Over the course of this Congress, the Commerce Committee will pursue legislation to strengthen the federal climate research program.  We owe it to our constituents and future generations to support the fundamental science needed to fully understand the impact of climate change.

 

However, before we can even begin debate on climate change, we much investigate the numerous allegations that our federal scientists are being constrained from conveying their research findings and conclusions.

 

Such allegations are serious.  We in Congress as well as decision makers within the regulatory agencies must examine and weigh the scientific evidence to guide changes in policies, laws, and regulations.  To make the best decisions, we need free access to unbiased scientific findings and conclusions because the quality of our decisions is highly dependent upon the science we use to make those decisions.  To deny federal scientists the right to speak, to change the findings of their work, or to deny the release of their work, basically creating an atmosphere of intimidation and fear, is a great disservice to the public.  

 

On January 30, 2007, the Union of Concerned Scientists issued the report, Atmosphere of Pressure: Political Interference in Federal Climate Science.  The report found and documented an alarming number of instances in which federal scientists and employees were pressured to downplay the significance of their climate science work or were prevented from sharing their results and conclusions with the public.   

 

Today’s hearing will examine these claims, which suggest that we have not always had unfettered access to climate change research data.

 

Let me be clear to those who criticize this report, claiming that the survey size is too small; one incidence of political tampering with science is too many.

 

Dr. Rowland, who appears today, shared the 1995 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his work on the environmental effects of chlorofluorocarbons or CFCs.  His work eventually led to the Montreal Protocol, an international treaty which stopped the widespread use of CFCs and helped reverse damage to the ozone layer. 

 

Dr. Rowland serves as an example of the role that accurate and undistorted science can play in achieving sound policy.   

 

Our other witnesses will discuss the extent to which government scientists are able to communicate their results and conclusions to Congress and the public, and will make recommendations on how to increase scientific openness in all federal agencies. 

 

Of course, the communication of scientific information is just half of the story of science integrity.  We also must fund appropriate research to ensure that climate science advances, so we have another witness who will discuss the funding of climate research, including important satellite measurements. 

 

We have much work ahead of us if we are to seriously address the issue of climate change.  We begin with the issue of scientific integrity as the foundation of that effort.  So I thank all of our witnesses for joining us today and look forward to a lively discussion.

 

###