July 19, 2006

Thank you, Chairman Whitfield. Today's hearing on the hockey stick temperature studies will show why we need to question the quality of climate assessments for policy makers.

This Committee frequently confronts some of our Nation's most consequential public policy questions affecting the quality of human health, our economy, and our environment. However, no issue we deal with has more potential to affect the American people than climate change.

Meanwhile, the compounding costs to the U.S. economy posed by some proposals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions could rock our economy, drive manufacturing off-shore, and spike domestic consumer energy costs.

That is why we need to be sure that we have a solid factual basis for whatever decisions we make in this area.

The report we are about to receive indicates that the social and statistical underpinnings of key climate-change work are prone to produce error.

I look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses because we have important work to accomplish today. I would especially like to thank Dr. Edward Wegman who, on his own time and his own expense, assembled a pro bono committee of statisticians to provide us with independent and expert guidance concerning the hockey stick studies and the process for vetting this work.

Dr. Wegman and his committee have done a great public service. Their report, with clear writing and measured tone, has identified significant issues concerning the reliability of some of the climate change work that is transmitted to policymakers and characterized as well scrutinized. The Wegman Committee report will be the centerpiece of today's hearing.

These 'hockey stick' studies were the linchpin for what became widely acclaimed as the consensus view of the earth's temperature history during the past thousand years. It was presented as part of the leading climate assessment for public policy makers around the world - the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC.

Both good science and good public policymaking demand that scientific work withstand independent and impartial scrutiny. Information that is not scientifically sound is just not acceptable. Indeed, it appears that some of the authors of the IPCC assessment dealing with global temperature history were not independent or impartial. They also happened to be the authors of the hockey stick studies, themselves. The researchers then declined to provide the information necessary to replicate their work, a fundamental failure in reliable science.

The "hockey stick" studies were supported by Federal grants and were central to a prominent finding in an influential assessment. In my view, if Congress is going to make policy decisions based on the authority of climate change assessments, we cannot fail to wonder how they have been formulated. Asking questions is at the core of what we do.

Our central question is: Can we count on hockey stick studies? That answer from Dr. Wegman and his panel appears to be, "No." And it doesn't appear to be a matter of overlooking the researchers' written caveats about their particular work; rather, the Wegman panel has identified a fundamental error of methodology. If that finding holds up, it will highlight a mistake that lay dormant for years as a closed network of supportive colleagues saw and heard what it wanted. It took scientists outside the network to identify the core problems, both in the studies and in the IPCC assessment.

Congress is in the business of making policy decisions that affect the lives of real people. Science provides us with the answers to many policy questions, and we need to trust it. I do trust science, and I trust it most when it is transparent, open to question, and eager to explain. When research is secretive, automatically and aggressively defensive, and self-reinforcing, it becomes easy to distrust.

As Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, which holds a key role in any policy making relating to climate change, I believe it is incumbent on this Committee to ensure that the very best information is available to make its decisions.

Caveats and uncertainty are facts of life, and not only in science. We deal with complicated science and research-based decisions and uncertainty in every area of our jurisdiction. Some of the most troubling work we confront - on bioterror or radiological risks for example - present very tough and complicated issues for us to assess.

Good science is built on healthy skepticism, and good scientists don't hide from questions. They invite them. Asking questions to establish the validity of scientific studies - especially those with enormous policy implications - is why we are here today. The caveats and uncertainty are never going to be eliminated, but we would like to know whether the facts or caveats contained in these sophisticated climate assessments have been adequately and independently scrutinized.

Heads-I-win, tails-you-lose science can produce any answer that is desired, but that's hardly the way to make multi-billion-dollar decisions. This is a vitally important matter. When we deal with global warming, we need to know that the underlying studies constitute reliable science. The taxpayers depend on it. My grandchildren depend on it. The planet depends on it.

I want to extend my thanks to all the witnesses for appearing today, and I look forward to their testimony.

Related Documents