This is an issue driven in this administration deeply by politics and not by science. I often disagree with the Senator from Wyoming. In this case, I do agree with him entirely. This is an issue driven by politics and not by science.

I hope that this panel can cast some light not only on the science around global climate change, but also on who is supporting the science. I would be interested in knowing, for example, of the famous gentleman who ran studies related to orange trees in Arizona. Who supported that study? Where did that money come from? Who is supporting all of those films? I'd like to know at the Marshall Institute, where does the funding for all of this research come from? I think these are issues that we ought to get a clear picture of to understand all of this.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent that my full statement be included in the record.

Again I thank you for holding these hearings, as you had committed to do so during the debate on the energy bill. I really appreciate your picking this up. We have a very distinguished panel, and I know we all look forward to hearing them. Thank you, Mr. Chair

man.

[The prepared statement of Senator Wirth follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. TIMOTHY E. WIRTH, U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am pleased that you have organized today's hearing, as well as the follow-up hearing next week on the policies we need to put in place to reduce the build up of greenhouse gases.

All of us remember the historic hearing that was held in this room during the summer of 1988 and the testimony of Dr. James Hansen. At that extraordinary hearing four years ago, Dr. Hansen provided testimony that shocked the world and launched a major effort to address concerns about global warming.

Most of us will remember, too, that Dr. Hansen had testimony censored when he was to appear before the Senate Commerce Committee several years ago.

And let us recall that our hearings of four years ago played a role in galvanizing attention to the scientific and policy issues surrounding this issue. In response, the nations of the world organized the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This massive international effort invited scientists and policy makers from throughout the world to engage in a comprehensive and authoritative assessment of global climate change. That process was endorsed by our government.

Today, more than three years after its formation, the IPCC has issued two reports on the scientific basis for concerns about global warming. At the core of these reports the latest of which was authored by 118 scientists from 22 nations, and peer reviewed by another 380 scientists from 63 nations-is the conclusion that we are altering the composition of the atmosphere and that the best scientific evidence indicates the globe will warm, the Earth's climate will be altered.

These reports also find that we cannot determine at this time what the precise timing, magnitude or distribution of climate change will be. How will it effect my state of Colorado? No one can say with certainty. Nonetheless, scientific consensus does exist on the problem we are creating for ourselves. The best estimate of this worldwide panel of scientific experts is that the early will warm by 3 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit.

Unfortunately, our government-after endorsing the IPCC process from the President on down-did not really comment on the IPCC scientific assessment. It backed away from the process. Last week, that changed.

The United States government announced last week its view on global climate change. And one of the most not able portions of the document entitled "U.S. Views on Global Climate Change" is the consensus statement on the science. Let me just read into the record what I consider to be the most important conclusion of this document.

"The best scientific information indicates that if greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere continue to increase as a result of human activities, significant changes in the climate system are likely.'

To my mind, that is a very responsible and accurate assessment of the science, Mr. Chairman, and I applaud the Administration for forging this consensus and issuing a fine assessment of our scientific assessment of global climate change.

Unfortunately, these mainstream assessments continue to compete, in a sense, with the views of a cast of scientific naysayers. These contrarian scientists a very small but persistent group are given equal weight with the scientific conclusions of an international effort such as the IPCC or the National Academy of Sciences here at home. Indeed, they are now competing with our own government's conclusions. This is misleading and unfortunate.

I am certain that we will hear a great deal today about the Marshall Institute report. Actually this is the third report issued by a group of three scientists. I do not question the credentials of these scientists, I question their credibility. One of the Marshall Institute's earlier reports was labelled by Science magazine as “a slim, unreferred report that many scientists have dismissed as biased and misleading."

I cannot determine with absolute certainty whether or not the Marshall Institute's report or some of the other naysaying science on this issue is absolutely wrong. Some of it certainly is a stretch and has been thoroughly rebutted. I can, however, judge the science against the overwhelming preponderance of scientific conclusions that have been reached-by our National Academy, our government scientists, and by a massive undertaking by the international community. My conclusion is that the two cannot be compared. You cannot compare on the one hand a report that is selectively referred to a handpicked scientific advisory board versus a two-year international effort reviewed by hundreds of scientists from all over the world.

I raise this point, Mr. Chairman, to indicate my hope that we can attempt to reach some kind of consensus on this committee as to what the science of global climate change is. Consensus does exist. For this, or any hearing, to be useful and worthwhile, we really need to focus in on a consensus. If we simply rehash the false scientific debates that have occurred in this room in the past, we will be in exactly the same place as we were two or three years ago. And that is what happens far too often in our Committees that is why there is so much consideration being given to reforming the committee process and streamlining our efforts.

In conclusion, let me thank our witnesses for joining us today. I believe this to be one of the most important issues in our history.

For the past two days, I have been attending meetings in New York City on a convention to address the threat of global climate change. The process of reaching consensus on an international agreement is very difficult. It can only succeed if all sides are willing to cooperate and reach consensus. I hope that our committee can do the same.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Wirth.

Senator Burns.

STATEMENT OF HON. CONRAD BURNS, U.S. SENATOR FROM

MONTANA

Senator BURNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding these hearings.

Due to time that one runs into, you have a hard time of putting aside time to study a subject such as we are looking at this morning. As time has gone by in the last 6 months, I have devoted more of my time to studying this and now devoting, well, even more time to it. As the process goes forward, I am looking forward to hearing from our witnesses, what they have to say, and studying them and their testimony, and what they are trying to tell us in these hearings.

So, in the essence of time, thank you for holding this hearing because I think it is very timely. It is also very important. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Burns.

Senator Akaka.

STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. AKAKA, U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased that the committee is holding these hearings on the science surrounding the prediction of global climate change. Mr. Chairman, we are delighted to have our distinguished, respected experts in this area before us today.

Mr. Chairman, I represent the State where the debate over global warming really began. Mauna Loa Climate Observatory was the first to document a steady increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. I remember the day I spoke to the scientists there at Mauna Loa.

Over the past 25 years, the Mauna Loa data indicates a rise in the level of carbon dioxide of almost 12 percent. Other scientists have documented a rise in carbon dioxide of 25 percent during the last 100 years.

Global carbon dioxide emissions, on the other hand, have undergone a threefold increase in just 30 years. Associated with the increased levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is the threat of global warming and catastrophic rise in sea level, a phenomenon which strikes fear in the hearts of island communities. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a panel of experts sponsored by the U.N. and the World Meteorological Organization, has predicted a 26-inch rise in sea level by the year 2100 if we continue our current rate of greenhouse emissions.

A rise of 2 feet may not seem like much to inland communities. However, it would devastate island and coastal States.

For the people of the Pacific, the effects of the rising sea level will be profound. They include inundation, erosion of shore lines, increased coastal flooding, salinization of aquifers, tide changes, changes in sediment deposition, increased height and frequency of waves, and decreased light reaching the ocean floor.

Of all geographic areas, low lying reef and atoll islands, such as those found in the South Pacific, may be the most threatened by sea level rise. Rising sea levels and storm surges may render some islands uninhabitable. One Pacific leader summarized islanders concerns best when he said we do not have the luxury of waiting for the conclusive proof of global warming. "The proof we fear will kill us.'

While in Honolulu during the Easter break, I participated in a conference of Pacific island leaders. The message I bring to Washington from island governments throughout the Pacific is don't delay. Act now on global warming. The data on sea level rise is unambiguous. The only question is how fast and how high the waters will rise. Countless specific islands are at risk. A failure to respond to the threat of sea level rise will have catastrophic consequences for these islands by the end of the next century. Unless we implement a strategy to combat this threat, the only solution for many Pacific islands will be to start handing out snorkels.

To cite an example, last December a number of our committee staff and I visited the island of Ebeye in the Marshall Islands to

witness the devastating effects of Hurricane Zelda. Over 10,000 Marshallese call Ebeye their home. The average elevation of this island is 1 meter above sea level. If the best estimate of the U.N. science panel proves correct, by the end of the next century the island of Ebeye will disappear during a high tide. Ebeye is one of 100 islands that make up Kwajalein atoll. The average elevation of these islands is 1.8 meters. As you can see, the people of the Pacific have a good reason to fear the rise of the sea level. They do not have the option to simply head for high ground.

As members of a global community, we have a special responsibility. We must first acknowledge the harmful effects our actions have on the composition of the earth's atmosphere. This acknowledgement may seem like a basic preliminary step, but for critics and nay-sayers, business as usual and economic considerations come first. We must see our planet as it really is, a global village facing common problems, not a collection of individual nations oblivious to the needs of others. Global warming knows no borders. It impacts the planet as a whole and no Nation can claim immunity. We must confront the inevitable in real unless we want the inevitable to overwhelm us.

Mr. Chairman, we cannot expect to continue changing the composition of the earth's atmosphere without suffering some adverse consequences. If we are to err, it must be on the side of caution, for the potential consequences are severe and long-lasting.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Akaka.

Senator DOMENICI. Would you accommodate me by just putting brief statement in the record?

my

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, without objection.

[The prepared statements of Senators Akaka and Domenici follow:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. AKAKA, U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII Mr. Chairman, I am pleased the Committee is holding hearings on the science surrounding the prediction of "Global Climate Change".

I represent the state where the debate over global warming began. The Mauna Loa Climate Observatory was the first to document a steady increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Over the past 25 years, the Mauna Loa data indicates a rise in the level of carbon dioxide of almost 12%. Other scientists have documented a rise in carbon dioxide of 25% during the last 100 years.

Global carbon dioxide emissions, on the other hand, have undergone a threefold increase in just 30 years! Associated with the increased levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is the threat of global warming and catastrophic rise in sea levels a phenomenon which strikes fear in the hearts of island communities.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)-—a panel of experts sponsored by the U.N. and the World Meterological Association—has predicted a 26 inch rise in sea level by the year 2100 if we continue our current rate of greenhouse emissions. A rise of two feet may not seem like much to inland communities. However it would devastate island and coastal states.

For the people of the Pacific, the effects of rising sea level will be profound. They include: inundation, erosion of shorelines, increased coastal flooding, salinization of aquifers, tide changes, changes in sediment deposition, increased height and frequency of waves, and decreased light reaching the ocean floor. Of all geographic areas, low-lying reef and atoll islands, such as those found in the South Pacific, may be the most threatened by sea-level rise. Rising sea levels and storm surges may render some islands uninhabitable. One Pacific leader summarized islanders' concerns best when he said, "We do not have the luxury of waiting for conclusive proof of global warming. The proof, we fear, will kill us.”

While in Honolulu during the Easter break, I participated in a conference of Pacific island leaders. The message I bring to Washington from island governments throughout the Pacific is: Don't delay. Act now on global warming.

The data on sea level rise is unambiguous. The only question is how fast and how high the waters will rise. Countless Pacific Islands are at risk. A failure to respond to the threat of sea level rise will have catastrophic consequences for these islands by the end of the next century. Unless we implement a strategy to combat this threat, the only solution for many Pacific islands will be to start handing out snorkels!

To cite an example, last December a number of our Committee staff and I visited the island of Ebeye in the Marshall Islands to witness the devastating effects of Hurricane Zelda. Över 10,000 Marshallese call Ebeye their home. The average elevation of this island is one meter above sea level. If the best estimate of the UN science panel proves correct, by the end of the next century the island of Ebeye will disappear during a high tide.

Ebeye is one of 100 islands that make up Kwajalein Atoll. The average elevation of these islands is 1.8 meters. As you can see, the people of the Pacific have good reason to fear sea level rise. They do not have the option to simply "head to the high ground."

As members of a global community, we have a special responsibility. We must first acknowledge the harmful effects our actions have on the composition of the earth's atmosphere. This acknowledgement may seem like a basic preliminary step. But for critics and naysayers, business as usual and economic considerations come first.

We must see our planet as it really is: a global village facing common problems— not a collection of individual nations oblivious to the needs of others. Global warming knows no borders. It impacts the planet as a whole, and no Nation can claim immunity. We must confront the inevitable in Rio unless we want the inevitable to overwhelm us.

Mr. Chairman, we can not expect to continue changing the composition of the earth's atmosphere without suffering some adverse consequences. If we are to err, it must be on the side of caution, for the potential consequences are severe and long lasting.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. PETE V. DOMENICI, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO

Mr. Chairman. I would like to comment on today's hearing: "on the science concerning global climate change."

As one of the 13 Senate Observers of the United Nations Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for a Framework Convention on Climate Change, I am well aware of the policy debate over the U.S. position.

I would say this debate has focussed too narrowly on some aspects, namely CO2 targets and timetables, of the Administration position in the climate treaty negotiations. I know there's a lot of disagreement in this committee on that issue, and I respect the motivations behind both: I care deeply about risks to future generations be they economic or environmental.

I hope in today's hearing we in this committee can find some agreement on the science of global climate change, so that in future hearings we can make progress on agreeing to appropriate responses to the potential risks.

I look forward to hearing the witnesses testimony today. I note with particular pleasure the emphasis given the DOE's Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) and Computer Hardware, Advanced Mathematics, and Model Physics (CHAMMP) in which Los Alamos and Sandia National Laboratories are major participants.

The CHAIRMAN. I believe we are now ready for our panel, and we are pleased to have as our first witness Dr. Robert Watson, who is Director of the Process Studies Program Office of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

Dr. Watson.