    [House Hearing, 113 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                            POLICY RELEVANT CLIMATE

                               ISSUES IN CONTEXT

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                          SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT

                  COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                            THURSDAY, APRIL 25, 2013

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 113-24

                                   __________

     Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

           Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    80-563                    WASHINGTON : 2013
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
    Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
    area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104  Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
    20402-0001

                  COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

                       HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair
    DANA ROHRABACHER, California         EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
    RALPH M. HALL, Texas                 ZOE LOFGREN, California
    F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR.,         DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
        Wisconsin                        DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
    FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma             FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
    RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas              SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
    MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas             ERIC SWALWELL, California
    PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia               DAN MAFFEI, New York
    STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi       ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
    MO BROOKS, Alabama                   JOSEPH KENNEDY III, Massachusetts
    RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois             SCOTT PETERS, California
    LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana               DEREK KILMER, Washington
    STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas                AMI BERA, California
    BILL POSEY, Florida                  ELIZABETH ESTY, Connecticut
    CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming              MARC VEASEY, Texas
    DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona            JULIA BROWNLEY, California
    THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              MARK TAKANO, California
    KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota           ROBIN KELLY, Illinois
    JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma
    RANDY WEBER, Texas
    CHRIS STEWART, Utah
    VACANCY
                                     ------

                          Subcommittee on Environment

                        HON. CHRIS STEWART, Utah, Chair
    F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR.,         SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
        Wisconsin                        JULIA BROWNLEY, California
    DANA ROHRABACHER, California         DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
    RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas              MARC VEASEY, Texas
    PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia               MARK TAKANO, California
    RANDY WEBER, Texas                   ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
                                         EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
    LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas

                                C O N T E N T S

                            Thursday, April 25, 2013

                                                                       Page
    Witness List.....................................................     2

    Hearing Charter..................................................     3

                               Opening Statements

    Statement by Representative Chris Stewart, Chairman, Subcommittee
      on Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
      U.S. House of Representatives..................................     7
        Written Statement............................................     8

    Statement by Representative Suzanne Bonamici, Ranking Minority
      Member, Subcommittee on Environment, Committee on Science,
      Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...........    10
        Written Statement............................................    11

    Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee
      on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
      Representatives................................................    13
        Written Statement............................................    14

                                   Witnesses:

    Dr. Judith Curry, Professor, School of Earth and Atmospheric
      Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology
        Oral Statement...............................................    15
        Written Statement............................................    18

    Dr. William Chameides, Dean and Professor, Nicholas School of the
      Environment, Duke University
        Oral Statement...............................................    34
        Written Statement............................................    36

    Dr. Bjorn Lomborg, President, Copenhagen Consensus Center
        Oral Statement...............................................    46
        Written Statement............................................    48

    Discussion.......................................................    72

                 Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

    Dr. Judith Curry, Professor, School of Earth and Atmospheric
      Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology......................    88

    Dr. Bjorn Lomborg, President, Copenhagen Consensus Center........    90

                Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record

    Submitted statement by Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking Member,
      Committee on Science, Space and Technology.....................    94

                   POLICY RELEVANT CLIMATE ISSUES IN CONTEXT

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, APRIL 25, 2013

                      House of Representatives,
                                    Subcommittee on Environment
                   Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
                                                       Washington, D.C.

        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in
    Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Chris
    Stewart [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]

        Chairman Stewart. The Subcommittee on the Environment will
    come to order. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to today's
    hearing, entitled ``Policy Relevant Climate Issues in
    Context.'' In front of you are packets containing the written
    testimonies, biographies, and truth in testimony disclosures
    for today's witness panels.
        I now recognize myself for five minutes for an opening
    statement.
        First, I would like to welcome the witnesses today. I thank
    you for your service, and for your sacrifice in being here with
    us. We look forward to an interesting exchange with you. I will
    have a chance to introduce the witnesses later on. I would also
    like to welcome the full Committee Chairman, Chairman Smith.
        At his State of the Union address last month President
    Obama cited as evidence of climate change that heat waves,
    droughts, wildfires, and floods are all now more frequent and
    intense. After calling this issue one of the greatest
    priorities of his second term, he then signaled his intention
    to move forward with aggressive actions in climate change.
    While the details of the President's plans are not yet known,
    today's hearing is intended to provide Members a high level
    overview of the key factors that should inform our decision-
    making on what is, unfortunately, one of the most controversial
    public policy issues of our day.
        Nobel Prize winning physicist Niels Bhor, later followed by
    the noted philosopher Yogi Berra, famously said, ``Prediction
    is very difficult, especially if it is about the future.'' The
    scientific and political rhetoric associated with climate
    change would benefit greatly from the humility espoused by
    these two gentlemen. For example, the number and complexity of
    factors influencing climate, from land and oceans, to sun and
    clouds, make precise long term temperature predictions an
    extremely difficult challenge. This may help explain why
    consensus climate models, likely to serve as a basis for major
    economy-wide regulatory actions, have such poor track records.
    These models regularly overstate the actual temperature changes
    and have failed to predict the current 16 year absence of
    global warming. And I would like to emphasize that point, if I
    could. Contrary to the predictions of almost all modeling, over
    the past 16 years there has been a complete absence of
    climate--global warming.
        There are two obvious lessons here. First, modeling
    predictions are not infallible. And second, while we encounter
    those who claim to know precisely what our future climate will
    look like, and then attack anyone who may disagree with them,
    when that happens, we have stepped out of the arena of science
    and into the arena of politics and ideology. And it is
    important to recognize that the direction we choose to take on
    climate change is not resolved by science alone. Once the
    scientific analysis is complete, we must then make value
    judgments and economic decisions based on a real understanding
    of the costs and benefits of any proposed actions. It is
    through this lens that we should review the President's
    forthcoming executive actions and proposed regulations.
        While we still don't know the specifics of the President's
    plans, we know enough to cause people such as myself great
    concern. I am worried that his anticipated restrictions in
    industrial CO2 emissions may have no discernible
    impact on the climate, but will amount to a significant energy
    tax on the American people. And it is important to note this
    isn't a cost that you can pass on to the millionaires and the
    billionaires that the administration likes to talk about. Much
    of these additional costs will be borne by those who can least
    afford it, retirees on fixed income, young families, and those
    on the bottom of the rung of the economic ladder. The
    President's proposals will also reduce our economic activity at
    a time when we can least afford it, while sending jobs overseas
    to countries like China and India.
        If you care about the poor and the disadvantaged among us,
    then you must be very careful as you consider some of the
    President's proposals to combat climate change. The bottom line
    is this, not only should we consider the science behind climate
    change, but also the economic costs of implementing any
    suggested remedies. I look forward to discussing this in
    further detail with our witnesses today, and learning more
    about the best approach to this important issue of energy,
    climate, and the environment.
        I yield back the balance of my time, and recognize the
    Ranking Member, Ms. Bonamici, for her opening statement.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Stewart follows:]

           Prepared Statement of Subcommittee Chairman Chris Stewart

        Good morning and welcome to this morning's Environment Subcommittee
    hearing entitled ``Policy Relevant Climate Issues in Context.''
        At his State of the Union address earlier this year, President
    Obama cited as evidence of climate change that ``heat waves, droughts,
    wildfires, and floods--all are now more frequent and intense.'' After
    calling this issue one of the greatest priorities of his second term,
    he then signaled his intention to move forward with aggressive actions
    to combat climate change. Today's hearing is intended to provide
    Members a high-level overview of the key factors that should inform our
    decision-making on what is unfortunately one of the most controversial
    public policy issues of our day.
        Nobel Prize-winning physicist Neils Bohr--later followed by noted
    philosopher Yogi Berra--famously said, ``Prediction is very difficult,
    especially if it's about the future.'' The scientific and political
    rhetoric associated with climate change could benefit greatly from the
    humility espoused by these two gentlemen.
        For example, the number and complexity of factors influencing
    climate-from land and oceans to the sun and clouds-make precise long-
    term temperature predictions an extremely difficult challenge. This may
    help explain why ``consensus'' climate models likely to serve as the
    basis for major, economy-wide regulatory actions have such poor track
    records. These models regularly overestimate actual temperature changes
    and have failed to predict the current 16-year absence of global
    warming. And let me emphasize this last statement--contrary to the
    predictions of almost all modeling, over the past 16 years there has
    been a complete absence of global warming.
        There are two obvious lessons here. First, modeling predictions are
    not infallible. Second, when we encounter those who claim to know
    precisely what our future climate will look like, and then attack any
    who may disagree with them, we have stepped out of the arena of science
    and into the arena of politics and ideology.
        It is also important to recognize that the direction we choose to
    take on climate change is not resolvable by science alone. Once the
    scientific analysis is complete, we must then make value judgments and
    economic decisions based on a real understanding of the costs and
    benefits of any proposed actions.
        It is through this lens that we should review the President's
    forthcoming executive actions and proposed regulations.
        While we still don't know all the specifics of the President's
    plan, we know enough to cause me great concern. I am worried that his
    anticipated restrictions on industrial CO2 emissions may
    have no discernible impact on climate, but will amount to a significant
    energy tax on the American people. I am also concerned that his
    proposals will reduce our economic activity at a time when we can least
    afford to do that, while sending jobs overseas to countries such as
    China and India. I look forward to discussing this in further detail
    with our witnesses today, and learning more about how best to approach
    the important issues of energy, climate, and the environment.
        I yield back the balance of my time, and recognize Ranking Member
    Bonamici for an opening statement.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
    holding this hearing. I would like to thank our witnesses for
    being here today. This is an important issue. In fact, I want
    to thank the chair of the full Committee as well. Ranking
    Member Eddie Bernice Johnson and I sent a letter before this
    earlier scheduled hearing emphasizing the importance of this
    topic.
        The reality of climate change is increasingly impossible to
    deny. Over the past 25 years numerous scientists from the
    United States and around the world have appeared before
    Congress to testify about climate change. Countless peer review
    studies have shown that climate change is real, and that humans
    are a significant contributing factor. Now we must shift the
    debate to planning, and discuss what actions we should take to
    mitigate the environmental, economic, and health effects that
    will inevitably hit our communities.
        The stated subject of this hearing is policy relevant
    climate issues. Because a preponderance of scientific evidence
    shows that human activity is contributing to changes in the
    global climate, I submit that all climate change issues have
    become policy relevant. The United States, a large historical
    producer, and second largest current producer of greenhouse
    gases, bears a great responsibility to the rest of the world to
    ensure that we promote policies that will reduce the amount of
    greenhouse gases we continue to place in the Earth's
    atmosphere. We have the talent and ability to take on this
    important leadership role. We should also, as a country, have
    the will to do so.
        Glacial withdrawal, loss of sea ice, ocean acidification,
    rising temperatures in sea levels are real and measurable
    problems. Although the effects of climate change are global,
    the impacts of this change are already felt throughout the
    United States. Recent droughts in the American southwest and
    historic severe weather events throughout the country are
    recent examples. According to the National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration and NASA, 2012 was the warmest year
    on record in the United States, and the nine warmest years have
    all occurred since 1998.
        Climate change affects our economy. In my State of Oregon,
    we have developed a reputation for growing quality wine grapes,
    including world renowned Pinot Noir. Much of the quality is
    attributable to the climate in Oregon, where the Pinot grapes
    grow at a temperature range between 57 and 61 degrees. Even a
    minor variation in temperature can threaten the continued
    quality, and hence value, to the Oregon economy of wines in the
    region.
        Another important impact of global climate change on the
    economy in the Pacific Northwest, and other coastal areas,
    includes the effect of ocean acidification on the shellfish
    industry. The district I represent is home to a thriving
    fishing community, and in recent years oceanic and atmospheric
    changes have caused low oxygen content in the water, hypoxia,
    that has created dead zones that kill fish, crab, and other
    marine life. Agriculture and fishing are just two examples of
    industries concerned about climate change, and they are looking
    to their policymakers for solutions.
        Climate change also has broad implications on other aspects
    of our Nation's economy. The Federal Government assists those
    who are hard hit by harsh weather events, and scientists point
    to increasingly severe weather patterns as further evidence of
    the changing climate. The Government Accountability Office
    recently released a report that, for the first time, lists
    climate change as a significant financial risk to the Federal
    Government. The report adds that the Federal Government is not
    well positioned to address the fiscal exposure presented by
    climate change.
        As a Nation, we are becoming too familiar with the
    consequences of waiting until the 11th hour to develop
    solutions to the problems we face. Let us not make the mistake
    with something as serious as climate change. And even though we
    may have differences of opinion about what is causing climate
    change, we can still discuss the economic gains we can make by
    investing in a clean energy economy, modernizing our
    infrastructure, and seeking energy independence. The United
    States has been a leader in renewable energy technology and
    climate research. We must continue our leadership if we intend
    to leave our children and grandchildren a clean and healthy
    environment in which they can thrive economically.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to the testimony
    from these experts today, and I yield back the balance of my
    time.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Bonamici follows:]

       Prepared Statement of Subcommittee Ranking Member Suzanne Bonamici

        Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing, and I would like
    to thank our witnesses for being here today.
        The reality of climate change is increasingly impossible to deny.
    Over the past 25 years, numerous scientists from the United States and
    around the world have appeared before Congress to testify about climate
    change. Countless peer-reviewed studies have shown that climate change
    is real and that humans are a significant contributing factor. Now we
    must shift the debate to planning and discuss what actions we should
    take to mitigate the environmental, economic, and health effects that
    will inevitably hit our communities.
        The stated subject of this hearing is ``policy-relevant'' climate
    issues. Because a preponderance of scientific evidence shows that human
    activity is leading to changes in the global climate, I submit that all
    climate issues have become ``policy-relevant.'' The United States, a
    large historical producer and second largest current producer of
    greenhouse gases, bears a great responsibility to the rest of the world
    to ensure that we promote policies that will reduce the amount of
    greenhouse gases we continue to place in the Earth's atmosphere. We
    have the talent and ability to take on this important leadership role;
    we should also, as a country, have the will to do so.
        Glacial withdrawal, loss of sea ice, ocean acidification, and
    rising temperatures and sea levels are real and measurable problems.
    Although the effects of climate change are global, the impacts of this
    change are already felt throughout the U.S. Record droughts in the
    American Southwest and historic severe weather events throughout the
    country are recent examples. According to the National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and NASA, 2012 was the warmest year
    on record for the United States, and the nine warmest years have all
    occurred since 1998.
        Climate change affects our economy. Oregon has developed a
    reputation for growing quality wine grapes, including the world-
    renowned pinot noir. Much of the quality is attributable to the climate
    in Oregon, where the pinot grapes grow in a temperature range of
    between 57 and 61 degrees, and even a minor variation in temperature
    can threaten the continued quality--and hence, value to the Oregon
    economy-of wines in the region.
        Another important economic impact of global climate change in the
    Pacific Northwest and in many coastal areas is the effect of ocean
    acidification on the shellfish industry. My district is home to a
    thriving fishing community. In recent years, oceanic and atmospheric
    changes have caused low-oxygen content in the water--a condition known
    as hypoxia--that has created dead zones that kill fish, crab, and other
    marine life.
        Agriculture and fishing are just two examples of industries
    concerned about climate change--they are looking to their policymakers
    for solutions.
        Climate change also has broad implications on other aspects of our
    nation's economy. The federal government assists those who are hit hard
    by harsh weather events, and scientists point to increasingly severe
    weather patterns as further evidence of the changing climate. The
    Government Accountability Office recently released a report that, for
    the first time, lists climate change as a ``significant financial risk
    to the federal government.'' The report adds ``the federal government
    is not well-positioned to address the fiscal exposure presented by
    climate change.''
        As a nation, we are becoming too familiar with the consequences of
    waiting until the eleventh hour to develop solutions to the problems we
    face. Let's not make that mistake with something as serious as climate
    change. And even though we may have differences of opinion about what
    is causing climate change, but we can still discuss the economic gains
    we can make by investing in a clean energy economy, modernizing our
    infrastructure, and seeking energy independence. The United States has
    been a leader in renewable energy technology and climate research. We
    must continue our leadership if we intend to leave our children and
    grandchildren a clean and healthy environment in which they can thrive
    economically.
        Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.
        Chairman Stewart. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici.
        I now recognize the chair of the full Committee, Mr. Smith,
    for his opening statement.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, climate change is an issue that needs to be
    discussed thoughtfully and objectively. Unfortunately, it is
    sometimes surrounded by claims that conceal the facts and
    hinder the proper weighing of policy decisions. I believe in
    the integrity of science, and challenging accepted beliefs
    through open debate and critical thinking is a primary part of
    the scientific process. To make rational decisions about
    climate change, we need to examine the relevant scientific
    issues, along with the costs and benefits, and better
    understand the uncertainties that surround both.
        As we will hear today, there is still a great amount of
    uncertainty associated with our understanding of human
    influences on climate. A recent article in ``The Economist''
    pointed out that climate models have greatly over-predicted
    warming. In fact, global temperatures have held steady over the
    last 15 years, despite rising greenhouse gas emissions. ``The
    Economist'' calls the lack of warming a surprise. It notes that
    the climate might be changing in ways not properly understood,
    which could have profound significance for climate science, and
    for environmental and social policy. This statement, from a
    respected publication that had previously supported aggressive
    emission controls, highlights the complexity of the climate
    issue. It calls attention to the limits of our understanding as
    to its causes. There is still much we don't know.
        I am concerned that the administration now seeks to lock in
    an inflexible regulatory framework based on a limited
    understanding of the challenge. I am also concerned that these
    regulations may hinder economic development and our ability to
    deal with this and other challenges that lie before us. Several
    Federal Government agencies have implemented policies that
    drive up energy prices, burden employers, and cost us jobs, but
    many of these rules have no meaningful impact on climate
    change.
        For example, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed
    standards that virtually prohibit new coal fired power plants
    from being built, and regulations that affect existing power
    plants and refineries may soon follow. Analysis of EPA's
    regulatory options reveal that these regulations will
    significantly increase the price of electricity and gasoline.
    At the same time, the agency has stated that cutting U.S.
    emissions will have little or no effect on global greenhouse
    gas concentrations due to growing emissions in a developing
    world, particularly China and India.
        A recent Energy Information Administration report shows
    that U.S. reductions in emissions have little effect globally.
    It found that U.S. domestic carbon dioxide emissions decreased
    by 12 percent between 2005 and 2012, more than any other
    nation. Global emissions actually increase by 15 percent over
    roughly the same period. Affordable, reliable energy is key to
    a healthy economy. American consumers and small and large
    businesses all depend on reliable and affordable energy. It is
    only through sustained economic growth that we will be able to
    make the investments in research and technology necessary to
    fully understand and properly deal with problems like climate
    change. We should take a step back from the claims of impending
    catastrophe and think critically about what we know, and what
    we don't know, about this issue. While it may require us to
    question some accepted views, that may be what is necessary for
    us to fully understand the signs of climate change and
    determine a rational policy response.
        Mr. Chairman, I just want to make the observation that I
    think this is an exceptionally knowledgeable panel of experts
    and witnesses we have before us today, and I very much look
    forward to their testimony. Now I yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]

            Prepared Statement of Committee Chairman Lamar S. Smith
        Climate change is an issue that needs to be discussed thoughtfully
    and objectively. Unfortunately, it's sometimes surrounded by claims
    that conceal the facts and hinder the proper weighing of policy
    options.
        I believe in the integrity of science. And I find it unfortunate
    that those who question certain scientific views on climate have their
    motives impugned. Challenging accepted beliefs through open debate and
    critical thinking is a primary part of the scientific process. To make
    a rational decision on climate change, we need to examine the relevant
    scientific issues along with the costs and benefits and better
    understand the uncertainties that surround both.
        As we will hear today, there is still a great amount of uncertainty
    associated with our understanding of human influences on climate. A
    recent article in The Economist pointed out that climate models have
    greatly over-predicted warming. In fact, global temperatures have held
    steady over the past 15 years despite rising greenhouse gas emissions.
        The magazine calls the lack of warming a ``surprise.'' It notes
    that the climate might be changing in ways not properly understood,
    which ``could have profound significance for climate science and for
    environmental and social policy.''
        This statement, from a respected publication that had previously
    supported aggressive emission limits, highlights the complexity of the
    climate issue. It calls attention to the limits of our understanding as
    to its causes. Indeed, there is much we don't know. I am concerned that
    the Administration now seeks to lock in an inflexible regulatory
    framework based on a limited understanding of the challenge. I'm also
    concerned that these regulations may hinder economic development and
    our ability to deal with this and other challenges that lie before us.
        Several federal government agencies now implement policies that
    drive up energy prices, burden employers and cost us jobs. But, many of
    these rules have no meaningful impact on climate change. For example,
    the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed standards that
    virtually prohibit new coal-fired power plants from being built. And
    regulations that affect existing power plants and refineries are soon
    to follow. Analyses of EPA's regulatory options reveal that these
    regulations will significantly increase the price of electricity and
    gasoline.
        At the same time, the Agency has stated that cutting U.S. emissions
    will have little or no effect on global greenhouse gas concentrations
    due to growing emissions in the developing world, particularly China
    and India. A recent Energy Information Administration report shows that
    U.S. reductions in emissions have little effect globally. It found that
    U.S. domestic carbon dioxide emissions decreased by 12 percent between
    2005 and 2012--more than any other nation. Global emissions actually
    increased by 15 percent over roughly the same period.
        Affordable, reliable energy is key to a healthy economy. American
    consumers and small and large businesses all depend on reliable and
    affordable energy. It is only through sustained economic growth that we
    will be able to make the investments in research and technology
    necessary to fully understand and properly deal with problems like
    climate change. We should take a step back from the claims of impending
    catastrophe and think critically about what we know and what we don't
    know about this issue.
        While it may require us to question some scientific views, that may
    be what is necessary for us to fully understand the science of climate
    change and determine a rational policy response.
        Chairman Stewart. Thank you, Chairman Smith.
        If there are Members who wish to submit additional opening
    statements, your statements will be added to the record at this
    point.
        At this time I would like to introduce our witnesses, and,
    as the full Committee Chairman recognized, this is an
    extraordinary panel.
        Our first witness is Dr. Judith Curry, Professor and Chair
    of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia
    Institute of Technology, and President of the Climate Forecast
    Applications Network. Prior to joining Georgia Tech, she had
    faculty positions at the University of Colorado, Penn State
    University, and Perdue University. Dr. Curry also currently
    serves as the NASA Advisory Council, Earth Science
    Subcommittee, and the DOE Biological and Environment Research
    Advisory Committee. Dr. Curry received a Ph.D. in atmospheric
    science from the University of Chicago in 1982.
        Our second witness today is Dr. William Chameides, Dean and
    Professor at the Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke
    University. Dr. Chameides has over 30 years of experience in
    academia as professor, researcher, and teacher. He is a member
    of the National Academy of Sciences. Previously Dr. Chameides
    worked at the Environmental Defense Fund as a chief scientist.
    He received his Ph.D. from Yale University.
        Our final witness today is Dr. Bjorn Lomborg, Director of
    the Copenhagen Consensus Center, and adjunct professor at the
    Copenhagen business school. Dr. Lomborg is one of ``Time''
    magazine's 100 most influential people, and one of the 75 most
    influential people of the 21st century, according to
    ''Esquire'' magazine. Dr. Lomborg received his Ph.D. in
    political science at the University of Copenhagen.
        As our witnesses should know, and I am sure that you do,
    spoken testimony is limited to five minutes each, after which
    the Members of the Committee will have five minutes each to ask
    you questions.
        I recognize now Dr. Curry for five minutes to present her
    testimony.

               TESTIMONY OF DR. JUDITH CURRY, PROFESSOR,

               SCHOOL OF EARTH AND ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES,

                    GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

        Dr. Curry. I would like to thank the Subcommittee for the
    opportunity to offer testimony this morning. My name is Judith
    Curry. I am chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric
    Sciences at Georgia Tech. For the past 30 years I have
    conducted research on topics that include climate feedback
    processes in the Arctic, the role of clouds and aerosols in the
    climate system, and the impact of climate change on hurricanes.
    As president of a small company, Climate Forecast Applications
    Network, I have worked with decision-makers on climate impact
    assessments and using short term climate forecasts to support
    adaptive management. I am also proprietor of the weblog
    Climate, Et Cetera.
        For the past several years I have been promoting dialogue
    across a full spectrum of beliefs and opinion on the climate
    debate. I have learned about the complex reasons that
    intelligent, educated, and well-informed people disagree on the
    subject of climate change, as well as tactics used by both
    sides to try to gain political advantage in the debate. Through
    my company, I have learned about the complexity of different
    decisions that depend on weather and climate information. I
    have learned the importance of careful determination and
    communication of forecast uncertainty, and the added challenges
    associated with predicting extreme weather events. I have found
    that the worst prediction outcome is a prediction issued with a
    high level of confidence that turns out to be wrong. A close
    second is missing the possibility of an extreme event.
        If all other things remain equal, it is clear that adding
    more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will warm the planet.
    However, the real difficulty is that nothing remains equal, and
    reliable prediction of the impact of carbon dioxide on the
    climate requires that we better understand natural climate
    variability. My written testimony summarized the evidence for
    and against the hypothesis that humans are playing a dominant
    role in global warming. I will make no attempts to summarize
    this evidence in my brief comments this morning. I will state
    that there are major uncertainties in many of the key
    observational data sets, particularly before 1980. There are
    also major uncertainties in climate models, particularly with
    regards to the treatment of clouds and the multi-decadal ocean
    oscillations.
        The prospect of increased frequency or severity of extreme
    weather in a warmer climate is potentially the most serious
    near term impact of climate change. A recent report from the
    inter-governmental panel on climate change found limited
    observational evidence for worsening of most type of extreme
    weather events. Attempts to determine the role of global
    warming and extreme weather events is complicated by the rarity
    of these events, and also by their dependence on natural
    weather and climate regimes that are simulated poorly by
    climate models. Given these uncertainties, there would seem to
    be plenty of scope for disagreement among scientists.
    Nevertheless, the consensus about dangerous anthropogenic
    climate change is portrayed as nearly total among climate
    scientists. Further, the consensus has been endorsed by all of
    the relevant national and international science academies and
    societies.
        I have been trying to understand how there can be such a
    strong consensus, given these uncertainties, excuse me. How to
    reason about uncertainties in the complex climate system is
    neither simple or obvious. Scientific debates involve
    controversies over the value and importance of particular
    classes of evidence, failure to account of indeterminacy and
    ignorance, as well as disagreement about the appropriate
    logical framework for assessing the evidence. For the past
    three years I have been working towards understanding the
    dynamics of uncertainty at the climate science policy
    interface. This research has led me to question whether these
    dynamics are operating in a manner that is healthy for either
    the science or the policy process.
        The climate community has worked for more than 20 years to
    establish a scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate
    change. The IPCC's consensus-building process played a useful
    role in the early synthesis of scientific knowledge on this
    topic. However, I have argued that the ongoing scientific
    consensus seeking process has had the unintended consequence of
    oversimplifying both the problem and its solutions, introducing
    biases into both the science and related decision-making
    processes.
        When uncertainty is not well characterized, and there is
    concern about unknown unknowns, there is increasing danger of
    getting the wrong answer, and optimizing for the wrong thing. I
    have argued in favor of abandoning the scientific consensus
    seeking approach in favor of open debate and discussion of a
    broad range of policy options on the issues surrounding climate
    change. There are frameworks for decision-making under deep
    uncertainty that accept uncertainty and dissent as key elements
    of the decision-making process. Rather than choosing an optimal
    policy based on a scientific consensus, decision-makers can
    design robust and flexible policy strategies that are more
    transparent and democratic, and avoid the hubris of pretending
    to know what will happen in the future. The politicization of
    the climate change issue presents dawning challenges to climate
    science and scientists.
        I would like to close with a reminder that uncertainty
    about the future climate is a two-edged sword. There are two
    situations to avoid. The first is acting on the basis of a
    highly competent statement about the future that turns out to
    be wrong, and the second is missing the possibility of an
    extreme catastrophic outcome. Avoiding both of these situations
    requires much deeper and better assessment of uncertainties and
    areas of ignorance, as well as creating a broader range of
    future scenarios than is currently provided by climate models.
        This concludes my testimony.

        [The prepared statement of Ms. Curry follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]

        Chairman Stewart. Thank you, Dr. Curry.
        Dr. Chameides, please, sir, for five minutes.

                  TESTIMONY OF DR. WILLIAM CHAMEIDES,

                          DEAN AND PROFESSOR,

                  NICHOLAS SCHOOL OF THE ENVIRONMENT,

                            DUKE UNIVERSITY

        Dr. Chameides. Thank you, Chairman Stewart, Ranking Member
    Bonamici, Chair of the Full Committee Smith, and other Members
    of the Subcommittee for the opportunity to testify today. My
    name is Bill Chameides. I am the dean of the Nicholas School of
    the Environment, and a member of the U.S. National Academy of
    Sciences. I am atmospheric scientist who has focused
    principally on the chemistry of the lower atmosphere, trying to
    understand the causes of environmental change, and identify
    pathways towards a more sustainable future.
        My main message today is the risks posed by human caused
    climate change are significant, and warrant timely action to
    minimize these risks. Yes, there are uncertainties, but these
    uncertainties do not justify inaction. What they do suggest is
    that our response should be a flexible one that allows for
    course corrections as new information and knowledge comes
    available. Much of what we know about the climate is the
    product of more than 100 years of research, founded on the most
    basic laws of science, and grounded by ever improving
    observations of the climate system. Thermometer measurements
    show that the Earth's average surface temperature has risen
    substantially over the past century. Much has been made of the
    so-called recent pause, or hiatus, in global warming, but we
    should keep the following context in mind. Present day
    temperatures are anomalously high. The last decade was the
    warmest on record. Nine of the 10 warmest years on record
    occurred since 2001, and 2010 and 2005 were the warmest and
    second warmest years on record, respectively.
        Significantly, the frequencies of extremely hot summer days
    has increased by more than a factor of 10 globally. The climate
    in the United States has become more variable and extreme. Over
    the past 50 years we have seen an increase in prolonged
    stretches of excessively high temperatures, more heavy
    downpours, and in some regions, more severe droughts. The
    preponderance of evidence suggests that most of the recent
    decadal scale warming can be attributed to fossil fuel burning
    and other human activities that release carbon dioxide and
    other heat trapping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
        I have noted that Dr. Curry, in her written testimony,
    states that a 2012 paper by Tonen Xiao suggests that the
    anthropogenic global warming trends might have been
    overestimated by a factor of two in the second half of the 20th
    century. Now, Dr. Curry has been a colleague of mine for many
    years. I respect her as a scientist. In fact, I was--I
    enthusiastically helped recruit her to her present position at
    Georgia Tech. But I find some of her statements to be
    problematic, and this is one of them. In the case of the Tonen
    Xiao paper, it is germane and important to also note that one
    of the implications of their result is that virtually all of
    the net warming over the past 100 years can be attributed to
    human activities.
        Human caused climate changes and impacts will continue for
    many decades, even centuries, however, the precise nature of
    these impacts cannot be predicted with great certainty. But we
    do know that the risks are considerable, and we haven't
    discussed at all the problem of ocean acidification from
    CO2, which is a virtual certainty.
        So how should we, as a Nation, respond? There is, of
    course, room for debate about what climate policies should be
    implemented, but uncertainty is not a reason for inaction. We,
    as individuals, and as a society, often act in the face of
    uncertainty. I, for example, cannot predict if, let alone when,
    there will be a fire in my house, but I pay for fire insurance.
    Similarly, in the face of uncertain but substantial risk from
    climate change, it is prudent to develop and implement a risk
    based flexible response to the climate change challenge. Such a
    response should have the following elements, reducing
    greenhouse gas emissions, mobilizing--investing in science,
    technology, and information systems, participating in
    international climate change efforts, and coordinating a
    national response.
        Let me highlight a few of these, and more details are in my
    written testimony. The nation will need to reduce greenhouse
    gas emissions. The magnitude and speed of emissions reductions
    depends, of course, on societal judgments about how much risk
    is acceptable, and what cost. However, given the long lifetime
    associated with infrastructure for energy production, and the
    potential for irreversible climate change, the most effective
    strategy is to begin ramping down emissions as soon as
    possible.
        Because we cannot predict the exact path climate change
    will take, we cannot prescribe a set of climate policies today
    that we know will be optimum for decades to come, and so we
    need an iterative risk management approach that systematically
    and continuously identifies risks, advances a portfolio of
    actions that reduce risks, and revises responses in light of
    new knowledge. And it is my impression that, on this issue, Dr.
    Curry and I are in agreement.
        America has choices to make about climate change, choices
    that we must face in the face of uncertainty, but also risks
    that are growing with every new ton of greenhouse gases we
    emit. We cannot avoid these choices. Bear in mind that making a
    choice to do nothing is, in fact, a choice. It is a choice that
    our children, and their children, and their children after
    them, will face increased risks from human induced climate
    change.
        Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Chameides follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]

        Chairman Stewart. Dr. Chameides, thank you, sir.
        And now Dr. Lomborg.

               TESTIMONY OF DR. BJORN LOMBORG, PRESIDENT,

                       COPENHAGEN CONSENSUS CENTER

        Dr. Lomborg. Thank you very much. My name is Bjorn Lomborg.
    I work at the Copenhagen Consensus Center, and adjunct
    professor at the Copenhagen Business School. We are talking
    about policy relevant climate issues, so I would like to show a
    little bit of my testimony, in terms of saying what is actually
    relevant for the decisions that you will have to make. Yes, as
    I think all of us agree, global warming is definitely partly,
    and mostly man-made. It is a long term problem. I have tried to
    indicate what is the total cost of this, but we are probably
    talking about 1.4 percent of GDP over the next couple of
    centuries. Obviously that is an order of magnitude impact. So
    it indicates it is not the end of the world, as it is sometimes
    being portrayed, but it is certainly not nothing either, so let
    us try and get this right.
        We also need to recognize that the last 20 years of what we
    have tried to do has managed to do almost nothing. What you see
    here is the CO2 emissions from 1950, and out until
    2035 from the International Energy Agency. You see a little bit
    of crosses around 2010, which was what we promised with Kyoto.
    We managed virtually nothing. We have spent 20 years, and
    managed to do virtually nothing. And we need to recognize that
    the current approach, that focuses very much on saying, it is
    about wind turbines and solar panels, yes, they are going to
    help, but not very much. By--right now, about 0.8 percent of
    all energy comes from modern green agency, and in 2035, with
    very optimistic scenarios, it is going to be 3.2 percent. So we
    are talking about a very small part of the solution. If we are
    going to fix climate change, we will need game changers.
        We also need to recognize, as several Members pointed out,
    cutting CO2 is not free. There is a strong
    correlation between how much more economic growth we have and
    how much more CO2 you put out. So, again, we have to
    recognize we are not polluting the atmosphere with CO2
    just simply to annoy the environmentalists. We are doing it
    simply because it is what powers everything we like. And so,
    unless we find technologies that allow us to continue economic
    growth without the CO2 emissions, I think we are
    going to find it very hard to get most nations on board to
    reduce their carbon emissions.
        We also need to recognize that, whatever we do, it is only
    going to have long term impact. No matter what we do, it is
    really only going to impact the temperature development in the
    second half of the century. And, as some of the Members also
    pointed out, we need to get China and the rest of the
    developing world on board. We can do a lot of good, certainly.
    I come from the European Union. We feel incredibly virtuous,
    but we have done virtually nothing. Let me just show you one
    graph, which I think, in many ways, shows you--this is for
    Britain, but this is true also for the European Union. If you
    will look at the blue curve, you see how much Britain has
    actually cut its carbon emissions, and they are very, very
    proud of this too. But if you look at the red curve, it
    includes how much they also import, minus what they export, of
    their carbon emissions. And, of course, what they have
    essentially done, and what a lot of us have done, is we have
    simply exported a lot of our stuff to China. So we get China to
    emit all the CO2 for us, we feel virtuous, but it
    doesn't actually help the planet.
        So, again, we need to find a way that actually works not
    just to make us feel good, but something that will actually end
    up doing good. So, fundamentally, if I have to summarize why it
    hasn't worked so far, well, we have done Kyoto style cuts,
    which actually cost quite a bit, they do very little good, and
    we need to recognize that right now, and certainly in the next
    10 or 20 years, green energy is not really ready to take over
    in any major way. We need to recognize that currently we are
    just spending lots of money doing fairly little good.
        This is--I am--I apologize, this is the most complicated
    graph, but it shows you how much different--of the main
    countries are paying in implicit CO2 costs per ton
    of CO2. Germany is paying almost $150 per ton. The
    United States is probably paying a little less than $50 per
    ton. Compare this to the fact that the best and the largest
    meta-study of what is the damage cost for an extra ton of
    CO2, I estimate it is probably around $5 per ton. So
    you are--you guys are paying perhaps 10 times too much, Germany
    is paying perhaps 30 times too much. South Korea, obviously, is
    just paying through the roof, and there are a lot more
    expensive solutions. We need to find cheaper ways to tackle
    global warming.
        And that is why I think we need to--if I--in summary, we
    need to recognize this cannot be about trying to make fossil
    fuels so expensive nobody wants them. That is never going to
    work politically, and it is bad economics. Instead, what we do
    need to do is to focus on making green energy so cheap that
    everyone eventually will want them. And, of course, that is
    especially China and India. That is going to happen through
    innovation. This will take time, and we would all wish this not
    to be the case, but we have got to face up to the fact that
    that is the only way we are really going to cut carbon
    emissions.
        We need to recognize we are spending very little on
    research and development right now. We are spending a lot of
    money on inefficient cutting of carbon emissions. Why don't we
    spend more on innovation, and less on cutting carbon emissions?
    Ultimately, that will end up doing a lot more good.
        Let me just--and I don't mean to beat advice or anything,
    but if you looked at what President Obama said in the--in his
    State of the Union, he actually proposed an energy security
    trust. And if you--and it was very sketchy what exactly was
    going to come out of that, but if--the thrust of that was to
    say, let us take a little money and spend it on research and
    development to make green energy cheaper for the future, that
    way we will cut carbon emissions much cheaper by making it
    cheap for everyone, also the Chinese and the Indians.
        Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Lomborg follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]

        Chairman Stewart. Thank you, to all of you, for being
    available to us in your questioning today. The Committee rules
    limit questioning to five minutes, and alternating between
    Republican and Democratic Members of the Subcommittee. And the
    Chair now recognizes himself for five minutes to begin
    questioning.
        Again, in a sincere way, thank you for a very
    intellectual--and I appreciate the tone of your testimony
    today. I do think the nuts and bolts of this issue are fairly
    straightforward, and several of you indicated that it is risk
    management, it is risk analysis. What are the actual risks,
    what are the actual costs, and what is the most effective way
    to getting and arriving at a desirable outcome, which all of us
    want to do? I don't know anyone who doesn't want to arrive at
    the same outcome on this. Of course, analyzing the risk is
    where this has become so politicized, I am afraid.
        And then I think something that I appreciate with this
    panel here, once the risk is determined, trying to determine
    the actual cost to it, and what that means. And as I indicated
    in my opening statement, this can't be borne by a small
    percentage of people. The cost of this will be borne by all of
    us, and in some cases by people who can least afford it. And I
    am not only talking about those of us here in the United
    States, but around the world, and people who will be, in a very
    real way, denied a standard of living that allows them for the
    minimal standards of power, and, in many cases, the things
    tangent to that. For example, health care.
        And, Dr. Chameides, I appreciated your analogy with the
    fire insurance. And, of course, all of us understand that, but
    I wonder if you have a scenario where your house is worth
    $100,000, but it costs you $200,000 to buy an insurance policy
    for that, and I won't ask you if that is a good decision,
    because of course it is not, and I think that is where many of
    us are wondering, what is the cost of that insurance, then? And
    you list several suggestions in your testimony of things that
    we could do to substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions,
    which is incredibly expensive, and, frankly, changes our whole
    economy--mobilizing new--now for adaptation. And I won't read
    your entire list, but, I mean, have you seen any analysis that
    would give you a figure for that of economic input in dollars?
        Dr. Chameides. Certainly. There have been many, many that
    had indicated--I mean, it depends, again, on how rapidly you
    want to decrease, but most analyses have indicated that the
    price to our economy for decreasing emissions at a substantial
    rate over the next decade or two are fairly modest, on the
    order of about one percent or less of GDP.
        I think the important thing to bear in mind is----
        Chairman Stewart. Could I just interject?
        Dr. Chameides. Sure.
        Chairman Stewart. I mean, to some people one percent may be
    modest, but it is a meaningful amount of money. We are talking
    trillions of dollars there. Again--yes?
        Dr. Chameides. Yeah, it is true, but it is one percent,
    okay? Without making a value judgment. But I think the
    important thing to bear in mind is--I mean, and, again, we can
    argue about how rapidly we should cut, and how much we should
    cut, but we are talking about a process of cutting emissions
    that will need to occur over many, many decades. We don't
    necessarily need to make major cuts now. I think it is
    important that we get started.
        One of the analogies that I would make--sometimes there has
    been discussion about this or that has virtually no impact on
    the temperature in 2050. I would like to make the analogy of,
    you know, at some point at the end of this hearing, I am going
    to head over to the Metro, and it is going to be--let us say
    1,000 steps. And I have got to make that first step, and that
    first step is really important. But someone could say, don't
    take that first step. It doesn't get you anywhere. I think we
    have to recognize that that first step in setting us down the
    road will be very, very important. And it could be very modest.
    I think we could decide on that.
        Chairman Stewart. Okay. If I could shift gears for just a
    minute, and I will just allow any on the panel to address this,
    and that is--it is interesting to me that the--if you take the
    top 20 primary modeling of this, and yet we are about to drop
    out of the lowest level of that modeling, with this pausing in
    temperature rise, and none of them predicted that. And, I mean,
    is there any idea--might that continue for five years, for ten
    years, for 20 or 30 years? Do we have any idea? Dr. Curry?
        Dr. Curry. I can address that. There are some hypotheses
    that this could go out for another 20 years or so. Associated--
    we have recently seen a shift to the cool phase of the Pacific
    Decadal Oscillation, which means we will see more La Ninas,
    which have a cooling effect. And this could keep us in a--
    basically a flat period for several more decades. So we don't
    quite know--we are also--people are projecting that the sun
    will be acting in a direction that is towards cooling, relative
    to what we saw in the latter half of the 20th century.
        So there are signals that we could see cooling for the next
    few--or steady temperatures for the next few decades.
        Chairman Stewart. Okay.
        Dr. Chameides. Take a couple of seconds----
        Chairman Stewart. Yes.
        Dr. Chameides. --the time has expired. I think we don't
    know, and there is a chance that it may continue. And, in fact,
    there is equal chance, and perhaps less--more of a chance that
    it will increase again at a rapid rate. I think the important
    thing to do is--if you look at the graph of model predicted
    temperatures over--and observe, you will find many instances in
    the record over the 20th century where the model over-predicted
    the warming for a period of time, like it is now. And what
    happens is eventually the atmosphere catches up, and, actually,
    at some points the model under-predicts the warming. So the
    fact that we are over-predicting the warming right now is not
    unprecedented, although it is troubling for many of us, yes.
        Chairman Stewart. Okay. Thank you. I will give the time
    over to the gentlewoman from Oregon.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
    you, panel, for your testimony.
        Dr. Chameides, in your testimony you state that most of the
    recent decadal scale warming can be attributed to fossil fuel
    burning and other human activities that release carbon dioxide
    and other heat trapping greenhouse gases into the environment.
    Will you please expand on what the other human activities are?
        Dr. Chameides. Certainly. A good deal of it is biomass
    burning, deforestation, for example. There are also greenhouse
    gases that other than carbon dioxide. For example, diesel
    burning, and other solid fuels that give rise to black carbon,
    or soot emissions. Methane emissions, some from agriculture,
    some from landfills and so forth are also quite important, for
    example. Fertilizers tend to emit nitrous oxide, which is also
    a very effective greenhouse gas. And then there are
    fluorocarbons that are used in the chemical industry that also
    contribute to global warming.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much. And you also state in
    your testimony that uncertainty is not a reason for inaction,
    and suggest taking the risk based and flexible response to the
    climate change challenge. And I appreciate the analogy, like
    buying insurance for your house, and the Chairman also talked
    about that, you know, considering what if the insurance costs
    more than the house? I think I have to submit that it is easier
    to replace a house than a planet, if we have the kind of damage
    that could come from climate change. What are the main risks to
    humans if we don't decrease our emissions? And are there
    increased risks if delay action? And, in the same vein, you
    talked about the greater risks from further climate change. Are
    the risks different as greenhouse gas emissions increase, or
    are they the same risks, only amplified?
        Dr. Chameides. I would say that, as far as we know, we have
    a long list of risks. Some of the impacts that we see
    potentially happening now, and some that we think will come.
    And I don't necessarily think that qualitatively that will
    change, although they might become more severe. And, of course,
    those risks relate to loss of life and property due to extreme
    weather, droughts. Sea level rise, of course, is a large one.
    We are seeing what we believe is a decimation of forests in the
    west from pine bark beetle infestation, which seems to be in
    part due to the fact that temperatures are so high, and the
    climate is so dry, and a variety of other things.
        I think what is very, very important to bear in mind, in
    terms of making a decision about the future and the risks, is
    that the impact of emissions today won't be fully felt for a
    number of decades. It is sort of the flip side of what Dr.
    Lomborg was saying. And so if we say, well, let us delay and
    see what happens in 20 years, basically not only then have we
    locked in what is happened in the intervening 20 years, but we
    have now locked in to a future.
        And so the issue of the risks that we face is the fact that
    what we do today will have a major impact in the future, and do
    we want to take that chance, or do we want to begin to do
    something to mitigate that?
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. Dr. Lomborg, you talked about
    investing in--heavily in research and development into green
    technologies. In times of budget constraints, oftentimes those
    investments are targeted for cuts, unfortunately. And we are
    committed, I think, in the United States to investing in
    renewable technology and renewable energy. So could you talk a
    little bit about what green technologies you would propose,
    what are the benefits, other than, of course, for the industry
    itself, of investing in green technology?
        Dr. Lomborg. Absolutely, and thank you. The important part
    is to recognize that investing in research and development,
    investing in smart minds--come up with new idea is much, much
    cheaper than the support that we give to existing inefficient
    technologies, like subsidizing solar panels or wind turbines
    right now, so we could actually make money and invest a lot
    more in research and development. My point is simply to say, we
    don't know which technologies--and I think we would all agree
    we don't know what technology's is going to power the middle of
    the century. But what we need to do, and what America has been
    so amazing at doing, is to show the way for the rest of the
    world, coming up with great innovations.
        I love--if you know Craig Venter, the guy who sequenced the
    human genome, he is working on making a bacteria that will
    essentially be producing diesel. I don't know if it is
    possible--it is probably technologically possible, but we also
    know that it is not economically feasible right now, but
    imagine if we could do it? And those are the kinds of ideas--
    there are thousands, literally thousands, of ideas out there.
    They cost very little to support each one of those, and we
    really just need one, or a few, of those technologies to come
    through, and they will then make it possible for everyone else,
    the Chinese and the Indians, to cut their carbon emissions
    dramatically.
        So I agree with Dr. Chameides. Obviously, if we don't do
    anything for 20 years, we would just have wasted 20 years. But
    if we actually make sure that the future will have viable
    alternatives, we could see a dramatic reduction in CO2
    in just a short while, once we get the economics right.
        Ms. Bonamici. I see my time has expired. I yield back.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Stewart. Thank you.
        Chairman Smith.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is probably an
    indication of the expertise of this panel that almost all my
    questions have already been answered, but I do want to make a
    couple comments, and maybe come at some of these issues from
    another way.
        Dr. Lomborg, in your last answer, I think you answered one
    of my questions, which was--you are not suggesting doing that--
    you are not suggesting delaying. In fact, just the opposite. It
    is a very active proposal that will actually, I believe, not
    only benefit America economically, but will actually lead to a
    greater reduction in carbon dioxide, or other greenhouse gases,
    and actually lead to a cleaner environment. And I just have a
    hard time understanding why that doesn't hold more attraction,
    rather than plowing ahead with policies that we know is going
    to hurt American economically, and obviously not produce the
    results that many of us would like, and we could probably agree
    upon.
        Let me ask something else. The United States, as I
    mentioned in my opening statement, has reduced carbon dioxide
    emissions 12 percent of the last seven years. The reset of the
    world has increased carbon dioxide emissions by 15 percent.
    That is as good of a record as, I think, any industrialized
    country in the world has, so we can be grateful for what we
    have been doing in the United States. And I don't think we need
    to keep punishing our citizens economically for doing the right
    thing. But you mentioned a while ago that we are paying 10
    times more than we should for I guess energy, but I wanted to
    ask you to expand a little bit on that. I know you mentioned
    Germany 30 times or greater, but why are we paying 10 times too
    much, and how--what is the answer to not doing that?
        Dr. Lomborg. Thank you very much. Yes, fundamentally we
    have a split in the climate conversation between feeling good
    and doing good. The feeling good part is where we put up a
    solar panel that is not yet effective, or a wind turbine that
    is not yet effective, but telling ourselves, but we are at
    least cutting carbon emissions. Which is true, but for every
    ton we cut, we pay perhaps $50----
        Chairman Smith. I see
        Dr. Lomborg. --when the benefit of that ton is only about
    $5. Now, again, obviously, you can quibble about the exact
    numbers, but it indicates that we are paying a large sum of
    money to do a little good.
        And I would like to get back to your point of--on the
    fracking. Fracking is a technology that we invested in from
    the, what, late '70s in the United States, and we are only just
    seeing the benefits now. Essentially the United States probably
    reduced about eight percent just from fracking. So, to put it
    very bluntly, with fracking you probably cut about 400 million
    tons every year of CO2, and you are getting paid for
    it. You are actually making--compared to prices before, you are
    probably making about $125 billion a year for the American----
        Chairman Smith. We ought to be encouraging that, rather
    than trying to----
        Dr. Lomborg. So my----
        Chairman Smith. --deter it, yeah.
        Dr. Lomborg. The simple point is it is a lot easier to cut
    carbon emissions----
        Chairman Smith. Okay.
        Dr. Lomborg. --and make people money than it is----
        Chairman Smith. Right.
        Dr. Lomborg. --to tell them, could you please cut carbon
    emissions, and it will cost them a lot of money. And that is
    what innovation can do.
        Chairman Smith. Exactly. Thank you, Dr. Lomborg. Let me
    address my next question to all panelists, and, Dr. Curry,
    start with you. And this is the connection between extreme
    weather and climate change.
        Last year the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change,
    IPCC, found that there is a high agreement that long term
    trends in weather disasters ``have not been attributed to
    climate change. Droughts have become less frequent, less
    intense, were shorter in regions like central North America,
    and the absence of extreme weather trends caused by climate
    change is also true for floods, tornadoes, and tropical
    storms.'' Let me just ask you all if you agree with that
    conclusion. That was a small part of a larger report by the
    Panel on Climate Change. Dr. Curry?
        Dr. Curry. I do agree with that statement. The extreme
    events have been--seemed very extreme the last decade, and they
    were certainly more extreme than we saw in the 1980s. But if
    you go back to the 1950s, and if you go back to the 1930s, you
    saw similar patterns. You know, droughts in the southwest,
    elevated hurricane activity, et cetera.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you. Dr. Chameides, do you agree with
    the IPCC?
        Dr. Chameides. Without saying I agree or disagree, let me
    just quote to you something that comes from our own U.S.
    National Climate Assessment. This just----
        Chairman Smith. Is it possible you might tell me whether
    you agree or disagree?
        Dr. Chameides. I have to see the statement in more detail.
    It is not--I am not--I just don't know. I can't comment on it.
        Chairman Smith. Okay.
        Dr. Chameides. Well, what it says is that over the past 50
    years, for the United States, we have seen an increase in
    prolonged stretches of excessively high temperatures, more
    heavy downpours, and, in some regions, more severe drought.
        Chairman Smith. Right.
        Dr. Chameides. So there are some aspects that we are seeing
    changes.
        Chairman Smith. Yeah.
        Dr. Chameides. This is the U.S.----
        Chairman Smith. I think the point the report is making is
    to--if you look at this over a number of years, and sort of put
    it in context that we are seeing that extreme weather occurs
    many decades ago, and is going to continue to occur, and there
    is not necessarily any correlation between that and, say,
    carbon dioxide emissions.
        But, Dr. Lomborg, do you have an opinion on that?
        Dr. Lomborg. I think the fundamental point is that there
    are some things that are actually getting more extreme, but
    there is also a lot of hype, I would agree. But I think the
    real point is to recognize trying to regulate extreme weather
    through carbon cuts is an extremely inefficient way to do it,
    certainly in the next half century. Now, I think we all agree
    that eventually we need to fix this, but I would----
        Chairman Smith. Um-hum.
        Dr. Lomborg. --surmise that, to the extent that you worry
    about people being hit by hurricanes, people being hit by heat
    waves, there are much more direct, and much cheaper, and much
    more effective ways to help them in the short and medium, and
    even rather long term.
        Chairman Smith. And I agree with you. I think technology
    developments need to come first, and that will yield a better
    result, and a more cost efficient result as well.
        Thank you all for your comments. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Stewart. Thank you, Chairman Smith.
        I now turn the time over to colleague from Maryland, Ms.
    Edwards.
        Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member
    Bonamici.
        I had hoped that, in today's hearing, we would be able to
    identify the remaining uncertainties about climate science, and
    understand our ability to mitigate them, and to inform policy
    decisions that protect the public and our economy, and I am not
    totally sure I have heard that quite yet. And, in fact, it has
    been quite disturbing, because what I hear from our witnesses
    is that they agree that climate change is happening, that the
    globe is warming. They agree that it is some combination of
    natural occurrence and human activity. And, in fact, all of you
    are members of various scientific and other societies who
    conclude that a vast majority what is happening right now is
    caused by human activity.
        And yet, here we are, with one of our witnesses saying,
    well, you know, let us just wait and invest down the line to
    get cheaper technology, green technology, that helps us
    mitigate some of our concerns, and that is really disturbing to
    me.
        Dr. Chameides, in your testimony, you say that greenhouse
    gases that we emit now are going to linger in the atmosphere
    for generations, impacting our great-grandchildren, just as we
    are experiencing the impacts of fossil fuels burned over the
    last century. And so, considering the position that some are
    taking, that action now to address climate change is way too
    costly, and your point about the lingering consequences, isn't
    the cost of inaction now great, or greater, than the cost of
    action?
        Dr. Chameides. Thank you. I--my testimony indicates that it
    is my strong opinion that a prudent course of action would
    begin to act now. I don't think we can afford to wait. As I
    said, I think that the issues of how fast, and at what cost,
    are issues that we should discuss as a society. But I think it
    is imprudent to decide that we will simply wait and see what
    happens.
        One of the things I said in my testimony with regard to
    carbon dioxide that I think is useful to bear in mind as a
    measure, some of the carbon dioxide that we emitted, we
    emitted, in the first Model T car is in the atmosphere today.
    And some of the carbon dioxide that we are going to emit when
    we drive home or whatever tonight is going to be in the
    atmosphere of our great-great-grandchildren. So there is a
    decision we have to make about how much of that legacy do we
    want to leave for our future generations? And every day that we
    delay means more of our legacy will be that carbon dioxide.
        Ms. Edwards. Thank you. One of the challenges we have--and,
    Dr. Lomborg, I agree that we need to make investments in green
    technology. In fact, I think many of the Members on my side of
    the aisle have voted repeatedly to make those investments in
    green technology, and in enhancing research and development
    activities, and we have been stopped in our tracks over and
    over again by folks who say, no, we don't want to think about
    that at all, we don't want to make those kind of investments,
    when we know that that would be good for the future at the same
    time that we are trying to reduce CO2 emissions.
        But I am interested in your testimony because you say--and
    it sounds that our Chairman kind of agreed with the investments
    in green technology over time, but you are calling for $40
    billion of investment from the United States Government in
    green technology. And I am going to tell you, you go lobby that
    side of the aisle and see if you can find $40 billion for that
    kind of investment, because I rather doubt that that can
    happen, and especially in this constrained environment. And so
    wouldn't you agree that there has to be some sort of balance
    that says we have to both reduce our current emissions--the
    United States has to take a lead on doing that, try to
    encourage as much as possible China and India. We know what
    those contributions are, but we have a little bit of skin in
    that game, and we have to invest in green technology. But to
    think that we are going to somehow come up with a magic $40
    billion to do that, I think, is--well, it is foolhardy.
        Dr. Lomborg. And thank you very much for those comments. My
    point is simply to say that those are the technologies that
    will power the future. What we have seen right now--and let us
    just remember the last 20 years. We have been making these
    kinds of statements, especially in Europe, for a very long
    time. We want to cut carbon emissions, we have given subsidies
    to a lot of technologies, and we have managed to cut very, very
    little. And to the extent that we have, we have just exported a
    lot of our emissions to China.
        So my concern is really that, by continuing to say, let us
    cut carbon emissions, we actually just end up doing very little
    for a decade or two. I would hate to see that happen, whereas,
    if we invest in research and development, we could actually get
    possibly everybody on board. Just to give you a sense of order
    and magnitude, you are right now spending about $17 billion on
    biofuel subsidies. That would probably be a good thing to cut.
    I am sure I am going to offend somebody here. You are certainly
    also--I would like to just look into those numbers, I can't
    quite remember them, but you are at least spending $20 billion
    on subsidies to solar panels. If you add that up, you would
    have $37 billion I----
        Ms. Edwards. Well, we need to cut--see, my time is expired,
    but we must cut CO2 emissions. That is part of our
    responsibility. It is the responsibility to challenge our
    international partners to do that, and to make the investments
    in green technology and research and development that I would
    agree that we should.
        And my time is expired. Thank you.
        Chairman Stewart. Thank you, Ms. Edwards.
        Mr. Neugebauer?
        Mr. Neugebauer. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank
    you for holding this important hearing, and thank our panelists
    for being here.
        You know, I am just an old land developer from Lubbock,
    Texas, and so I am not a scientist, but what I do know a little
    bit about is markets. And I think, Dr. Lomborg, you mentioned
    that we ought to shift some of our resources into the research
    side, and what we have been doing is subsidizing alternatives
    that we thought would be a part of the solution. And, as you
    mentioned, some of those numbers are big.
        And so if we are going to do a cost benefit analysis of
    these things, doesn't it distort our ability to determine both
    the cost and the benefit if the government is distorting the
    marketplace? And, because many of the alternatives that are
    being offered out there are not commercially viable. And so
    what happens to things that aren't commercially viable, if--
    unless the government determines that it is going to subsidize
    it, they go away, and so those become temporary solutions. So
    what is your thoughts for the government to step back? I mean,
    what we have seen from--particularly from this administration
    is that you have gone out and given huge loans, and grants, and
    subsidies to commercial entities, but it turned out that the
    government thought that was a great idea, the customers didn't
    agree with that.
        So is your--is it your testimony that we should basically
    get the government out of the subsidy business?
        Dr. Lomborg. No, it is that we should be much smarter about
    how we make the argument. Let us remember, if global warming is
    a problem, and I am arguing that, with the best meta-studies, a
    ton of CO2 emitted about now causes about $5 of
    aggregate damage, we need to somehow reflect that. What we need
    to recognize is that right now we are possibly subsidizing
    green energy sources to the tune of $50 per ton of CO2
    avoided, so we are paying too much to avoid too little damage.
        But that doesn't alleviate us from actually having to do
    something to avoid those tons that the United States is
    responsible for. But, of course, we would also like to see all
    the tongs that the Chinese are responsible for, and the Indians
    are responsible for. And, as the Chairman rightly mentioned, I
    think the Chinese and Indians are more concerned about just
    getting their kids an education, and food on their table, and a
    lot of other issues. So it lies to our responsibility to make
    sure that we invest smartly so that we can avoid that extra
    damage down the line.
        If you invest in research and development--and there will
    be an under investment in research and development in the
    private market, simply because if you--imagine Mitchell, he did
    the first fracking back in '78. If nobody had supported him,
    why on earth would he have done it? Because had he found out
    how to frack spending 30 years, he would have not been able to
    patent that. He would probably not have been able to recoup all
    those benefits. There are huge social benefits. That is why we
    invest in medical sciences, to--for people to come up with
    great new cures. And, likewise, we should be investing in long
    term innovation for technology.
        So my argument is to say stop subsidizing as much, and
    start investing a lot more in research and development.
        Mr. Neugebauer. Dr. Curry, do you concur with that?
        Dr. Curry. Well, yeah. I didn't hear much that I would
    disagree with.
        Mr. Neugebauer. Okay. And, one of the things that you bring
    up, and it is a concern I have, is that if the rest of the
    world--I mean, we almost make it sound like it is--that the
    United States is the number one contributor to greenhouse gases
    in the world, and that is, from my reading, is not the case. Is
    that--anybody disagree with that? So the question is, if the
    rest of the world isn't going to either have the resources to
    make these investments, or decides not to buy into it, and what
    we have seen is many of the other countries have not bought
    into it, then doesn't that diminish our ability to really have
    impactful changes, if, in fact, we are affecting the climate?
    Yeah.
        Dr. Lomborg. Sorry. Just very briefly, if you do a cost
    benefit analysis, the current approach is probably not a good
    way to go. But if you invest in research and development, the
    benefits could be 10, or even more, the amount of dollars that
    you put in. So it would both benefit the United States, because
    you would have better technology for the future, and you would
    also help the rest of the world. I would surmise that might be
    a good deal, even just for the United States. But, of course,
    it would be ideal if we could also get China and India on
    board.
        Chairman Stewart. Thank you again. It looks like our last
    questioner today is Mr. Weber.
        Mr. Weber. Dr. Lomborg, I think--and I came in late, and
    didn't get to hear all of you all's testimony, I apologize, so
    I am--I will go with what I have got. I believe you testified
    you recommend $40 billion in research from the United States,
    and my colleague down on the other side of the aisle said, you
    know, go lobby this side of the aisle. How much luck have you
    had lobbying China?
        Dr. Lomborg. We asked some of the world's top economists
    what are the smartest ways to deal with global warming, and
    what they suggested was we should be spending 0.2 percent----
        Mr. Weber. Are you lobbying China, and Russia----
        Dr. Lomborg. Yes.
        Mr. Weber. --and India?
        Dr. Lomborg. Yes, but it is----
        Mr. Weber. Okay.
        Dr. Lomborg. --also important----
        Mr. Weber. How much money are they investing?
        Dr. Lomborg. Well, they are investing some money, but,
    honestly, I don't know what----
        Mr. Weber. Somewhere south of 40 billion, I suspect?
        Dr. Lomborg. Yeah. Let us also say I am suggesting it is a
    percentage of----
        Mr. Weber. Okay.
        Dr. Lomborg. --GDP, so they would be investing a lot less.
        Mr. Weber. And this is a question for all three of you. Are
    you all aware of the amount of energy required, alternating
    current, to run an electrical grid, for example, the size of
    the one in Texas, which is 85 percent of the state? Are you all
    aware of how much energy is required, and how much of that is
    alternating current, how much direct current, which would be
    solar panels, produces for that grid? Dr.--is it Chameides,
    Chameides? Are you aware of that?
        Dr. Chameides. I don't know the numbers.
        Mr. Weber. How about you, Dr. Curry?
        Dr. Curry. I don't know the numbers, but I am doing
    research related to wind energy generation----
        Mr. Weber. Okay.
        Dr. Curry. --and----
        Mr. Weber. All right. Well, I own an air conditioning
    company, and let me tell you, it is a huge amount of power
    required to power a compressor to enable us to sit here today
    without the windows open, with the lights on, and also to do
    things like refrigerate your food. Just minor details.
        Our quality of life is sustained by the energy that America
    produces. The things that make America great are the things
    that America makes. We have the most stable energy source in
    the world, and that is not by accident. That is by
    entrepreneurs getting out and developing their industry, and
    risking their capital. And I will get off that soapbox for a
    minute, and I will ask you all questions.
        So--there is advocacy going on that the United States needs
    to cut their CO2 emissions, while the rest of the
    world, admittedly China, Mexico, India, and some of the other
    countries will not. All that does is puts us at an economic
    competitive disadvantage, and, in fact, would enable them to
    perhaps become the world leader in the market economy. Our
    quality of life would go down. We would export a lot of jobs
    overseas. Without really knowing that global warming is
    affecting us, are any of you able to adequately measure the
    amount of a tree's ability to assimilate CO2 and
    carbon dioxide, and to reproduce oxygen? Do we know that? Is
    that factored into you all's thought process? Do we need to
    plant more trees? Dr. Curry?
        Dr. Curry. That is certainly a, you know, a good thing. It
    would have many beneficial impacts on the environment----
        Mr. Weber. Okay.
        Dr. Curry. --but there are ways of natural sequestration of
    CO2.
        Dr. Chameides. There are a variety of ways of using land,
    farm land in particular, and forests, to what we call offset
    the emissions from the energy grid, and allowing those offsets
    into a system would greatly reduce the costs.
        Mr. Weber. Okay. And let me--my time is running short here.
    Dr. Chameides, I think you made the comment that the CO2
    emissions from Model As and Model Ts are in still in the
    atmosphere, and I am curious how you have been able to identify
    those, because I can't tell them apart from the '56 Chevy I
    drove in high school.
        Dr. Chameides. I--they are playing ragtime music. No, I am
    sorry, I apologize.
        Mr. Weber. That is all right.
        Dr. Chameides. So we--first of all, we know that the extra
    carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is largely coming from burning
    of fossil fuels from isotopic data. And from that isotopic data
    as well, we can estimate fairly well, accurately, how long a
    carbon dioxide molecule ultimately stays in the atmosphere, in
    a sense, after it has been emitted. And from those two things
    we can estimate how much of the carbon dioxide that was
    emitted, say, in 1920, or '15, or whenever it was----
        Mr. Weber. Okay.
        Dr. Chameides. --is still in the atmosphere today.
        Mr. Weber. Okay. And then, lastly, if we are wrong on
    global warming, and if global cooling results in the next--
    does--that become the discussion in 40, or 50, or 75 years, how
    does the United States recover from losing its market edge in
    the world, from a policy standpoint? How do we recover from
    that mistake? Dr. Curry?
        Dr. Curry. Well, this is why I suggest we need to consider
    a broad range of possible future climate scenarios on time
    scales, you know, out to 3, 4, 5 decades, versus, you know,
    this century. What may happen, you know, on the near term
    decadal time scales may going in a different direction than the
    longer term change, and I think those are the kinds of
    scenarios that we need to consider if our policies are going to
    be robust.
        Dr. Chameides. I guess I--with all due respect, I would
    question the premise. I think we can intelligently come up with
    a large portfolio of options and policy responses, including
    investments in research and other types of activities that will
    not substantially change our market position.
        With regard to the China and other countries, I think, you
    know, we need to recognize that it is a double-edged sword. We
    are in a bit of a bind, because their emissions threaten our
    well-being. And so it behooves us to not only worry about what
    we are doing, but to engage with those countries to get them to
    get--be serious about their emissions. And China is a strange
    animal, but they have actually built a lot of coal fired power
    plants, but they have also invested in a lot of renewable
    energy. I think about 25 percent of their rebuilds----
        Mr. Weber. Okay.
        Dr. Chameides. --is----
        Mr. Weber. And, I am sorry, I am out of time, but, Dr.
    Lomborg, Mr. Chairman, if I may very quickly? How do we
    recover?
        Dr. Lomborg. Well, I think your point is well taken that
    you are not going to see dramatic reductions if it actually
    starts impacting people's life quality. And I think that is
    really the argument for why we haven't done anything in the----
        Mr. Weber. Thank you.
        Dr. Lomborg. --last 20 years. So we need to find smarter
    ways that is actually going to bind everyone together, and it
    is going to be cheaper.
        Mr. Weber. Thank you. I yield back the time I don't have.
        Chairman Stewart. Yes, Mr. Weber. And I misspoke, you are
    not the last questioner today.
        Mr. Rohrabacher?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much. And I did hear your
    testimony, and I had to run off to the Foreign Affairs
    Committee to see that we don't borrow money from China, in
    order to give money to China, because of predictions of global
    warming.
        Now, I can remember at least 10 different occasions in my
    memory of scientists who have said, case closed. Remember that
    expression? Case closed, there is global warming. And I
    remember my colleagues picking up on that, on the other side,
    case closed. And you still hear that ringing, that--well, this
    is--what--the change in the climate is due to man-made
    activity, and this was done in order to suppress debate. Let me
    just say that I have in 24 years in Congress, and I was a
    journalist and a writer before that, and spent some time in the
    White House, I have never heard such an effort go on among
    academic people to cut off debate on an issue than this one. I
    have never seen it before.
        Let me ask you some specific questions. You have some
    experts here now. It appears to me that the baseline for
    deciding how much warming is taking place is around the 1850s.
    And the baseline that we are talking about, in the 1850s,
    happens to be at the very tail end of a couple hundred years of
    what is recognized cooling. Have we come back to the point yet
    that there was a natural thing before that cooling started. Is
    the temperature of the Earth yet back to what it was before it
    went through the mini-Ice Age? Are we back to that temperature
    yet before the mini-Ice Age?
        Dr. Curry. Well, there is debate about what the, you know,
    what the global temperature was during, say, the medieval warm
    period, and it is very hard to sample and infer all that. So
    that is an area of active debate.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Do we have--anybody else have any
    suggestions on that?
        Dr. Chameides. A wide number of studies, in a variety of
    different ways, indicate that the present day temperature is
    warmer than it has been probably for at least 1,000 years or
    longer. Let me just give you one----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Well--but, wait--but we don't know the----
        Dr. Chameides. One----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. One question. We don't know that--even if
    it is hotter than it was before the decrease in temperature,
    when we are claiming that this is some abnormal----
        Dr. Chameides. It is higher----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. --change?
        Dr. Chameides. --than--it is higher than temperatures that
    we have seen for 1,000 years, so it goes----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay.
        Dr. Chameides. Okay.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. All right.
        Dr. Chameides. Let me just give you one simple example----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Yeah, you said it. The reason why I
    stopped is to clarify that, because you said it is hard to
    tell----
        Dr. Chameides. No.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. --but----
        Dr. Chameides. There is----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay.
        Dr. Chameides. These analyses are difficult, but there are
    many of them. Let me just give you one example that I think
    well illustrates what we are talking about.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Um-hum.
        Dr. Chameides. There is a glacier in Peru, it is the--I
    will--I am going to do a terrible job. I think it is Quelccaya
    Glacier, that we have been following for rather a long time.
    Ice that had been in that glacier continuously for 6,000 years
    has recently melted. So, in other words, that glacier's ice has
    been sitting there for 6,000 years, through the medieval warm
    period, all this other stuff----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Um-hum.
        Dr. Chameides. --and now it is melted. Those kinds of--that
    kind of information sort of indicates to me, more than sort of
    for me, anyway, that something unusual is going on.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Dr. Curry, do you agree with that?
        Dr. Curry. Well, the issue of trying to infer globally what
    the climate was like, you know, 1,000 years ago is very, very
    difficult, you know, and so we have regional expressions, such
    as what was mentioned. But how to infer what was going on
    globally, you know, the estimates are very indirect, and,
    again, there----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, especially mankind's--when people
    are advocating not just that we are in some kind of a warming
    trend--I don't know anybody that denies that we have gone
    through warming and cooling trends, but how much of this has
    anything to do with human activity, and gives an excuse, by
    government, to control human activity, meaning our lives and
    our freedom? There is no way to know whether that glacier was
    melting as a result of a natural trend, or by the fact that too
    many people drive cars now, and too much combustion from--too
    much CO2. There is no way to know what that--what
    actually caused that glacier to go back.
        Now, let me ask--people have told me that this melting in
    the Arctic, that we actually had very similar meltings in the
    Arctic in the 1930s. Is that correct?
        Dr. Curry. Actually, the analogy was in the 1950s we saw a
    melt back in the western Arctic, the European Arctic, that
    wasn't quite as big as today. But in terms of, you know, trying
    to put together this--hemispheric sea ice records prior to the
    satellite era, prior to----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Um-hum.
        Dr. Curry. --1979 is challenging. And----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Yeah.
        Dr. Curry. --there is a lot of Russian data that really
    needs to be incorporated. And there is an international effort,
    trying to take the sea ice record back to 1880 in a more robust
    way.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. And I would like to know--when you
    mentioned, Doctor, that we have the warmest nine years on
    record now in the last nine years, what is on the record mean?
    Where does that start at the----
        Dr. Chameides. I meant----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. --bottom of----
        Dr. Chameides. --the instrumental record, yes.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Are we talking about the bottom of the
    global cooling era there, those hundreds of years where you had
    that mini-Ice Age? Is that what you are starting there as on
    the record?
        Dr. Chameides. Yes, but it is the warmest.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Yeah. So on the record there could mean
    something, it could mean nothing. Because----
        Dr. Chameides. Well----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. If we are talking about using a baseline
    that is way below some average, well, then that base--then it
    is irrelevant.
        Dr. Chameides. Well, your point is well taken, but the
    other data that we have, this paleo climate data, would
    indicate that the temperatures we have seen, not necessarily on
    a decadal time scale, but several decadal time scales, are
    warmer than we have seen for a long, long time. As I said----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Long, long time?
        Dr. Chameides. --1,000 years, 2,000 years, something like
    that.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Before mankind existed, there were times
    when more CO2 was in the air. We had times before
    mankind existed when it was warmer. And when we had, before
    mankind, cycles of warming and cooling. Maybe the sun has
    something to do with it.
        Chairman Stewart. And the gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you.
        Chairman Stewart. Thank you.
        I would like to thank the witnesses once again for your
    valuable testimony, and for--the Members for their questions.
    The Members of the Committee may have additional questions for
    you, and we will ask you to respond to those in writing, if
    that is the case. The record will remain open for two weeks for
    additional comments and written questions from the Members.
    Witnesses, once again, with our gratitude, you are excused, and
    this hearing is now adjourned. Thank you very much.
        [Whereupon, at 11:20 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
                                   Appendix I

                                  ----------

                       Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

                       Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
    Responses by Dr. Judith Curry

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]

    Responses by Dr. Bjorn Lomborg

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
                                  Appendix II

                                  ----------

                       Additional Material for the Record

         Submitted statement by Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking Member,
                   Committee on Science, Space and Technology

        Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this hearing today. Climate
    change is one of the greatest challenges facing our Nation, and indeed,
    the entire world. Unfortunately, since the Republican Party took over
    the House in 2011, the issue of climate change has been largely
    ignored. This is a problem that cannot be dismissed. Putting our heads
    in the sand and hoping for the best is a recipe for disaster. So I am
    glad we are having this hearing today, and I hope it is the first of
    many.
        The science surrounding this issue reached a consensus a long time
    ago, and that consensus is that the world is warming and most of that
    warming is being caused by humans. In our own country, organizations
    like the National Academy of Sciences, American Association for the
    Advancement of Science, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical
    Union, American Meteorological Society, American Physical Society, and
    the Geological Society of America have all acknowledged this. Moreover,
    these prestigious organizations have been joined by national academies
    of science from numerous countries around the world, including the
    United Kingdom, France, Germany, Mexico, Canada, Russia, China, Brazil,
    India, and Japan among many others. It has been reported that since
    2007, not a single scientific society of national or international
    standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from this fundamental
    point. The consensus is literally overwhelming.
        Unfortunately, many of my colleagues in the Majority don't seem to
    have gotten the memo. Many openly dispute the science or allude to some
    unspecified but supposedly vast scientific conspiracy. Others, while
    less conspiratorial, insist that nothing can be done about the problem.
    This is a failure of leadership of the highest order.
        Many prestigious organizations and individuals have laid out the
    terrible economic consequences of inaction, including in recent reports
    by the World Bank and the World Economic Forum. These organizations
    also note that the brunt of these effects will be borne by people
    around the world who can least afford to deal with them. A slow motion
    human tragedy could be unfolding before our eyes, and it is
    unconscionable for us to sit and watch it progress when we know how to
    avoid it.
        So I am happy we are having a hearing on this important issue. I am
    also pleased that the Majority has called a witness, Dr. Lomborg, who
    in both his current testimony and previous testimony in Congress, has
    supported placing a price on carbon and dramatically increasing green
    energy research investments. These types of solutions may not be easy,
    but they are absolutely critical to ensure that we don't pass a
    terrible problem onto our children and grandchildren.
        Mr. Chairman, I hope that this hearing will mark the start of a
    serious conversation on the Committee about climate change, and I hope
    it will be followed by hearings with testimony by the organizations
    I've cited.