Mr. LASHOF. Pat, I have to respond to that. You are right, Kalkstein documented that, but he also documented taking that into account, there is significant health increases in mortality that is not associated with that phenomenon. So if you want to cite Kalkstein, cite everything he says about the subject, not just one part like you did with Hansen, where you take one sentence out of the paper and leave the rest of it out.

Mr. MICHAELS. I would caution you the weather-related death rate in the winter is greater than the summer, the mortality rate. So if you decrease the severity of the winter, which is what I believe you do by enhancing the greenhouse effect, and so does basic physics, you have affected the mortality in a positive sense.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Dr. Watson, would you care to react to his statement?

Mr. WATSON. I think what Pat is trying to say is we as a society have buffered ourselves against the very large threat of heat stroke mortality through the use of energy systems, giving us air conditioning. The challenge is getting the energy in a much cleaner way, more efficient systems and cleaner production of energy.

So the point is we should not be threatening the old, infirm and sometimes the very young and people in developing countries. The challenge isn't air conditioning or not air conditioning. The challenge is how do we get air conditioning in a way that doesn't cause global warming.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Dr. Michaels, who sponsors and funds publication of this report?

Mr. MICHAELS. That is produced by New Hope Environmental Service, which is a consulting company.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Pardon?

Mr. MICHAELS. New Hope Environmental Service, a consulting company, which receives a contract from the Greening Earth Society to pay for this report.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I thought it was funded by the Western Fuels Association.

Mr. MICHAELS. No, Greening Earth Society now.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Dr. Singer, peer review is one of the most important aspects of ensuring that scientific claims are valid. Would you briefly explain peer review to this panel?

Mr. SINGER. Peer review is a device used by editors of scientific journals to help them in making a decision whether to publish a piece of original research. It means that the editor will send this article, paper, this scientific research paper, to referees who remain anonymous and who give him his comments.

The final decision is up to the editor. The editor decides who the referees are and whether in the final analysis to publish the paper. Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Dr. Singer, have the findings and conclusions in your testimony been published in scientific peer review journals? Mr. SINGER. My findings and conclusions are based on published peer reviewed articles, yes.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Can you mention traditional scientific journals? Mr. SINGER. Yes. I can show you the references that I refer to. These include all of the major scientific journals, the same journals, incidentally, used in the IPCC report. They include the Journal of Science in the United States, the Journal of Nature in Great Brit

ain, and specific specialized journals dealing with climate issues and geophysical issues.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Dr. Watson?

Mr. WATSON. Dr. Singer beautifully avoided your question. What you asked has his analysis been peer reviewed, and I would argue his analysis has not undergone the same peer review as the articles in Science or IPCC document. So he purposely avoided the question.

Mr. SINGER. My analysis, by the way, is not an original piece of scientific work. I am very careful to state this. This is based on published peer reviewed work that appears in the literature.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. So your conclusion has not been submitted to peer review?

Mr. SINGER. My conclusion doesn't have to be peer reviewed. It is not a piece of scientific research.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. You explained when I asked you what is peer review, you explained it was a very important aspect.

Mr. SINGER. Yes, for original work.

Mr. LASHOF. I would just point out that review articles, which are not original pieces of research, but review the literature, are also traditionally subject to peer review when they are published in scientific literature.

Mr. MICHAELS. I would also point out that books published are not peer reviewed, and Mr. Singer published a book. Any book that is a summary of peer reviewed research is not going to undergo the same process. All he is doing is restating the arguments that have already been peer reviewed.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. We are discussing here scientific data and conclusions and findings. We are not discussing here publication of books.

Mr. Chairman, Dr. Singer mentioned 15,000 signatories of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine Global Warming Petition Project. For the record, I would like to note that the petition uses an op-ed article published in the Wall Street Journal as its basis. Also I would like the signatories' names entered into the record, and I have them here. I would like to read a couple of familiar names: Dr. Honeycutt, Dr. Pierce, and Dr. Potter. It seems to me that these are from the cast of MASH. Joseph McCarthy, whom I believe died even before the petition was circulated.

[The information may be found in the appendix.]

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. My next question is to Dr. Christy. You claim that satellite data shows that the Earth is actually cooling. Is this your position?

Mr. CHRISTY. Through June 1998, the trend is plus .04 degrees C per decade.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Isn't it true that only one satellite, the MSU2R, shows this cooling trend?

Mr. CHRISTY. No, there are nine satellites. There are only two at a given time.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. According to an article published in Nature Magazine from March 1997, this cooling trend coincided with satellite replacements. If adjustments are made, the article concludes that MSU temperatures actually show a slight warming of the Earth. Would you care to comment on this?

Mr. CHRISTY. Yes. I refuted that in the Journal of Nature in September 1997 and a Journal Climate article that will be out next month, and it shows clearly based on independent evidence that that analysis was incorrect.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Dr. Christy, if there is a cooling process going on, could you explain why the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced that 1997 was the warmest year on record?

Mr. CHRISTY. Their analysis is based upon several thousand reports from surface measurements. It was not in the atmosphere. Whether you use balloons or satellites, 1997 was a very average year globally. I believe both of those, because their precision is documented and they are, or at least the satellites are globally measuring the thing.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Dr. Michaels, Dr. Singer and Dr. Lewis, could you tell the panel about your sources of funding?

Mr. LEWIS. Yes. The Competitive Enterprise institute receives funds from individuals, corporations and foundations. We get no government support.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Dr. Singer?

Mr. SINGER. The same.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. You have responded before.

Mr. MICHAELS. No, I did not. No. All my academic research is funded by taxpayer-supported entities, including NOAA, the Department of Energy, Commonwealth of Virginia, National Weather Service, et cetera. Thank you.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. It is also true you have received money from Texaco, German Coal Mining Association, Western Fuels Association, the American Petroleum Institute and other fuels companies? Mr. MICHAELS. Who are you asking?

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Dr. Michaels, Dr. Singer, and Dr. Lewis? Mr. MICHAELS. What you have on the record, my funding history, the chairman has it. Again, you will see that the academic research that I do, which is published in the peer review literature, just like everybody else, is supported solely by public sources. I am sorry. Mr. LEWIS. It is CEI's policy not to discuss the identity of its donors in public, but I will just make the observation that if you are a nonprofit organization, you can basically get money from only two places. It is either business or someone retired and wealthy who has been in business or the government; i.e., the taxpayer.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. My question is if you receive money from Western Fuels Association, Texaco, that many of these groups will be strongly affected by a required lowering of emissions. Doesn't this seem to be a conflict of interest?

Mr. LEWIS. Not at all. At the Competitive Enterprise Institute we consider ourselves a "battered business bureau.' But more precisely, were a pro-market organization. There are times, unfortunately not enough times, when corporate America actually favors free market policies. On those occasions, we sometimes earn their support. We think they should be giving us even more money than they do, because we think that if we really did move to a freer world, it would be better for everyone, including General Motors. But sometimes they take a very short-term view and are more con

cerned about a piece of corporate pork, which we oppose, than they are about more fundamental reform.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I have finished with my questions. My question was basically is it a conflict of interest, to try to show a conflict of interest. If you are going to get money from the same sources and you are going to produce some conclusions that are going to benefit in terms of any regulations that will have an impact, a negative impact on those corporations, it will be an ethical question.

Mr. LEWIS. Yes. We have a consistent principled approach to public policy. We have taken the approach that I have been developing here on global warming before any corporations were interested at all in the work we were doing. The first article we published on this subject was 1991. That was before we were getting any support that was in any way related to our global warming work, and as I said, at times businesses will see that their own bottom line considerations correspond to the principled policies that we promote. We also make it a policy never to do any contract research. In other words, a corporation cannot pay us to do a study. We have an agenda, and if they like it, they can support it.

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Sure. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into the record this information that has been provided when they have to file for tax documents. The Competitive Enterprise Institute is a nonprofit industry think-tank that receives a great deal of its funding from the fossil fuel-related companies and groups, American Petroleum, Amoco, ARCO, Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Texaco among others.

Chairman TALENT. Without objection, it will be entered into the record. The source of that information was the tax documents they filed?

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Yes.

[The information may be found in the appendix.]

Mr. SINGER. I would like to say that none of the entities mentioned by the lady has been supporting us. I would like to correct my statement, however, to mention that we have received a contract from the Commonwealth of Virginia, so it is taxpayer supported, to study what to do about improving air quality and what to do about traffic congestion in Northern Virginia. Otherwise I have no further comments.

Chairman TALENT. I recognize the gentlewoman from Missouri. Mrs. EMERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me just follow on that last question and take a different approach.

Obviously there are some scientists who are skeptical of the presence of global warming. We saw that today, especially those who criticize the protocol as often being dominated by corporations.

Dr. Christy, you were part of the IPCC. You are a signatory to the IPCC document, is that correct? What can you tell me about the qualifications of the 2,600 scientists who signed the IPCC?

Mr. CHRISTY. There was a broad range, there was a broad range of people involved. Many were just government appointees and had little background in this science at all. In our chapter if we had probably 150 people involved in some way, often that was simply a 2 or 3 sentence refereed or reviewed sentence, and that got their name into the list. But really the work was done by on the order

of 10 people in our chapter. There were 11 chapters in the working group 1. Bob Watson would know more.

Mrs. EMERSON. Perhaps I should ask Dr. Watson that question too. I was interested in your perspective.

Dr. Watson, tell me about the background, generally speaking, of those 2,600 so-called scientists.

Mr. WATSON. The majority were from universities and government organizations, a small number from environmental NGO's and business. They were sponsored, or nominated rather, either by governments, intellectual think tanks, organizations such as International Council of Scientific Unions, and they were selected by the IPCC bureaus. So there is a very wide range.

My personal view is we need more people who actually come from business and industry and even are paid for by business and industry to be a part of IPCC to see the full range of views. So, to be quite candid with you, source of funding is not my concern. My concern is to make sure that we have a broad range of representatives who are credible in the scientific and expert community.

Mrs. EMERSON. So of those 2,600 people, how many were climatologists?

Mr. WATSON. There is a complete range. You see, IPCC looks at the whole range of issues from: Is the climate changing, to what are the economic costs. So the climatologists, there may be 20 to 50. There are some oceanographers and mathematical scientists; There are also economists and social scientists.

So there is, in essence, in the Second Assessment I would guess 50 chapters. Each of those chapters needs a totally different mix of skills. So all 2,600 are clearly not climatologists.

Mr. SINGER. Dr. Watson I think is evading the question. I have made a careful study of this and have published an article in the Wall Street Journal. There are no 2,600 scientists. That is complete fiction.

Another piece of fiction is that there is a consensus amongst these IPCC participants. There was never any kind of polling or any kind of opinion poll done on it.

When you analyze the number of names mentioned in the three IPCC volumes that were published in 1996, the number is of the order of 2,000. When you eliminate the duplications among the names, because they appear in different volumes, the number falls well below 2,000. Most of these 2,000 are not scientists, physical scientists or climatologists. There are social scientists, political scientists, economists, government people, policy analysts. There is even a person, as a reviewer, who is the public relations chief for the American Petroleum Institute listed as one of the participants of the IPCC.

So we have a wide range of people. The actual climatological people who one could identify amount to probably not more than 100 to 200.

Mrs. EMERSON. The only reason I wanted to ask that is because Carol Browner has on many occasions said how this 2,600 list of scientific experts in the field, but I have noticed that there is an OB-GYN on the list and a psychologist on the list and an acupuncturist on the list, none of which I have any problems with.

50-206 98-2