPCC in your testimony. Our other witnesses are much more critical. For example, Dr. Christy notes that ‘‘after the 

close of peer review, the lead authors inserted text into the IPCC report that was 

simply an assertion with no evidence, and that the assertion was later quoted 

by the EPA in its Endangerment Finding. 

a. Do you believe it is acceptable for IPCC lead authors to insert text into IPCC reports outside of the peer review process? 

A4 (a) It is important to understand that the IPCC reports are reviews and syntheses of published articles and reports, and is contributed to by about 1,200 au-
185 

thors and 2,500 scientific expert reviewers. Without asking Dr. Christy directly, I 

cannot be sure what he was referring to, but I suspect he was talking about the 

summary for policymakers that is included in the reports and is the main content 

on which policy makers rely as they seldom have time to read the entire report. The 

authors and expert reviewers typically contribute to small pieces of the whole report. The topic of climate science is so broad that there are few if any individual 

scientists whose expertise allows them to comprehensively review the whole report. 

The summary for policy makers (to which I think Dr. Christy must be referring) 

is written after the main body of the report and summarizes only that material from 

the body of the report that the vast majority of contributors agree to, leaving out 

the more detailed or controversial aspects. While the language is necessarily original, it does not introduce any science that is not contained in the body of the report. 

Before being accepted by the IPCC, the summary for policy makers must be agreed 

to by representatives of all the governments present at a meeting where the report 

is finalized. This makes the summary rather bland, since any points that any country’s representatives regard as controversial or incorrect cannot be included. Consequently, the summary is frequently criticized by those representing minority 

views, but it does contain findings that are robust enough to be used by policy makers. 

b. If it is not acceptable, shouldn’t such text be avoided for use by policymakers? If 

the IPCC process itself is broken with respect to peer-review and inclusion of data, 

why should we have any confidence in the product that is the result of a broken 

process? 

A4 (b) Please see my response to (4) above. The contributions to the IPCC report 

from so many scientists make the report rather conservative, overly so in the opinion of many scientists. For example, the most recent report omitted any projected 

contribution to sea level rise from oblation of land ice (mainly Greenland and Antarctica). This may prove to be the main contribution to sea level rise over the coming centuries. 

Q5. You state in your testimony that the four assessment reports issued by the IPCC 

continue the conservative tradition of science. 

a. Did you believe the IPCC was conservative in its estimate of Himalayan glacier 

retreat prior to the discovery and admittance that this information was incorrect? 

A5 (a) The inclusion of an erroneous number in the report is of course highly regrettable. However, a mistake of this kind should not be regarded as either a ‘‘liberal’’ 

or a ‘‘conservative’’ estimate; it is simply a wrong number. As I am sure you are 

aware, the IPCC has taken concrete steps to reduce the probability of errors of this 

kind in its future reports. 

b. Did you believe the IPCC was conservative with its inclusion of the hockey stick 

in the third assessment report, a graph that has been subsequently discredited? 

A5 (b) While the graph in question has been challenged by a number of groups and 

corrections have been made, including in the more recent AR4 report of the IPCC, 

this does not amount to discrediting the figure in question. Here is the figure, as 

published in the IPCC third assessment report: 
186 

By the time of the IPCC Assessment Report 5, criticisms of some of the proxy-based 

records of the Third Assessment Report had been addressed, and other proxy data 

not available to the TAR had been added: 

Comparing the updated figure to the figure published in the IPCCTAR, it is a subjective judgment whether the TAR figure has been ‘‘discredited’’. Certainly, the most 

important findings, that the recent temperatures are almost certainly unprecedented 

over the past 1000 years, and that the recent rate of increase is also unprecedented, 

remain intact. 

Q6. You note in your testimony that you investigated scientists working at the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU) as a result of the Climate 
187 

1The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review. http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/ 

FINAL%20REPORT.pdf 

Gate emails and that you couldn’t find any evidence of scientific misconduct. 

Below are portions of three emails out of dozens sent by Phil Jones, the head 

of CRU, to other climate scientists: 

a. ‘‘Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? .. Keith will 

do likewise. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same?’’ 

b. ‘‘If they ever hear there, is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think 

I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone . . . We also have a data protection 

act, which I will hide behind.’’ 

c. [email from Phil Jones referencing inclusion of papers from rival scientists in 

IPCC report]: ‘‘Kevin and I will keep them out somehow-even if we have to redefine 

what the peer-review literature is!’’ 

T1These emails are just a sampling, but they include clear actions to hide scientific 

information from review, including deleting data in violation of the Freedom of Information Act, and conspiring to ‘‘re-define’’ peer review literature to block publication of unwanted science. 

Did you consider this correspondence as part of your investigation? Please explain 

how each of examples a, b, and c reveal ‘‘no evidence’’ of scientific misconduct? 

A6. We did not consider this correspondence as part of our investigation. The investigation of the activities of the CRU was divided into three parts: the investigation 

by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, the independent 

Science Assessment Panel, and the Independent Climate Change Email Review, 

headed by Sir Muir Russell. I served on the second of these, the Science Assessment 

Panel, whose charge was to review CRU science as reported in a set of peer-reviewed publications. As I noted in my testimony, our panel found no evidence of scientific misconduct. The third investigative body, the Independent Climate Change 

Email Review, was charged with investigating any misconduct revealed by the 

emails, some of which you quoted above. 

Here are the main findings of the Muir Russell Commission quoted directly from 

their report 1 (emphases are as in the original report): 

• Climate science is a matter of such global importance, that the highest standards 

of honesty, rigour and openness are needed in its conduct. On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour 

and honesty as scientists are not in doubt. 

• In addition, we do not find that their behaviour has prejudiced the balance of advice given to policy makers. In particular, we did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments. 

• But we do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of the CRU scientists 

and on the part of the UEA, who failed to recognise not only the significance of 

statutory requirements but also the risk to the reputation of the University and, 

indeed, to the credibility of UK climate science. 

And, 

• On the allegations that there was subversion of the peer review or editorial process we find no evidence to substantiate this in the three instances examined in 

detail. On the basis of the independent work we commissioned (see Appendix 5) 

on the nature of peer review, we conclude that it is not uncommon for strongly 

opposed and robustly expressed positions to be taken up in heavily contested 

areas of science. We take the view that such behaviour does not in general threaten the integrity of peer review or publication. 

But the Commission did find that CRU scientists were not always helpful in responding to FoIA and EIR requests: 

• On the allegation that CRU does not appear to have acted in a way consistent with the spirit and intent of the FoIA or EIR, we find that there 

was unhelpfulness in responding to requests and evidence that e-mails 

might have been deleted in order to make them unavailable should a subsequent request be made for them. University senior management should 

have accepted more responsibility for implementing the required processes for 

FoIA and EIR compliance. 
188 

Personally, I find the language of the scientists you quote to be vulgar, but talking 

about taking certain actions in what was considered to be private and informal 

email correspondence is not the same thing as actually taking such actions, and the 

Muir Russell commission found no evidence that such actions were taken, though 

there was on occasion some unresponsiveness to FoIA requests. As is well known 

in the U.S. legal profession, FoIA is frequently used as an instrument of harassment 

and there is some indication it was being used this way against CRU and other scientists. While the language of the CRU scientists you quoted in your question is certainly unpleasant, it does not by itself rise to the level of scientific misconduct. 

Questions submitted by Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson 

Q1. As it has been noted, science is an ever-evolving field and we should be willing 

to be flexible in our thinking as the findings of science change. Dr. Emanuel it 

is my understanding that you have not always believed in the linkage between 

greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. 

a. As a political conservative atmospheric scientist, Dr. Emanuel please explain 

your journey to accepting the scientific findings of climate change. 

A1. First let me state that I do not think science is about belief; it is about evidence. Nor do I think that one’s personal politics have much if anything to do with 

one’s activities as a scientist. When I first became involved in climate science in the 

late 1980s, I did not at the time judge that the evidence then available pointed conclusively to anthropogenic causes of climate change as it had been delineated at that 

time. I recognized, as did all of my peers, that climate theory had long ago demonstrated that adding long-lived greenhouse gases to the atmosphere should warm 

the climate, but the feedbacks were not well understood, the models at the time 

were fairly primitive, and proxies for past climate change were not very well developed. In the mean time, there have been enormous advances in the field of 

paleoclimate, in both simple and complex models, and in satellite-based observations 

of the earth. At the same time, another 25 years have been added to the instrumental record of the earth’s climate. The evidence for an anthropogenic contribution 

to climate change is now very compelling. 

Q2. Dr. Emanuel, in your testimony you stated ‘‘Those nations that are first to develop sensible technology and policies to deal with climate change and pollution 

will likely attain great economic advantages. The market for clean energy in 

China alone is of staggering proportions. Nations that invest in energy research 

and in novel ideas in such fields as carbon sequestration and that foster enterprises that are in a position to sell such technologies to rapidly developing countries will prosper.’’ 

a. Indeed, there is more we need to learn about climate change but in your opinion, with what we already know, should we start developing clean technologies 

now? 

A2. I will answer your question as a citizen who, by profession, knows something 

about climate, but I do not claim to be an economist. The evidence points to an increasing demand for clean energy technology, if not here in the U.S., then abroad. 

One does not have to accept the compelling evidence for anthropogenic climate 

change to recognize the growth in this demand. To the extent that enterprises in 

the U.S. can meet this demand competitively, they, and by extension the U.S. economy, should benefit. 

Questions submitted by Representative Donna F. Edwards 

Q1. Have you ever received either direct or indirect compensation for any of your research, analyses, publications, testimony or a speech in any form, at any entity, 

by a company, trade association, institute or foundation that is represented, supported or funded by the oil, coal or energy industry? 

A1. No. 

Q2. If you answered yes to question #1 above please indicate: 

a. The name of the entity that provided this compensation? 

b. The year it was provided? 

c. The amount of compensation? 

d. A brief description of what specifically you were compensated for doing? 
189 

1 Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., 1979. 

Q3. Please indicate if you have ever appeared as an expert witness in a civil or 

criminal court case? 

A3. No. 

Q4. If you answered yes to question #3 above please indicate: 

a. The name of the court case? 

b. The name of the court where the case was held? 

c. The name of the plaintiff or defendant that you testified for? 

d. Please indicate the amount of compensation you received either directly or 

indirectly for your testimony in each case mentioned above and the name of 

the entity that paid your compensation. 

Questions submitted by Representative James Sensenbrenner 

Q1. On page 2 of your written testimony you stated: ‘‘Global climate models were 

first developed in the 1960s and have advanced rapidly over the past few decades; they are used as tools to help us understand and predict climate, but it 

is not the case that they are the single or even most important tool for these purposes.’’ Please list what, in your view, are the main tools for understanding and 

predicting climate, and which one is the most important. 

A1. The contemporary understanding of climate rests on a number of important 

tools: 

• Basic physics. The physics of radiative and convective heat transfer were well 

established more than a century ago. By 1896 the Swedish chemist Svante 

Arrhenius was able to do a calculation that doubling the carbon dioxide content 

of the atmosphere would lead to a global annual mean temperature increase of 

5–6 degrees centigrade. He did these calculations entirely by hand. Also, the 

physics governing the earth’s orbit and rotation have established very precisely 

how the distribution of sunlight across our planet has changed over geologic 

time; together with paleoclimate records (discussed below), this has allowed us 

to come to understand the underlying cause of the great glacial cycles over the 

past 2 or 3 million years. 

• The instrumental records of meteorological variables such as temperature and 

precipitation. Such records tell us how climate is changing and together with 

theory and models allow us, to some degree, to attribute changes we observe 

to purely natural, random variability and to changes in radiative forcing of climate by both natural agents (such as changing sunlight and volcanic eruptions) 

and manmade agents such as greenhouse gases and aerosols. 

• Paleoclimate records.There have been rapid advances in paleoclimate techniques 

and applications over the past few decades. We have learned, for example, how 

to use the isotopic composition of ice and of the fossil shells of microorganisms 

to estimate temperature and sea levels of the past. We now have detailed 

records of sea level and atmospheric composition going back many hundreds of 

thousands of years. We have also started to learn how to use such proxies as 

tree ring width and density and coral characteristics to reconstruct records of 

temperature going back hundreds of years. 

• Simple models. Relatively simple models that embody the basic physics of climate have been used for many decades to help understand and predict climate 

change. Some of these are so simple that they can be solved with paper and 

pencil; others require very small computers (e.g. laptops). Among the most important of these are ‘‘single-column’’ models that treat the globally averaged atmosphere as a function of time and altitude. Models like these were a basis for 

the first comprehensive study of climate change by the National Academy of 

Sciences in 1979 1. These models give predictions of the response of global mean 

temperature to changing atmospheric composition that are in good accord with 

those produced by far more complicated global models. 

• Global climate models. As mentioned in my testimony, these are relative newcomers and allow one to explore the roles of atmospheric and oceanic transports 

of heat, water, and momentum and to make predictions of the spatial patterns 

of climate change. 
190 

2 http://www.defense.gov/qdr/images/QDRlaslofl12Feb10l1000.pdf 

All of these tools are important in understanding climate and so it is difficult to 

rank their importance. But the scientific community would be concerned about 

human-induced climate change even if there were no such thing as a global climate 

model, based on evidence from the other approaches listed above. 

Q2. On page 3 of your written testimony, you say: ‘‘One of the more robust consequences of a warming climate is the progressive concentration of rainfall into 

less frequent but more intense events.’’ 

a. Are you referring to model projections or observations, or both? 

A3 (a) I am referring to observations, theory, and model projections. 

b. Please cite some published literature indicating whether observed rainfall events 

have become less frequent and more intense in the United States over the past 

century. 

A2. Observational evidence that rainfall is becoming more concentrated into more 

intense events: 

a. Karl, T. R., and R. W. Knight, 1998: Secular trends of precipitation amount, 

frequency, and intensity in the USA. Bulletin of the American Meteorological 

Society, 79, 231–241. 

b. Groisman, P. Y., R. W. Knight, D. R. Easterling, T. R. Karl, G. C. Hegerl, and 

V. N. Razuvaev, 2005: Trends in intense precipitation in the climate record. 

Journal of Climate, 18, 1326–1350. doi:10.1175/JCLI3339.1. 

Basic theory and the robust response in precipitation in climate models: 

a. Held, I. M., and B. J. Soden, 2006: Robust responses of the hydrological cycle 

to global warming. Journal of Climate, 19, 5686–5699. 1 Carbon Dioxide and 

Climate: A Scientific Assessment. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, 

D.C., 1979. 

Q3. On page 3 of your written testimony, you state: ‘‘The potential for political destabilization of these regions is large and is matter of great concern to our Department of Defense, as outlined in their 2007 report National Security and the 

Threat of Climate Change.’’ But, the inside cover of the report states: ‘‘This document represents the best opinion of The CNA Corporation at the time of issue’’. 

a. Is it not true this report was prepared The CBA Corporation, and not the Department of Defense as implied by your testimony? 

A3. Yes, I did quote from a report prepared by the CNA corporation and thus I 

stand corrected. (I assume that ‘‘CBA’’ in the question is a typo.) But here is what 

the Department of Defense had to say in their February 2010 Quadrennial Defense 

Review 2: 

′′Assessments conducted by the intelligence community indicate that climate 

change could have significant geopolitical impacts around the world, contributing 

to poverty, environmental degradation, and the further weakening of fragile governments. Climate change will contribute to food and water scarcity, will increase the spread of disease, and may spur or exacerbate mass migration. 

While climate change alone does not cause conflict, it may act as an accelerant 

of instability or conflict, placing a burden to respond on civilian institutions and 

militaries around the world. In addition, extreme weather events may lead to increased demands for defense support to civil authorities for humanitarian assistance or disaster response both within the United States and overseas.’’ 

Q4. On page 4 of your written testimony you say ‘‘In assessing risk, scientists have 

historically been notably conservative. It is part of the culture of science to avoid 

going out on limbs, preferring to underestimate risk to provoking the charge of 

alarmism from our colleagues.’’ At the same time, on page 3 of written testimony 

you quote at length from pages 6 and 7 of the CNA Corporation report ’’National 

Security and the Threat of Climate Change,’’ as follows: 

A4. Economic and environmental conditions in already fragile areas will further 

erode as food production declines, diseases increase, clean water becomes increasingly scarce, and large populations move in search of resources. Weakened and failing governments, with an already thin margin for survival, foster the conditions for 

internal conflicts, extremism, and movement toward increased authoritarianism and 

radical ideologies. And, The U.S. and Europe may experience mounting pressure to 
191 

accept large numbers of immigrant and refugee populations as drought increases 

and food production declines in Latin America and Africa. 

Q4(b.) Do you personally endorse these forecasts? Would you describe them as ‘‘conservative’’? 

A4. Estimating the political and social consequences of climate change is far removed from my own field of expertise, and so I am not in a position to assess whether the authors of the CNA or DoD reports cited in this question and in my response 

to the previous question are conservative or not. It has not been my personal observation that, historically, DoD concerns have been overblown. 

Q5. On page 5 of your written testimony you state: ‘‘Consider as an example the 

issues surrounding the email messages stolen from some climate scientists. I 

know something about this as I served on a panel appointed by the Royal Society 

of Great Britain, under the direction of Lord Oxburgh, to investigate allegations 

of scientific misconduct by the scientists working at the Climate Research Unit 

of the University of East Anglia.’’ Please provide a copy of the terms of reference 

for the Oxburgh Panel established by the Royal Society, together with a copy of 

the letter or any other correspondence from the Royal Society appointing you as 

a member of the panel. 

A5. I attach all the relevant material in my possession as a zip file. I did not include email correspondence but am happy to do so if requested. 

Q6. Page 1 of the ‘‘Report of the International Panel set up by the University of East 

Anglia to examine the research of the Climatic Research Unit, (Oxburgh Report) 

states that ‘‘the eleven representative publications that the Panel considered in 

detail . . . were selected on the advice of the Royal Society.’’ However, subsequent inquiries have demonstrated that the eleven publications were selected by 

Trevor Davies, Pro-Vice Chancellor for Research and Knowledge Transfer at the 

University of East Anglia. Please explain the basis for the Oxburgh Report’s 

claim that the eleven publications had been selected by the Royal Society. 

A6. As a member of the Scientific Assessment Panel (SAP), I was indeed asked to 

review eleven publications and was told that they had been selected with the advice 

of the Royal Society. I had no reason to question this information. In the event, we 

went beyond this mandate and asked questions based on other material we reviewed. 

Q7. During the hearing you were asked if the Oxburgh Panel interviewed any outside critics of the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia 

(CRU). 

a. Can you confirm that neither you nor any other member of the Oxburgh Panel 

conducted any such interviews, and that none of the information supplied to you 

by CRU scientists was shown to outside critics for response or rebuttal? 

A7 (a) Prior to the meeting, I informally sent emails to two critics of the CRU work 

asking for their input. Specifically, I sent emails to Roger Pielke, Sr. and Stephen 

McIntyre, on March 27th 2010. (I am willing to supply the Committee with copies 

of these emails.) Dr. Pielke responded very soon thereafter with material that I 

found very helpful in querying CRU members about corrections to individual meteorological station data. Mr. McIntyre did not respond until after I had returned from 

Norwich, and then only to say that he would see what he could do. 

b. If, as you state on page 5 of your written testimony, the Panel’s task was to ‘‘investigate allegations of scientific misconduct,’’ did any member of the Panel, at 

any time, recommend that, as part of the investigation, interviews should be conducted with critics of the CRU or with individuals making the allegations of 

misconduct? 

A7 (b) The allegations of misconduct at that time focused on comments by CRU 

staff contained in email correspondence. Reviewing such emails was not in the purview of the SAP on which I served but rather on the Independent Climate Change 

Email Review, headed by Sir Muir Russell. (Please see by response to Question 6 

of Representative Hall.) I do not remember hearing a specific suggestion that we 

conduct interviews of critics of CRU, though we were familiar with the points raised 

by such critics. 

c. Did any member of the Panel request that interviews with the scientists under 

investigation be recorded and released? 

A7 (c) No, not that I remember. 
192 

d. Can you also confirm that the Panel did not issue a call for evidence or hold 

public hearings, and if not, why not? 

A7 (d) There was never any discussion by anyone involved about a call for evidence 

or a public hearing. Having participated on both sides of academic department reviews at MIT, these have never been open to the public; doing so would have greatly 

impeded the frank discussion and questions that are necessary to the conduct of a 

review of this nature. This was an investigation, not a trial. 

e. Do you believe that you, as a member of the Panel, were sufficiently knowledgeable about the work of CRU scientists and the specific allegations of misconduct 

to evaluate the truthfulness of the information given to you by CRU scientists 

without seeking input from any of their critics? 

A7 (e) As mentioned in my response to 7a) above, I did seek information from critics, though only one of the two responded. Moreover, the criticisms were made public at an early stage, so that in my preparation for the panel review, I became well 

acquainted with most of them. Therefore, yes, I feel that by the time of the panel 

meeting, I was sufficiently knowledgeable about at least some of the work of the 

CRU scientists to participate in the Panel. 

Q8. Did Phil Jones tell the Oxburgh Panel (or any members of Panel) that it was 

‘‘probably impossible to do the 1000-year temperature reconstructions with any 

accuracy’’? 

a. If so, why was this admission not cited in the Oxburgh Report? 

A8 (a) I do not remember Phil Jones saying that. 

b. If this is Jones’ view, do you agree that this caveat should have been included 

in articles published by CRU scientists, and that the failure to include this caveat is not ‘‘compatible with a fair interpretation-of the original data’’? 

A8 (b) The published, peer-reviewed literature of the CRU group and their collaborators is mostly about uncertainties. As the review panels have consistently noted, 

there was no failure to communicate these uncertainties. Please look at Figure 1 

in my response to the questions posed by Representative Hall; this is the famous 

‘‘hockey stick’’ graph from the IPCC Third Assessment Report; the gray shading 

shows the range of uncertainty in the estimates. Indeed, the title of one of the original and most cited papers on the temperature reconstructions, published in 1999, 

is ‘‘Northern hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: Inferences, uncertainties, and limitations’’. 

Q9. Upon the completion of the Oxburgh Report, did you tell a colleague that there 

were some ‘‘real issues with TAR that needed to be investigated, but that these 

were beyond the purview of the committee.’’ If so, please identify these issues. 

A9. I do not remember saying that, but if I did say anything like that I must have 

been referring to the ‘‘hockey stick’’ figure in the IPCC TAR and whether that figure 

had been adequately documented. 

Q10. On page 5 of your written testimony, you stated that CRU scientists had ‘‘omitted that part of [a particularly dubious tree-ring-based proxy] that was provably false’’ in a ‘‘figure for a non peer-reviewed publication’’ and that this was 

a ‘‘single lapse of judgment’’. 

a. Are you referring to the graph prepared by Phil Jones for the cover of a 1999 

World Meteorological Organization (WMO) report? 

A10 (a) Yes. 

b. Can you confirm that the ‘‘particularly dubious’’ tree ring proxy is the ‘‘Briffa’’ 

temperature reconstruction? 

A10 (b) Yes. 

c. Can you confirm that the part of the Briffa reconstruction that CRU scientists 

‘‘omitted’’ in the WMO diagram was the portion of the Briffa reconstruction 

after 1960 when tree ring densities declined? 

A10 (c) Yes. 

d. You say that this was a ‘‘single lapse of judgment’’. At the interviews of the 

Oxburgh Panel that you attended, did you or any other Oxburgh Panel member 

ask CRU scientists asked whether they had ‘‘omitted’’ the declining part of the 

Briffa reconstruction in any peer-reviewed publication? If so, what was their 

answer? 
193 

A10 (d) Discussion of the ‘‘divergence problem’’ was a focus of our meeting. 

e. Did the Oxburgh Panel perform any due diligence to determine whether CRU 

scientists had ‘‘omitted’’ the declining part of the Briffa reconstruction in their 

peer reviewed publications? If so, what were the results? 

A10 (e) It was well known prior to the meeting that they had done this, but we reconfirmed it with them. 

f. When you made your testimony that the omission in the WMO report was a ‘‘single lapse of judgment,’’ were you aware that CRU scientists had ‘‘omitted’’ the 

declining part of the Brfffa reconstruction in figures in numerous peer reviewed 

publications, including P.D. Jones et al., Rev. Geophys., 37(2), 173 (1999); K.R. 

Briffa and TJ. Osborn, Science 295, 2227 (1999); K.R; Briffa et al., J. Geophys. 

Res. 106, 2929 (2001); K.R. Briffa et al., Global Planet. Change 40, 11; and S. 

Rutherford et aI., J. Clim. 18, 2308 (2005)? 

A10 (f) Yes, certainly. 

g. When you made your testimony that the omission in the WMO report was a ’single lapse of judgment’’, were you aware that the declining part of the Briffa reconstruction had been omitted in figures in the IPCC Third Assessment Report 

and the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report? 

A10 (g) Yes, certainly. 

h. Do you still maintain that the deletion of data was a ‘‘single lapse of judgment’’ 

and that it was only in connection with one ‘‘non peer-reviewed publication’’ 

and if so, what is your justification? 

A10 (h) The error in judgment was not the omission of the data from the graph. 

There are many instances in the published proxy literature in which authors omitted data that in their judgment was flawed. The error in judgment was the failure, 

in the case of the 1999 WMO report to explain that that had been done and the 

basis for doing so, either explicitly in the report or paper or by virtue of the context 

in which the graph is presented. As far as I can tell, this failure was confined to 

the 1999 WMO report and possibly the IPCC TAR. My opinion is shared by the 

Muir Russell Commission (which I did not participate in); here is what they had 

to say about this in their report (emphasis theirs): 

• On the allegation that the references in a specific e-mail to a ‘‘trick’’ and to 

‘‘hide the decline’’ in respect of a 1999 WMO report figure show evidence of intent to paint a misleading picture, we find that, given its subsequent iconic significance (not least the use of a similar figure in the IPCC Third Assessment 

Report), the figure supplied for the WMO Report was misleading. We do not 

find that it is misleading to curtail reconstructions at some point per se, or 

to splice data, but we believe that both of these procedures should have been 

made plain—ideally in the figure but certainly clearly described in either the 

caption or the text. 

i. On page 5 of your written testimony you described the editing of the Briffa tree 

ring record as follows: ‘‘Rather than omitting the entire record of a particularly 

dubious tree-ring-based proxy, the authors of the figure only omitted that part 

of it that was provably false.’’ Did the Oxburgh Panel carry out any due diligence to establish that this portion of the Briffa reconstruction was ‘‘provably 

false’’? Please provide support for your claim. 

A10 (i) I do not recall whether we did or did not, but at any rate when proxy inferences and direct measurements disagree, one concludes that the proxies are in error. 

j. In your testimony, you state that the Briffa tree ring data was ‘‘particularly dubious’’ and that it would have been a valid alternative not to show the Briffa 

reconstruction at all. Did the Oxburgh Panel carry out any due diligence to establish that the Briffa data was ‘‘particularly dubious,’’ and if, what did it do? 

A10 (j) Yes, we did. We spent considerable time with Keith Briffa discussing the 

methodology, the environment in which the trees in question were found. We even 

examined some tree sections under a microscope. A great deal of the meeting was 

spent discussing the so-called ‘‘divergence’’ problem, which is well known in the community and discussed extensively n the peer-reviewed literature. By no means all 

of the tree data show the divergence problem. 

k. In light of the failure of the large Briffa proxy network to show increases in tree 

ring density and width in line with warming in the last half of the 20th century 

(the ‘‘divergence problem ’’), how do you rule out the possibility that proxy data 
194 

in the preinstrumental period might also fail to record historical warming intervals? 

A10 (k) This is an excellent question and drives to the heart of the true scientific 

controversy as well as the judgments that were brought to bear in portraying this 

information in the IPCC report and other reports intended for a broad audience. The 

simple answer is that one cannot rule out the possibility that the proxy data in 

question in the preinstrumental period might also fail to show a warming. There 

is no such thing as a perfect proxy for past climates; all of the ones I am familiar 

with have their own drawbacks. This provides a strong motivation for looking at 

many different proxies based on different techniques and comparing the results; by 

doing this one gains some idea of the probable uncertainties in the temperature reconstructions. The last two IPCC reports presented information based on many 

proxies, and by showing these different proxies explicitly (in the case of the IPCC 

AR4) or indirectly by presenting error bars (in the case of the IPCC TAR), the uncertainty is conveyed. Please examine the two figures I provided in my responses 

to Representative Hall. 

l. By deleting the most conspicuous modern divergences between proxies and temperatures in IPCC and WMO reports, would you agree that the CRU scientists 

concealed this problem from readers of the IPCC report and from policymakers? 

A10 (l) I see no evidence that there was any intent to deceive, as implied by your 

question. We scientists are increasingly strongly encouraged to communicate with 

the public and policy makers and are frequently chastised for failing to simplify our 

points and for making our discussions too technical. In trying to simplify material 

for reports such as the two you quote above, intended for a broad audience, judgments must be made in how far to go to simplify the material. Had the graphs in 

the two reports you quote been based on information from the problematic tree proxies alone, then I think a case could be made that the graphs are deceptive. But 

taken in their actual entirety, they do a good job in summarizing our best estimates 

of the 1000-year history of northern hemisphere temperature, including the uncertainties in those estimates. I do not believe that any rational person examining 

these graphs could fail to appreciate the large uncertainties in the estimates, especially in the preinstrumental era. 

Q11. The Oxburgh Report (page 2) states that tree ring chronologies ‘‘are subject to 

change when additional trees are added’’ and ‘‘commended’’ CRU for ‘‘continuously updating and reinterpreting their earlier chronologies.’’ The Polar Urals 

and the regional chronology combining Yamal, Polar Urals and other chronologies were issues of controversy immediately prior to Climategate and were identified as important topics of investigation in submissions to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee by prominent CRU critics. 

a. If CRU had calculated an updated version of the Polar Urals chronology presented in K.R. Briffa et al., Nature 376, 156 (1995) that differed materially 

from the published version, in your opinion; would CRU scientists have an obligation under acceptable scientific practice to report the updated version? 

A11 (a) Yes, if by ‘‘updated’’ you also mean superior. 

b. If CRU had calculated a regional chronology combining the Yamal, Polar Urals 

and other shorter chronologies, in your opinion, did CRU scientists have an obligation under acceptable scientific practice to report this calculation either in 

connection with the publication of regional chronologies in K.R. Briffa et al., 

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 363,2271 (2008) or otherwise? 

A11 (b) If they found errors in the original analysis then yes, they would have an 

obligation to publish the corrections. If they examined different data that led to differing conclusions, they should also publish that unless, in their judgment, the new 

data is flawed or inferior to the previously published data. 

c. Did any member of Oxburgh Panel ask CRU scientists whether they had ever 

calculated an updated version of the Polar Urals chronology? If so, what was 

their answer? 

A11 (c) Not that I recall. 

d. Did any member of the Oxburgh Panel ask CRU scientists whether they had 

ever calculated regional chronology combining the Yamal, Polar Urals and 

other shorter chronologies? If so, what was their answer? 

A11 (d) Not that I recall. 
195 

Questions submitted by Represenative David Wu 

Q1. If you surveyed climate scientists in 1990 and then again in 2010, would the 

results indicate: 

a. an increased consensus that climate change has been occurring? 

A1 (a) Yes, certainly. 

b. that climate change is due to an increase in greenhouse gases? 

c. that the increase in greenhouse gases is primarily due to human activity? 

A1 (c) Yes, certainly. 

This fact was already well accepted in 1990. 
196 

Responses by Dr. W. David Montgomery, Economist 

Questions submitted by Chairman Ralph Hall 

Q1. In your testimony, you note that access to affordable and abundant energy, in 

fact, is clearly correlated with the quality of life enjoyed by a society. This appears obvious throughout our society. For example, inexpensive electricity allows 

refrigerators to prevent food from spoiling and energy-consuming hospitals save 

lives with all of their electronic equipment. 

a. Can you provide some other examples of the social benefit of affordable and abundant energy? 

A1 (a) The most important necessities often are the cheapest. Most people in the 

United States pay little for water and yet could not live without it. That is a very 

desirable state of affairs, as long as the use of water is not subsidised to encourage 

wasteful use. Thus we can say with confidence that what water is worth far exceeds 

what it costs. The same is true of energy. Although on the margin, there are discretionary uses of energy, most of the energy we use makes contributions to our lives 

far greater than what we pay for it. Coming into a warm home in winter is worth 

far more than the fuel bill, the flexibility and freedom of travel that we gain from 

readily available energy is ‘‘priceless’’ as the credit card advertisement puts it, and 

raising the price of energy means we must make do with less of these enjoyments 

or less of something else. With forces we cannot control driving up the price of some 

forms of energy, any government action that will raise those costs further needs to 

be scrutinized very carefully to make sure that it provides more than it takes away 

from the American consumer. 

b. Do economic models that calculate the cost of climate-related policies adequately 

take into consideration the higher social cost resulting from more expensive energy? 

A1 (b) Some do and some do not. Mainstream economic models like EPA’s ADAGE 

model and the MRN–NEEM model that my colleagues and I have used in studies 

of climate policy do so. This class of models recognize that society’s resources are 

limited, and that choosing to make energy more expensive will divert those resources away from producing other goods and services that consumers want. The 

loss of other good things—or having to make do with less comfort and convenience 

from using energy—is the social cost of more expensive energy. Other models do not. 

The kind of models used by organizations like PERI to support claims that regulations that make energy more expensive also create jobs completely ignore the social 

costs of more expensive energy. 

Q2. Over 1.6 billion people—25 percent of the world’s population—do not have access 

to electricity. Many of them soon will, thanks to expanded use of coal, which is 

forecast to increase 50 percent by 2030. The affordable electricity provided by 

coal will enable economic development and help alleviate poverty in places such 

as China, India, and Africa. 

a. How will U.S. efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions have any impact on climate change give the expected dramatic increases globally? Should the U.S. impose higher energy costs on its citizens if the benefits are negligible? 

A2. Unilateral actions by the U.S. will not have a noticeable impact on climate 

change worldwide, and therefore they can only provide negligible benefits to U.S. 

citizens. We do have a responsibility toward the poor, in the U.S. and worldwide, 

but policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will do the poor in the United 

States no good at all, and worldwide we would do far better to spend what climate 

regulations would cost us on direct aid to the neediest. 

Q3. Some advocates of international action have pointed to China’s commitment to 

reduce greenhouse gas emissions as an indication they are willing to participate 

in a binding international agreement. Do you agree with this hypothesis? 

A3. No, nor do I see any evidence of a real commitment by China to undertake effective policy measures to reduce their emissions below levels that are already in 

their economic interest. What we have is a political statement in the Copenhagen 

Accords that is neither binding nor, in terms of its magnitude, likely to represent 

any sharing of real costs by China. 

Q4. Should China, in response to an international treaty, commit to some sort of carbon restriction; is there reason to believe China would adhere to their commit-
197 

ment, given their repeated disregard of other international agreements, such as 

enforcement of intellectual property rights? 

A4. No. Indeed there is no reason to believe that any nation will adhere to the 

kinds of commitments that are now being discussed in negotiations to extend the 

Kyoto Protocol, because just about every study of how those commitments relate to 

national interests find that such an agreement would be unstable. Moreover, it is 

far from clear given the nature of the Chinese political system that the central government could enforce such a commitment even if it did believe it was in China’s 

national interest. Regional governments in alliance with their regional industries 

seem to be the real power in China’s economy. This alliance of government and industry has directed China’s growth since market reforms in the direction of massive 

investments in heavy industry, which are largely responsible for the continuing 

growth in China’s greenhouse gas emissions. They can do so despite creating massive overcapacity because of the access of local governments to loans from State 

banks, which they use to support uneconomic local industries. Without some way 

of breaking up this crony capitalism there is little chance that Beijing could greatly 

change the direction of emissions growth in China. 

Q5. A lot of discussion relating to mandating a ‘‘clean energy’’ market surround the 

increased manufacturing base that would appear due to the newly mandated 

market. Yet, if energy costs increase substantially, as expected from such a mandate, is there reason to believe energy-intensive manufacturing companies 

wouldn’t follow previous industries across the border or overseas? 

A5. Absolutely not. Mandating purchases of ‘‘clean energy’’ through regulation is ineffective in creating an increased manufacturing base. Manufacturing will take 

place in the region that has the greatest comparative advantage, and raising energy 

costs through clean energy mandates only reduces the U.S. advantage in manufacturing. We are seeing this already, as a large share of the wind and solar equipment 

now being installed in the U.S. as a result of renewable energy standards is being 

manufactured overseas. And Europe, despite its massive subsidies to use of renewable energy, is having the same problem keeping manufacturing of the equipment 

at home. 

Q6. President Obama recently proposed instituting a ‘‘Clean Energy Standard’’ of 

80% energy from clean sources by 2035, presumably with the goal to reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions. As an expert economist, how do you anticipate such 

a standard would impact the economy? 

A6. First, it would be exceptionally difficult to meet because getting from the current level of renewable use to 80% requires an unprecedented and premature turnover of the capital stock, the adoption of very costly or technically unproven technologies, and a level of use of intermittent and uncontrollable resources like wind 

and solar that would threaten the reliability of electricity supply. Moreover, being 

renewable does not mean that an energy source is without environmental problems 

of its own or that the indirect effects would be benign. The continued support for 

corn-based ethanol despite its making global warming worse and raising the cost 

of food is a case in point. Taking all this into account, the result would be a large 

increase in energy costs and likely massive unanticipated environmental problems 

and impacts on food supply. 

Q7. A key assumption in the process of economic modeling is the availability of carbon offsets. Presumably, widespread availability of offsets would allow for a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions to be achieved at a cheaper cost by having 

another entity do so. 

a. Can you outline why you believe carbon offsets will not be as widely available as 

assumed by many economic models? 

A7. Carbon offsets can either be plentiful or valid, but it is hard to devise a system 

that can achieve both those goals. Any carbon offset represents the difference between what is actually happening and what would have happened otherwise, and 

determining that counterfactual is always to an extent arbitrary and likely to create 

moral hazards that lead to gaming the system. Moreover, the most prolific source 

of offsets is expected to be from reduced deforestation in developing countries. But 

the reason for that deforestation is largely the lack of adequate institutions like 

property rights in land and effective governance in the countries where deforestation is occurring, and without fundamental institutional change those countries 

will be unable to deliver credible offsets. Finally, valid offsets from forestry and prevented deforestation are likely to be competing with use of land for food production, 
198 

and therefore will be costly to the world’s food supply and likely to run into severe 

opposition when that is realized. 

b. Outside of the availability of such offsets, can you comment on the concept of 

‘‘additionality’’ and its impact on the ability to produce tangible environmental 

benefits? 

A7 (b) ‘‘Additionality’’ is the requirement that a program bring about reductions in 

emissions that would not be achieved in its absence. Some such requirement is necessary to make sure that there are tangible environmental benefits, but it is an area 

where ‘‘the best is the enemy of the good.’’ The tighter the requirement to demonstrate ‘‘additionality,’’ the less likely it is that useful real world measures will be 

credited with reducing emissions. For example, nuclear power in the U.S. is an accepted technology so that building additional nuclear powerplants might not count 

as ‘‘additional’’ emission reductions, even though significant policy aid is required. 

Also, in programs like the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) a project will satisfy additionality only if it is not economically feasible without CDM credits. But if 

a host country adopts a broader policy, such as raising gasoline taxes, that make 

some projects economic, they will no longer qualify. The opposite kind of gaming has 

been observed in countries that use different feed-in tariffs to pay for electricity 

from different sources; those countries can make any project comply with the 

‘‘additionality’’ rules by lowering the feed-in tariff until it is uneconomic without 

CDM credits. Thus additionality is a worthy idea that has produced great mischief 

in application. 

Q8. In your discussion of economic impacts, you neglect to mention the often-cited 

‘‘Stern Report,’’ conducted by British economist Nicholas Stern. Can you mention 

some of the flaws in the process of the Stern Report? 

A8. Despite the charge to the Stern Commission to review the economic issues, the 

Stern Report turned into an advocacy report supporting a particular set of attitudes 

toward climate policy. Although there is some good thinking buried in the body of 

the report, the overall summary and in particular its conclusion that the benefits 

of radically reducing emissions far exceed the cost are highly misleading. Numbers 

are twisted and distorted in ways that have no support in the economics profession 

to come up with the conclusion about benefits versus costs, largely because the report fails to mention that the benefits will accrue to future generations far richer 

than ourselves, while the costs fall on current generations, and that as a percentage 

of income we give up far more than the future generations gain. Sir Nicholas organized reviews of his draft report by leading American environmental economists, 

among which I was included, and the universal message to him was that the calculations in the report were absurd and would destroy its usefulness in enlightening 

policy. He ignored that advice. 

Q9. A recent report by an English business consulting firm examined the costs and 

benefits of government policy to support the renewable energy industry in United 

Kingdom. It found that for every job created in the UK in renewable energy, 3.7 

jobs are lost. [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-12597097] 

The primary reasoning in support of this conclusion is that the opportunity costs 

associated with pushing consumers to more expensive renewable energy greatly 

outstrips any benefit from the creation of ‘‘green jobs.’’ 

a. What is your reaction to this conclusion that the push for ‘‘green jobs’’ is economically damaging? 

A9. It is correct. To the extent that renewable energy makes economic sense, either 

because it can be produced more cheaply than fossil fuels or is a cost-effective way 

to comply with environmental performance standards, it will be adopted without 

specific support for renewable energy. For the most part, neither of these conditions 

hold. There are more cost-effective ways to meet environmental goals, and renewable energy costs significantly more than available alternatives to meet energy 

needs. 

Questions submitted by Representative Randy Neugebauer 

Q1. Dr. Montgomery, even President Obama has said that under his climate change 

policies, ‘‘electricity prices would skyrocket.’’ Some estimates of the benefits of 

even the most drastic climate change initiatives find that we would abate global 

temperature increases by less then one degree Fahrenheit by 2100. Based on the 

scientific and economic information we have available to us, how would you de-
199 

scribe the cost-benefit analysis of imposing massive subsidies and mandates on 

energy producers and consumers? 

A1. The costs are high and the benefits are nearly non-existent. Although there are 

many uncertainties and disagreements about climate science, there is no dispute 

about two calculations: the U.S. will be contributing a declining share of global 

emissions over the next century no matter what we do, and President Obama’s climate policies will make next to no difference in global concentrations of greenhouse 

gases and temperature change. No matter how costs are minimized by proponents 

of specific positions, including the frequent statement by EPA that ‘‘even 1% of GDP 

is only half of a year’s growth’’ or Al Gore that ‘‘it’s a postage stamp a day,’’ the 

clear conclusion from the numbers is that the benefits to the U.S. of those actions 

are even smaller. 

Questions submitted by Representative David Wu 

Q1. If you surveyed climate scientists in 1990 and then again in 2010, would the 

results indicate: 

a. an increased consensus that climate change has been occurring? 

b. that climate change is due to an increase in greenhouse gases? 

c. that the increase in greenhouse gases in primarily due to human activity? 

A1. I have seen so many widely differing ‘‘surveys’’ purporting to state the views 

of ‘‘climate scientists’’ that I have no clear answer. Looking just at historical data, 

there does appear to be an increasing likelihood that recent temperatures are not 

just normal random fluctuations but it is by no means an unambiguous signal. That 

an increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will lead to an increase in temperature has never been in dispute, at least since Arrhenius. Whether the increase 

in greenhouse gases up to now is primarily due to human activity is a question that 

I never thought was worth worrying about, since it is clear that there will at some 

point in the future be large increases that are attributable to human activity. 

Questions submitted by Representative Donna F. Edwards 

Q1. Have you ever received either direct or indirect compensation for any of your research, analyses, publications, testimony or a speech in any form, at any entity, 

by a company, trade association, institute or foundation that is represented, supported or funded by the oil, coal or energy industry? 

A1. I was employed for most of the past 21 years by a consulting firm, Charles 

River Associates, and received all my compensation from that company. CRA had 

many clients from the oil, coal and energy industry, but overall its energy practice 

represented only a small fraction of its business. 

Q2. If you answered yes to question #1 above please indicate: 

a. The name of the entity that provided this compensation? 

b. The year it was provided? 

c. The amount of the compensation? 

d. A brief description of what specifically you were compensated for doing? 

A2. I cannot answer this question. All client engagements were covered by a confidentiality agreement between CRA and the client, and I am bound by my own confidentiality agreements with CRA. Even if I were not under that obligation, I no 

longer have access to information about CRA’s revenues from any engagement because I am no longer employed by CRA. 

Q3. Please indicate if you have ever appeared as an expert witness in a civil or 

criminal court case? 

A3. I have. 

Q4. If you answered yes to question #3 above please indicate: 

a. The name of the court case? 

b. The name of the court where the case was held? 

c. The name of the plaintiff or defendant that you testified for? 
200 

d. Please indicate the amount of compensation you received either directly or indirectly for your testimony in each case mentioned above and the name of the entity 

that paid your compensation. 

A4. All the information requested in questions a, b, and c was provided in my resume delivered to the Committee before my testimony. I am unable to answer question d. for the same reason that I am unable to answer question 2. Moreover, since 

I was paid a salary and bonus at the discretion of my employer, I have no knowledge of what the connection between my compensation and any of these engagements might have been. Nor would it matter, because I have always conducted my 

own independent research in every engagement, and stated my own conclusions objectively and honestly no matter who my client was. 
(201) 

Appendix II 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
202 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD

Material Submitted by Chairman Ralph M. Hall 
203 
204 
205 
206 
207 
208 
209 
210 
211 
212 

Material Submitted by Mr. Peter Glaser, Partner, Troutman Sanders, LLP 
213 
214 
215 
216 
217 
218 
219 
220 
221 
222 
223 
224 
225 
226 
227 
228 
229 
230 
231 
232 
233 
234 
235 
236 
237 
238 
239 
240 
241 
242 
243 
244 
245 
246 
247 
248 
249 
250 
251 
252 
253 
254 
255 

Full document can be found at: http://science.house.gov/hearing/full-committee-hearing-climate-change 
256 

Material Submitted by Representative Dana Rohrabacher 
257 
258 
259 
260 
261 
262 
263 
264 
265 
266 
267 
268 
269 
270 
271 
272 
273 
274 
275 
276 
277 
278 
279 
280 
281 
282 
283 
284 
285 
286 
287 
288 
289 
290 
291 
292 
293 
294 
295 
296 
297 
298 
299 
300 
301 
302 
303 
304 
305 
306 
307 
308 

Æ