From BushGreenWatch.org, July 13, 2005
Texas Republican Rep. Joe Barton, powerful chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, has created a stir among many of the nation’s leading climate scientists over what they call an “unprecedented” inquiry into their research.
In late June, Barton sent a letter to three scientists whose findings show that global temperatures have increased dramatically since 1900. [1] The letter calls on them to provide all the raw data that contributed to their research. Barton has also called on the National Science Foundation for a list of “all grants and other funding” given for climate research.
Critics within the scientific community assert that Barton’s request is a blatant political maneuver to discourage scientists from pursuing studies that might verify the link between global warming and human activity.
Michael Bender, a professor of geosciences at Princeton University and a member on the board of atmospheric sciences and climate at the U.S. National Academies told Environmental Science and Technology, “I feel there is an attempt to intrude on the work of scientists…government is attempting to intimidate scientists that have findings they don’t agree with.” [2]
At issue is research conducted mainly by Michael Mann, an assistant professor in the department of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia. Mann’s “hockey stick study,” as it is known in the field, shows that global temperatures were relatively stable up until 1900, when the planet suddenly warmed dramatically: on a graph the upward spike looks like a hockey stick. [2] Many scientists cite this study to confirm that global warming exists, and is abetted by human activity. The Mann paper played an integral role in a 2001 report by the UN International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Despite the fact that the paper has undergone intensive peer review and is widely regarded as a fundamental study on climate change, Barton has called for all the raw data and the computer code Mann used in his study.
Growing numbers within the scientific community assert that Barton is not actually interested in assessing how Mann reached his conclusions. Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, told BushGreenwatch, “Barton’s request does not reflect an effort to further understand the science, but an attempt to discredit the IPCC report.”
Harvard Professor John Holdren, president-elect of American Association for the Advancement of Science, says numerous separate studies have confirmed Mann’s findings.
Princeton’s Bender told BushGreenwatch that such a request has had a ripple effect in the climate science community, “I feel attacked, and I feel as if climate change science and scientists are being attacked.”
Emphasizing that he “would not bow down to such intimidation,” Bender warned that the impact of the Barton request “has the potential to lead some scientists, particularly scientists feeling vulnerable financially or otherwise, to bend their work in a way that might make it conform better to the views of aggressive politicians who influence funding decisions and have the power to carry out investigations outside the common practices of journals, funding agencies, and universities.”
In the letter requesting raw data from Mann, Barton predicates his skepticism of Mann’s results on a February article in the Wall Street Journal, which cites the work of Stephen McIntyre, a former director of several mineral exploration companies, and economist Ross McKitrick. [3] McIntyre and McKitrick claim that Mann’s study is rife with methodological errors and data flaws.
McIntyre and McKitrick’s dispute with Mann’s work was published in a little-known journal called Energy & Environment, which according to Journal Citation Reports is found at only 25 institutions worldwide, and is not included on the Journal Citation Reports list of impact factors for the top 6,000 peer-reviewed journals. The article was also published in Geophysical Research Letters.
McIntyre and McKitrick’s study has received substantial criticism from several prominent climate scientists. NASA’s Schmidt told BushGreenwatch, “Most of their study has been shown to be wrong or irrelevant.”
McKitrick is a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute, a free-market oriented Canadian think tank that received $60,000 from ExxonMobil in 2003. [4] Both McIntyre and McKitrick are listed as “experts” for the George C. Marshall institute, which has received $515,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998. [5]
Barton, who will chair the upcoming House-Senate conference on the energy bill, also has close ties to the energy industry. Since 1987, he has received $1.84 million from the oil, gas, coal, nuclear, electricity and chemical industries — more than any other member of the House.
Barton’s request for Mann’s data comes at a time when the Bush Administration has been consistently accused of downplaying science on climate change.
========================
Rep. Waxman Responds to Rep. Barton Request on Climate Science:
EESI Climate Change News, July 8, 2005
On July 1, Rep. Waxman (D-CA) sent a letter to Rep. Barton (R-TX) strongly questioning the motivation behind letters sent by Reps. Barton and Whitfield (R-KY) to five scientists on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) requesting detailed information about the IPCC’s climate change studies.
In his letter, Rep. Waxman said, “although you have failed to hold a single hearing on the subject of global warming?.and you have vociferously opposed all legislative efforts in the Committee to address global warming?your June 23 letters justify your extraordinary demands of these scientists on the grounds that ‘the Committee must have full and accurate information when considering matters relating to climate change policy.'”
As summarized by Rep. Waxman, Sen. Barton’s letters “demand information about ‘all financial support’ [the scientists] ever received during their long and distinguished careers.?.’all data archives’ for every published study they ever wrote, and multiple other burdensome and intrusive subjects.” Rep. Waxman states that Sen. Barton’s requests “do not appear to be a serious attempt to understand the science of global warming. Some might interpret them as a transparent effort to bully and harass climate change experts who have reached conclusions with which you disagree.”
In conclusion, Rep. Waxman states, “If the Committee indeed has a genuine interest in the science of global warming, you should withdraw these letters and instead schedule a long-overdue Committee hearing on climate change. The five scientists you have written would all make excellent witnesses. Evaluating their testimony on the science?and the testimony of other witnesses?would be a far more effective way to educate members about global warming than launching this dubious investigation.”
Loading...