Page images
PDF
EPUB

Page

344

345

352

370 399 400 401

[ocr errors]

.......

402 404 405 429 430 434 435 437 438 439 512 530 531 537 539 563 575

[ocr errors]

Tab D (Question 3)
Copy of the final text of Summary for Policymakers of the Contribu-

tion of Working Group I to the IPCC Second Assessment Report,

1995
Copy of the final text of Summary for Policymakers of the Contribu-

tion of Working Group II to the IPCC Second Assessment Report,

1995
• Copy of the final text of Summary for Policymakers of the Contribu-

tion of Working Group III to the IPCC Second Assessment Report,

1995
Tab E (Question 4):
Copy of IPCC guidelines for consulting experts
Tab F (Question 5):
Copy of the IPCC procedures regarding the production of "Technical

Papers"
Tab G (Question 7):
Copy of FCCC requested work program for IPCC
Tab H (Question 8):
Copy of SBSTA-II Conclusions
Tab I (Question 9):

Copy of the IPCC budget for 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997
• Table of contributions to the IPCC, including U.S. contributions
Tab J (Question 11):

•FCCC prepared report on Annex I Party national communications

• Text of FCCC Secretariat's in-depth review of U.S. communications Tab K (Question 13):

Copies of FCCC Article 4.1 and Article 12.1
•U.S. intervention from AGBM-3: Developing country commitments
U.S. AGBM presentation
• 1992 scenario tables
Tab L (Question 14):
Copy of the initial report on an inventory and assessment of technologies

to mitigate and adapt to climate change
Tab M (Question 19):
List of measures considered for analysis and for case study development ..
Tab N (Question 20):
List of references of chapter 18 of IPCC (Annex I)
Tab 0 (Question 21);

Copy of global change and health proposal submitted to CDC and NOAA .
Questions submitted by the Honorable Dana Rohrabacher, Chairman, Sub-

committee on Energy and Environment to the Honorable Warren M. Chris-
topher, Secretary of State, the Honorable Hazel R. O'Leary, Secretary of
Energy, and Dr. Robert T. Watson, Associate Director of Environment,
Office of Science and Technology Policy

Tab A: Answers to questions
Tab B (Question 3)
Copy of the final text of Summary for Policymakers of the IPCC

Second Assessment Synthesis of Scientific-Technical Information
Relevant to Interpreting Article 2 of the UN Framework Conven-

tion on Climate Change
Copy of the final text of Summary for Policymakers of the Contribu-

tion of Working Group I to the IPCC Second Assessment Report,

1995 (See Tab Ď above in previous letter)
Copy of the final text of Summary for Policymakers of the Contribu-

tion of Working Group II to the IPCC Second Assessment Report,

1995 (See Tab Ď above in previous letter)
Copy of the final text of Summary for Policymakers of the Contribu-

tion of Working Group III to the IPCC Second Assessment Report,

1995 (See Tab D above in previous letter) Tab C (Question 4.c): List of NGOs/USGCRP ........ Tab D (Question 9.b): Figure B4 of IPCC 1992 report

576 588 589 590 591 598 599

611 627 677

[ocr errors]

677

[ocr errors]

345

[ocr errors]

352

[ocr errors]

370 705 706

Page

708

804 879 1039 1043 1045

1048 1050 1053 1054

1056

Tab F (Question 14.e):

Chapter 7 of WGIII: A Generic Assessment of Response Options
Chapter 8 of WGIII: Estimating the Costs of Mitigating Greenhouse

Gases
• Chapter 9 of WGIII: A Review of Mitigation Cost Studies
Tab G (Question 17.b): Review of Technical Forecasts (DOE)
Tab H (Question 21.a): SBSTA report on IPCC
Tab I (Question 23.d): TAP interventions
Tab J (Question 26.b): U.S. Interventions at AGBM-3
• March 6, 1996, on Quantified Emission Limitation and Reduction

Objectives (QELROS)
• March 6, 1996, on Policies and Measures
• March 7, 1996, on Policies and Measures

March 7, 1996, on Advancing Article 4.1 Commitments
• March 7, 1996, on Possible Features of a Protocol or Another Legal

Instrument
Questions submitted by the Honorable George E. Brown, Jr., Ranking Demo-
cratic Member, Committee on Science to:
Peter F. Guerrero, Director, Environmental Protection Issues, Resources,

Community, and Economic Development Division, United States Gen

eral Accounting Office
Dr. Jerry D. Mahlman, Director, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory,

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, Associate Professor, Department of Environ-

mental Science, University of Virginia
Dr. Robert T. Watson, Associate Director of Environment, Office of

Science and Technology Policy.
Dr. William A. Nierenberg, Director Emeritus, Scripps Institution of

Oceanography
David Gardiner, Assistant Administrator, Office of Policy, Planning and

Evaluation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Dr. Thomas Gale Moore, Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution
Dr. Robert W. Corell, Assistant Director for Geosciences, National Science

Foundation, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Global Change Research

1059

1063

1083

1111

1128

1137 1147

1153

SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY AND PUBLIC TRUST: THE SCIENCE BEHIND FEDERAL POLICIES AND MANDATES: CASE STUDY 2-CLIMATE MODELS AND PROJECTIONS OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 1995

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT,

Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met at 9:40 a.m. in Room 2318 of the Ray-
burn House Office Building, the Honorable Dana Rohrabacher,
Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. The Energy and Environment Subcommittee

nme will come to order.

I got up this morning and it was not as cold as I expected. I guess all the hot air we have been expending around here about the closing of the government actually has not warmed the environment at all. But we will see.

In 1884, the head of the U.S. Patent Office, Henry Elsworth, suggested his office might soon be abolished because we had reached a time when everything useful had already been invented. That is a story we all know.

In 1992, then Senator Al Gore wrote in his book, Earth In the Balance, that further research on global warming was unnecessary and in fact harmful because all the issues had been decided, and immediate action was required.

Of course, we now know that there were a few useful inventions left, and we also know, three years later, that research is constantly revealing revised estimates of global warming.

This is the second in a series of hearings on scientific integrity and the public trust. The hearings will look at how agencies under this subcommittee's jurisdiction are using science to formulate public policy.

Today's hearing will look at the issue of climate change, specifically at the use of computer models to forecast global warming over the next 100 years.

After the first hearing of this series, and that was a hearing on stratospheric ozone, Vice President Gore called us "Stalinists" for having balanced panels that included scientists who dissented from Mr. Gore's orthodoxy.

So we invited Mr. Gore to testify. And to the Vice President we said, "My goodness, come here!” We know you have an interest in this topic, and come here and testify and let's have an exchange of ideas.

And I am disappointed that he turned us down. Now he is on his way to Japan, I understand, but I believe he turned us down before that trip was arranged.

On the issue of global warming, the tone for this Administration was set in 1993 when Dr. Will Happer, the Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy was summarily dismissed from his post on the orders of the Vice President's office.

This, after Dr. Happer made it known that he did not believe the science was there to back up the Administration's global warming agenda.

So it is not surprising that we have heard little dissent since then.

In this atmosphere I believe this subcommittee has a duty to continue to present balanced panels. And I hope we will produce a useful dialogue on controversial scientific issues of the day.

Today, we have with us distinguished scientists in their fields who have differing views on climate change. And it is my goal, as Chairman of this subcommittee, to see that every time we have a hearing, that unlike—and I was very disappointed my first six years in Congress—was there would never really be a dialogue?

You would have the experts here and you would have all the experts who agreed with the Subcommittee chairman testify in the first panel, and that is when all the members of the news media were here. And then you would have anybody, anybody who might get on as a witness who disagreed with the Subcommittee chairman's predilections, were put on in the last panel late in the afternoon, and nobody was there to hear them.

Well, as long as I am Subcommittee chairman, we are going to try our best to have both sides of every issue presented, and side by side, and promote dialogue between the expert witnesses.

That makes all the sense in the world to me.

We have with us Administration representatives who are key players in this issue.

And we will first look at the controversy over reliability of computer models to estimate climate change that they expect over the next 100 years.

Our second panel will address the issue of climate change impact.

In recent weeks, a series of articles in the New York Times and other publications have speculated on catastrophic impacts of global warming. These catastrophic impacts include the following predictions:

A loss of one-third of the world's forests.
A loss of one-third to one half of the mountain glacier ice.

A dramatic increase of tropical diseases, such as malaria and yellow fever.

And a dramatic rise in sea levels.

And although this estimate of dramatic rises in sea levels is actually dramatically lower than earlier estimates.

What is the scientific foundation behind these doomsday scenarios and what role does climate modeling play?

« PreviousContinue »