[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
PLAYING GOD WITH THE WEATHER_
A DISASTROUS FORECAST
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DELIVERING ON
GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 16, 2025
__________
Serial No. 119-46
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on: govinfo.gov, oversight.house.gov or docs.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
61-720 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
JAMES COMER, Kentucky, Chairman
Jim Jordan, Ohio Robert Garcia, California, Ranking
Mike Turner, Ohio Minority Member
Paul Gosar, Arizona Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Columbia
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Michael Cloud, Texas Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Gary Palmer, Alabama Ro Khanna, California
Clay Higgins, Louisiana Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Pete Sessions, Texas Shontel Brown, Ohio
Andy Biggs, Arizona Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
Nancy Mace, South Carolina Maxwell Frost, Florida
Pat Fallon, Texas Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
Byron Donalds, Florida Greg Casar, Texas
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania Jasmine Crockett, Texas
William Timmons, South Carolina Emily Randall, Washington
Tim Burchett, Tennessee Suhas Subramanyam, Virginia
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia Yassamin Ansari, Arizona
Lauren Boebert, Colorado Wesley Bell, Missouri
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida Lateefah Simon, California
Nick Langworthy, New York Dave Min, California
Eric Burlison, Missouri Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
Eli Crane, Arizona Rashida Tlaib, Michigan
Brian Jack, Georgia Vacancy
John McGuire, Virginia
Brandon Gill, Texas
------
Mark Marin, Staff Director
James Rust, Deputy Staff Director
Mitch Benzine, General Counsel
Peter Warren, Senior Advisor
Raj Bharwani, Senior Professional Staff Member
Mallory Cogar, Deputy Director of Operations and Chief Clerk
Contact Number: 202-225-5074
Robert Edmonson, Minority Staff Director
Contact Number: 202-225-5051
------
Subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency (DOGE)
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia, Chairwoman
Michael Cloud, Texas Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico,
Pat Fallon, Texas Ranking Member
William Timmons, South Carolina Elanor Holmes Norton, District of
Tim Burchett, Tennessee Columbia
Eric Burlison, Missouri Stephen Lynch, Massachussetts
Brian Jack, Georgia Greg Casar, Texas
Brandon Gill, Texas Jasmine Crockett, Texas
Vacancy
C O N T E N T S
----------
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
Hon. Marjorie Taylor Greene, U.S. Representative, Chairwoman..... 1
Hon. Melanie Stansbury, U.S. Representative, Ranking Member...... 3
WITNESSES
Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., Senior Fellow, American Enterprise
Institute
Oral Statement................................................... 5
Mr. Chris Martz, Meteorologist/Policy Analyst, Committee for a
Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT)
Oral Statement................................................... 7
Dr. Michael MacCracken (Minority Witness), Chief Scientist for
Climate Change Programs, Climate Institute
Oral Statement................................................... 9
Written opening statements and bios are available on the U.S.
House of Representatives Document Repository at:
docs.house.gov.
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
* Article, ``August 2025, Earth's Third-Hottest August on
Record''; submitted by Rep. Crockett.
* Article, CBS News, ``Natural Disasters Have Caused More Than
$131B in Losses in 2025''; submitted by Rep. Crockett.
* Article, Carbon Brief, ``State of the Climate, 2025 on Track
to be Second or Third Warmest''; submitted by Rep. Crockett.
The documents listed above are available at: docs.house.gov.
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS
* Questions for the Record: Dr. Michael MacCracken; submitted
by Rep. Stansbury.
* Questions for the Record: Mr. Chris Martz; submitted by Rep.
Stansbury.
* Questions for the Record: Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.; submitted by
Rep. Stansbury.
These documents were submitted after the hearing, and may be
available upon request.
PLAYING GOD WITH THE WEATHER-.
A DISASTROUS FORECAST
----------
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2025
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m.,
Room HVC-210, U.S. Capitol Visitor Center, Hon. Marjorie Taylor
Greene, [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Greene, Cloud, Fallon, Burchett,
Burlison, Jack, Gill, Stansbury, Norton, and Crockett.
Also present: Representative Subramanyam.
Ms. Greene. This hearing of the Subcommittee on Delivering
on Government Efficiency will come to order.
Welcome, everyone. Without objection, the Chair may declare
recess at any time.
I recognize myself for the purpose of making an opening
statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRWOMAN
MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE
REPRESENTATIVE FROM GEORGIA
Ms. Greene. Good morning, and welcome to today's hearing. I
would like to first ask for a moment of silence to pray for
Charlie Kirk, his wife Erika, and their children.
[Moment of silence.]
Thank you.
Humans have been trying to control the weather for
centuries. Native American tribes performed ceremonial dances
to summon rain during droughts. The Mayans sacrificed humans to
their rain god. Today, people are still trying to control the
weather, but some things have changed. Modern attempts at
weather control do not appeal to divinity. Instead, they use
technology to put chemicals in the sky. Cloud seeding, for
instance, uses silver or lead iodide to try to increase
rainfall in a specific location.
What has also changed over time is the scale of ambition.
Today's advocates of geoengineering do not just want to address
droughts or improve conditions for agriculture. They want to
control the Earth's climate to address the fake climate change
hoax and head off global warming. That, of course, requires
massive interventions. What methods do they use? One is to
remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Yes, the same carbon
dioxide that keeps plants alive and prevents mass starvation.
Another method they want to use is to block the rays of the sun
from hitting the Earth. You heard that right, yes, the same sun
that makes all life possible on Earth.
Some scientists think they can predict and control the
impact of geoengineering, but even the best scientific models
will never be able to capture all of God's wonderful creation
and nature's mysteries. So, we can predict the real impacts
these global-scale interventions would have little better than
the Native Americans could know the impact of their rain
dances.
And we are not talking about experiments that take place
within the four walls of a laboratory. Our world is the
laboratory, and we happen to be the lab rats. Blocking the sun
would have unknown consequences that no scientific climate
model could ever reliably predict. This could include serious
reductions in crop yields, significant changes in plant and
animal life, disastrous ozone depletion, not to mention the
damage done to human health.
The reality is that the Federal Government has a long
history of experimenting with weather modification. That
includes a 1947 attempt by the military and General Electric to
intercept a hurricane off the coast of Jacksonville, Florida.
It includes an event in the 1950s and 1960s where the U.S. Army
admitted to spraying a mysterious chemical fog over a
neighborhood in St. Louis, Missouri, which residents now claim
it is giving them cancer. It includes Project Stormfury, a
series of efforts in the 1960s and 1970s to weaken hurricanes
by seeding clouds with silver iodide. And it includes Operation
Popeye, an effort to create monsoons to aid our military
efforts during the Vietnam War, literally weaponizing weather.
While these are different events scattered throughout
history, a serious campaign to commercialize geoengineering to
fight global warming would be a vastly larger enterprise and
profitable. Hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars could
disappear into the coffers of research universities and the
academic scientists who beat the drum of global warming
alarmism. Venture capitalists are already trying to get rich
backing companies like Make Sunsets, which inject aerosols into
the atmosphere to reflect sunlight back into space.
It is worth asking, what if scientists could somehow manage
to create a temperature dial that could be rotated to reliably
set the global climate? Who would control the dial? After all,
people in different regions prefer different weather conditions
based on their local geography, economy, and way of life. The
global climate impacts everyone and does not respect state or
national borders. So, would we need a world government to make
choices on how to turn the climate dial? Where does it end?
Despite the profound questions around geoengineering, the
scientific community is pressing ahead, and they are getting
financial support to do so from universities and left-leaning
philanthropists like Bill Gates, who has funded geoengineering
research. A June 2023 Biden White House Science Office report
on solar engineering notes, academia, philanthropy, and the
private sector have examined preliminary applications of
climate intervention techniques such as stratospheric aerosol
injection and marine cloud brightening, which are techniques
classified as solar radiation modification, or SRM, intended to
rapidly limit temperature increases.
One thing we learned from COVID is that it is a mistake to
allow the professional scientific community alone to determine
Federal science policy, the same professional scientific
community that closed ranks around the need to close schools
and businesses due to COVID is of a single mind when it comes
to global warming. They are convinced that global warming is
such an immediate risk to mankind that it justifies the
catastrophic risk of blocking out the sun. It is for the
greater good, they say.
I do not think it is the job of the Federal Government to
help these people play God with the weather. In fact, I think
it is the job of Congress to protect our people and make sure
that weather and climate-control experiments and activities do
not create adverse, unintended consequences for the rest of us.
That is why I am grateful for the transparency the Trump
Administration is shedding on this issue. Leading this effort
is EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin. I am now going to play a video
clip in which he recently addressed this issue personally and
directly.
[Video shown.]
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. But first, I
yield to Ranking Member Stansbury for her opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER
MELANIE STANSBURY, REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW MEXICO
Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Well, DOGE is back, and there is going to be a lot to
unpack in this hearing. But I think first and foremost, we want
to acknowledge that the purpose of this Subcommittee and why it
was created in the first place by the Majority was to root out
waste, fraud, and abuse. That is literally the mandate for the
DOGE Subcommittee. And I want to emphasize that we remain
focused on that mission. In fact, we are working on a report on
the waste, fraud, and abuse that we are currently seeing in
this Administration.
And I think it is important to also recognize that we are
14 days from a government shutdown, and so I am troubled to see
that this Subcommittee, which is designed to address government
spending, to streamline efficiency of government programs, has
strayed so far from its mission, especially as there is such
pressing matters facing our country, including a government
shutdown, the passage of the big ugly bill, which not only
drove up the Federal deficit by $4 trillion, but is kicking
millions of Americans off their healthcare and about to make
their healthcare premiums go up, tariffs that are causing
inflation to go up and putting small family businesses out of
business, an Administration that is flouting the rule of law
every day, and a total lack of transparency in the Epstein case
as the Administration has still refused to comply with the
subpoena that this Committee issued.
So, there are a lot of important things that this Committee
could tackle, and I would think that a topic involving
environmental science would be more well-suited to a Committee
that actually deals with science or environmental issues.
But I am happy to talk about climate change and weather
modification. It is a topic that I have spent many years of my
career working on. In fact, I worked more than 20 years as a
water resources manager working on drought and water planning
issues in the State of New Mexico, and I know how important
addressing drought and water issues is for our farmers and
ranchers out there. And personally and professionally, there is
a lot to discuss with respect to weather modification. And so,
if we are going to talk about it, let us talk about it.
Certainly, there are a lot of DOGE-related topics we could
talk about with respect to climate change and weather programs,
including the dismantling of climate natural resources
emergency response programs, the firing of Federal officials,
dismantling of EPA, the illegal freezing of Federal funding,
removal of the United States from international climate
agreements, dismantling clean energy programs, catastrophic
response to natural disasters, including what we saw in Texas.
And all of these topics would be ripe for an oversight hearing,
so I hope that we can use this hearing to discuss some of those
issues.
But with respect specifically to weather modification,
whether it is cloud seeding or other technologies, I actually
agree with many of the assertions about the need for further
discussion, further science, and potentially further regulation
of these particular technologies. But it is important that we
distinguish between fact and fiction, between clickbait and
real solutions.
So, let us talk about some facts. Weather modification and
cloud seeding, as was mentioned, is a real thing. It exists. It
has been practiced in varying forms since the 1940s.
Increasingly, folks are looking at this as an opportunity to
increase rain and precipitation. But the science is still out
on many of these technologies, and we absolutely need to
understand what are the implications for air quality, for
precipitation, and the implications also for water rights in
the West because this could have far-reaching implications.
But it is also important to understand that many of these
technologies are in the R&D phase. They are in limited use in a
number of states. And it is not actually technologies that the
Federal Government even widely supports. This is largely in the
private sector. So, in the world of science, it is widely
acknowledged that more science is needed to understand use,
efficacy, and impacts of these technologies. So, those are the
facts. Those are the facts.
But it is hard to understand why we are discussing banning
these practices outright in this Committee when the Oversight
Committee in another Subcommittee, literally as we are sitting
here right now, is having a hearing about dismantling the
Environmental Protection Agency. And the actual bill under
discussion in this Committee is trying to use the EPA to
regulate these particular practices, so the inconsistency in
governance is very confusing here.
But there is a more insidious issue here, which I think we
have already heard in some of the comments, which is the using
of the platform of Congress to proffer anti-science theories,
to platform climate denialism, and to ultimately put our
communities at risk by continuing to put out disinformation.
So, I am grateful that we are joined today by Dr. MacCracken,
who has spent his career very distinguishedly [sic] at the
national labs, helping to bring together scientists globally
and across the United States to understand climate change, its
impacts, and to help our communities really understand what is
real here in terms of the science. And we hope to dig in to
understand what we can do to help address drought, fire, and
flooding, and how it is impacting our communities.
So, with that, I yield back, and I thank the gentlelady.
Ms. Greene. Without objection, Representative Subramanyam
of Virginia is waived onto the Subcommittee for the purpose of
questioning the witnesses at today's Subcommittee hearing.
I am pleased to introduce our witnesses today. Dr. Roger
Pielke, Jr. is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise
Institute. He is an expert on science and technology policy,
the politicization of science and energy and climate.
Mr. Christopher Martz is a meteorologist and policy analyst
at the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow. He is an expert
on climate and weather.
Dr. Michael MacCracken is the Chief Scientist for Climate
Change Programs at the Climate Institute.
Again, I want to thank all of you for being here to testify
today.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 9(g), the witnesses will please
stand and raise their right hand.
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are
about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth, so help you God?
[Chorus of ayes.]
Ms. Greene. Let the record show that the witnesses have
answered in the affirmative. Thank you, and you may take a
seat.
We appreciate you being here today and look forward to your
testimony. Let me remind the witnesses that we have read your
written statements, and they will appear in full in the hearing
record. Please limit your oral statements to 5 minutes.
As a reminder, please press the button on the microphone in
front of you so that it is on and the Members can hear you.
When you begin to speak, the light in front of you will turn
green. After 4 minutes, the light will turn yellow. When the
red light comes on, your 5 minutes have expired, and we would
ask that you please wrap it up.
I now recognize Dr. Pielke for his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF ROGER PIELKE JR., SENIOR FELLOW AMERICAN
ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE
Dr. Pielke. Chairwoman Greene, Ranking Member Stansbury,
thank you for the opportunity to testify today. For the past 30
years, I have studied the connections of atmospheric science
research and decisionmaking, first as a scientist at the
National Center for Atmospheric Research, then as a professor
at the University of Colorado, and most recently as a senior
fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
My written testimony discusses policy issues associated
with weather modification and geoengineering. My prepared
remarks begin with three recommendations, followed by ten take-
home points, which those are discussed in depth in my written
testimony.
So, first recommendation, Congress should enact legislation
to improve oversight of weather modification activities,
including first requesting an assessment from the National
Academy of Sciences that precisely quantifies what is known and
unknown about the effectiveness of weather modification
projects to date and clarifying the prospects for ever being
able to achieve certainty in quantifying that effectiveness.
And second, improving the required reporting and communicating
of weather modification activities under the 1972 law that
defines weather modification in the United States.
Second recommendation, Congress should standardize U.S.
Federal law governing weather modification, ensuring that all
states are governed by identical legislative authority.
Third recommendation, the United States should lead
diplomatic talks on an international solar engineering non-use
agreement, with the ultimate goal of reaching broad agreement
on a collective ban on outdoor experiments involving solar
geoengineering and sufficient institutionalized capability to
monitor the atmosphere to ensure compliance with the ban.
My ten take-home points, first, weather modification and
geoengineering have various definitions in science and policy.
Precision is necessary for effective discussion.
Number two, under the 1972 U.S. law, a ``weather
modification activity'' is defined as ``any activity performed
with the intention of producing artificial changes in the
composition, behavior, or dynamics of the atmosphere.''
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
geoengineering refers to ``a broad set of methods and
technologies that aim to deliberately alter the climate system
in order to alleviate the impacts of climate change.'' Thus,
most forms of geoengineering fall under the definition of
weather modification activity. Arguably, the direct air capture
of carbon dioxide would not fall under this definition, but
other simple technologies, maybe painting roofs to change
albedos to cool cities, or afforestation could fall under this
definition.
Number four, weather modification activities have been
widely implemented in the United States and around the world
for 70 years. Many decades ago, weather modification was called
weather control. Nobody calls it weather control anymore
because scientists understand that controlling the weather is
simply not possible.
Number five, despite the long track record of experience
with operational weather modification activities, the
effectiveness of weather modifying activities for actually
modifying the weather is unknown. A hypothesis worth exploring
systematically would be whether the precise quantification of
the outcomes associated with weather modification is even
possible, given the scientific record.
There is no record of geoengineering being implemented
anywhere in the world. Some proposed projects, such as in
Washington State and in Sweden, have been halted prior to
implementation.
Number seven, due to the uncertain effects of weather
modification and the fact that geoengineering has not occurred,
there is no basis for occasional assertions that governments or
others are actually altering the weather.
Number eight, supporters of geoengineering deployment
experiments involve an interesting coalition of interest. It
involves those who think we are in a climate emergency and have
to act; those who believe we are not in a climate emergency,
but geoengineering would be better than emissions reductions;
and finally, those who support who are involved in
geoengineering research.
Number nine, the U.S. Congress has options for improving
research understanding and oversight of weather-modifying
activities. My written testimony summarizes many of these,
drawing upon the excellent work of the Government
Accountability Office and congressional Research Service, two
crown jewels in this institution.
Number ten, finally, my written testimony goes into detail
explaining my decision to join more than 500 other scientists
and academics from around the world to call for a solar
engineering non-use agreement. I will just briefly state,
first, the understandings are not sufficiently developed to
know what the outcomes would be, and unintended consequences
are almost certain to happen.
Second, our 70-year history with weather modification
should give us some humility in thinking that we can understand
what the consequences might be. We have been trying to modify
the weather for 70 years, and we do not know if we are
modifying the weather.
And finally, we have one Earth, and experimenting on it
carries considerable risks. I have likened geoengineering to
risky gain-of-function research on viruses with uncertain
benefits and catastrophic risks.
I look forward to your questions and our discussions. Thank
you.
Ms. Greene. Thank you.
I now recognize Mr. Martz for his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF CHRIS MARTZ
METEOROLOGIST/POLICY ANALYST
COMMITTEE FOR A CONSTRUCTIVE TOMORROW (CFACT)
Mr. Martz. I would like to thank the Chairwoman, Ranking
Member, and Subcommittee for hosting this hearing on weather
modification and geoengineering, and for giving me the
opportunity to provide my perspective as a meteorologist on
this highly contentious issue.
I am a meteorologist and policy analyst for the Committee
for a Constructive Tomorrow, and I graduated from Millersville
University of Pennsylvania with my bachelor of science degree
in May. My testimony today will focus primarily on two things,
and that is distinguishing airplane condensation trails from
weather modification and geoengineering, which are three
separate things, as well as why geoengineering, particularly
solar radiation modification, the solar geoengineering should
be prohibited, given the uncertainties about climate change
itself, as well as the uncertainties that geoengineering could
have on both the environment and life on Earth.
Now, in social media circles, people will often confuse
weather modification with geoengineering, and to further
complicate matters, you will see videos and pictures of these
ominous-looking line-shaped clouds that are dashed across the
sky. And a lot of people claim that these are evidence that the
government is manipulating the weather, especially on a large
scale, and that it can do things such as steer hurricanes or
generate hurricanes, which was a popular narrative after
Hurricane Helene's remnants ravaged eastern Tennessee,
northeast Georgia, and the Carolina backcountry last fall. And
more recently, people have claimed that cloud seeding caused
the Texas floods this summer, which killed, I think, over 100
people, unfortunately.
Now, contrails are line-shaped ice crystal clouds that form
at altitudes above 20,000 feet behind the aircraft. The exhaust
from aircraft is primarily composed of invisible water vapor,
carbon dioxide (CO2), and tiny particulates such as
soot, which act as cloud condensation nuclei, which make it
easier for water vapor in the air to condense onto those
surfaces and form droplets, which then freeze and form these
cirriform clouds that are artificial-type cirrus clouds that
resemble the feather-like clouds you see in the sky ahead of a
warm front.
Now, although contrails are definitely more common today
than they were 30 years ago, that is largely because there is
increased air traffic. And there is no compelling evidence that
contrails are being deliberately created to alter weather
patterns or block out the sun's energy, especially since
contrails actually have a net warming effect on the planet.
Now, in my written testimony, I attached a photograph of
contrails over London in September 1940.
Now, weather modification, on the contrary, is a completely
different issue, and it is very real, although its effects are
uncertain. It is the deliberate attempts to alter local weather
patterns, and the most common example of this is cloud seeding.
And there are two different methods of cloud seeding. One is
injecting clouds, especially mixed-phase convective clouds in
the summertime with these agents, these hygroscopic water-
attracting particles like salt to increase rainfall. The other
option is, in the wintertime, especially in the Intermountain
West, which has faced water storage problems for the last 25
years due to drought and also increased water demand from a
growing population, they inject wintertime clouds with dry ice
and silver iodide to increase snowpack.
Now, the Federal Government has been involved in cloud
seeding since the 1940s. Examples of this include, as
previously mentioned, Project Cirrus, Operation Popeye, and
Project Stormfury, but the results of these in the long term
have been inconclusive. Cloud seeding may affect rainfall
locally from a cloud by up to 15 percent, but it is largely
ineffective at large scales. Nine states actively facilitate
cloud seeding programs, but they have strict regulations about
when and where they can be implemented. Even--and there are two
states, however, that have banned it, which is Florida and
Tennessee.
Now, geoengineering is a different issue from that. It is a
proposed attempt to counteract global warming by either
removing CO2 from the atmosphere or altering the
amount of sunlight that reaches the Earth's surface, the latter
of which is a very controversial topic. Stratospheric aerosol
injection is the most widely researched SRM method, and it
involves the addition of sulfur dioxide, mainly, into the
stratosphere. And that chemical, SO2, then reacts and becomes
highly reflective sulfate aerosols, which block out solar
radiation. And this will be very similar to the cooling effects
induced by major volcanic eruptions. The Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says with high agreement that it
could limit global warming to below 1.5 degrees Celsius above
preindustrial levels.
Now, in regard to whether cloud seeding should be banned, I
am of the view that we should minimize our interference with
nature. I appreciate how cloud seeding has advanced our
understanding of cloud physics as a meteorologist and I--but
trying to manipulate the weather, even on a localized scale,
can have unintended consequences downstream.
As far as the weather is concerned, the effects are
uncertain, but there are some concerns with how it affects
water tables in our soils because long-term injection of silver
iodide into the atmosphere can precipitate down into our soil
and water tables, and the long-term effects of that on marine
life and aquatic life and terrestrial plant life and animals
has not been studied definitively in the long term.
Now, as far as the geoengineering goes, using the planet as
a test monkey for emerging technologies poses all sorts of
risks. Among these that have been highlighted by the EPA are
stratospheric ozone depletion, acid rain, and reduced crop
yields. There is also the question of whether such large-scale
climate intervention is even necessary, given the uncertainties
regarding climate change. While the planet has gotten warmer
over the last 100 years, there is uncertainty as to exactly how
much influence humans have exerted on it. And this uncertainty
arises from the fact that models, climate models, produce too
much warming with known physics, which is why modelers have to
artificially calibrate their models to the instrumental
temperature record.
There is uncertainty in the magnitude of the natural energy
flows as measured by satellites, which is six times larger than
the estimated energy imbalance caused by CO2, which
means that warming could be mostly natural and we just do not
know, or it could be mostly anthropogenic.
And finally, there is no fingerprint of anthropogenic or
manmade global warming that distinguishes it from natural
variability. These uncertainties need to be resolved in the
peer-reviewed literature before world governments try to, much
less consider, intentionally altering the radiation balance
with novel technologies that have not been tested.
Thank you. This concludes my testimony.
Ms. Greene. Thank you, Mr. Martz.
I now recognize Dr. MacCracken for his opening statements.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL MACCRACKEN
(MINORITY WITNESS), CHIEF SCIENTIST FOR CLIMATE
CHANGE PROGRAMS, CLIMATE INSTITUTE
Dr. MacCracken. Thank you, Madam Chair Greene, Ranking
Member----
Ms. Stansbury. Dr. MacCracken, you need to turn your mic
on.
Ms. Greene. Dr. MacCracken, can you turn on your
microphone, please?
Dr. MacCracken. I am sorry.
Ms. Greene. That is okay. Thank you.
Dr. MacCracken. So, thank you very much for inviting me
here today. After earning my Ph.D., most of my career was spent
at the Lawrence Livermore National Lab, mostly using computer
models to analyze how natural and human-induced factors might
affect the climate and what the risks might be of that.
My last nine years with Livermore were on assignment as a
senior climate change scientist with the Interagency Office of
the U.S. Global Change Program here in Washington, including
four years heading the Coordination Office for preparing the
first national assessment of the impacts of climate change, but
also climate variability, which was an assessment called for in
the Global Change Research Act of 1990.
Since retiring, I have served on a number of positions on a
pro bono basis with the Climate Institute, president of the
International Association of Meteorology and Atmospheric
Sciences, and as a participant in various other national and
international activities. I am currently on the steering circle
of the Healthy Planet Action Coalition, which is a group that
favors consideration of climate intervention or geoengineering,
and on two groups that are seeking actually to address the
issue, to make energy more affordable.
I want to say I am not a paid employee or a consultant of
any organization. I am here speaking as a scientist, and the
views are my own.
A primary lesson from the research career and from the
scientific community is that climate change has changed in the
past--climate has changed in the past, and so it can be
expected to be changeable in the future. And what scientific
research has shown quite clearly is that these changes are not
random. It is not just climate doing something randomly. There
are causes in the past that has been things like volcanic
eruptions or changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun,
changes in atmospheric composition, changes in land cover, and
research is really indicating now that global warming over the
last two centuries is primarily being due not to natural
factors but to human-caused influences.
Let me say briefly, with respect to the Subcommittee's
interest in weather modification, research has made clear that
changing a major specific event, a hurricane or a drenching
rain or a drought, is just beyond human capabilities. That is
not what is happening. Nature has so much energy involved, that
is not going to happen. As my fellow panelists have said, there
is not really scientifically convincing evidence that it works,
but there is not scientifically convincing evidence that it
does not work, and so it can perhaps increase rainfall in some
very dry places.
And this is--because it is so uncertain, that is exactly
why there is so little weather modification actually going on.
It is just not clear it is a worthwhile investment. And it
certainly cannot cause massive floods or hurricanes.
With respect to the Subcommittee's interest in theoretical
geoengineering, the notion is to explore if there are viable
approaches to offsetting the increasing incidence of extreme
weather and other impacts that are happening from climate
change. My views sort of are--come from the broad scientific
community. And on this issue, I disagree with these other
panelists that thinking that research on climate intervention
is something that needs to be done.
The approaches that are used in doing it are all based on
what has happened naturally. So volcanic eruptions put sulfur
dioxide in the atmosphere. It turns to sulfate. It reflects
maybe one percent of solar radiation. It is not like it blanks
out the sun in any sense. And that can sort of exert a cooling
influence. We had that after Mount Pinatubo. The climate went
down. Then the aerosol sort of got mixed and naturally removed
from the stratosphere, and the climate sort of recovered and
kept going up.
So, are there approaches that we can use that, based on
nature that we can optimize, maybe putting in a little bit on a
constant basis and see what happens, try and learn about that?
So, nature has really done the experiments on this, on whether
these approaches will work. That is not something that science
really has to go back and do. What we have to do is see if the
tailoring and the optimizing and how that will work, will it be
beneficial or not?
So, there are a host of questions for research to consider.
What is happening due to global warming is quite exceptional,
particularly not just the temperature, but the dew point is
going up, and so places in low latitudes are having just almost
intolerable situations and do not have the air-conditioned
space that we have to go into. There is increased and
accelerated melting and loss of mass from Greenland and the
Antarctic ice sheets. Twenty thousand years ago, sea level was
400 feet lower than that, and then on over the next 12,000
years, 2/3 of the ice on land melted and it came up, so there
is about another 200 feet of sea level equivalent in the
Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, and we really do not want
to start those to get melting.
Ms. Greene. Dr. MacCracken, we have----
Dr. MacCracken. I'm sorry.
Ms. Greene. Yes, if you could----
Dr. MacCracken. Okay.
Ms. Greene [continuing]. Just finish, please. Thank you.
Dr. MacCracken. Okay. Well, thank you. I just say finally,
if I could, that there is no geoengineering of any type going
on at the global scale. There are a few localized efforts like
to save the coral, to preserve the coral--Great Barrier Reef.
Computer simulations sort of indicate that it would be
beneficial.
Ms. Greene. Dr. MacCracken----
Dr. MacCracken. Okay.
Ms. Greene [continuing]. Your time has expired. Yes. Thank
you.
Dr. MacCracken. Okay.
Ms. Greene. I now recognize myself for 5 minutes of
questioning. For years, anybody who questioned weather
modification was labeled crazy or a conspiracy theorist. Now,
we have learned that they have been doing it for decades. And
not only is it a multibillion-dollar industry, the government
has invested a lot of Americans' hard-earned tax dollars into
it. They have been forced to spin it, and apparently it is now
the only way we are going to save humanity.
However, let us look at the risk. According to GAO,
injecting a cloud with silver iodide increases precipitation
anywhere from zero to 20 percent. It could be even more, but
the truth is that we really do not know for certain. The
questions that are asked is, can you control the exact amount
of precipitation that a cloud will produce if it is injected
with silver iodide or another cloud seeding agent? Can you
control where the precipitation is going to land with 100
percent certainty? Can you say that it will not cause or
enhance flooding with 100 percent certainty? Is there any way
to measure with absolute certainty the effectiveness of seeding
a cloud? Do we know with 100 percent certainty how much rain a
cloud would have produced if it had not been seeded? And last,
did the American people ever get to have a say in any of this?
The truth is that there is absolutely no way to measure the
effectiveness of cloud seeding. But something else that needs
to be known is the American people deserve to know that there
is very little rules and regulations over this. These companies
that perform cloud seeding and other types of geoengineering
projects have to fill out forms from National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and they have to list what
agents they are using. And there is a category that simply says
``other,'' and they do not have to even fill out what ``other''
means, and I think that is extremely concerning.
But I would like to talk a little bit more about solar
geoengineering. It is completely different, more consequential
approach to human manipulation of the planet's climate. One
geoengineering company called Make Sunsets injects aerosol into
the atmosphere to reflect sunlight back into space. I want to
show you their frequently asked questions page on their
website.
Mr. Pielke, it says here, it says, ``What are you doing?''
It says, ``We are using balloons to launch reflective clouds
into the stratosphere.'' And then it says, ``Why?'' It says,
``Unless we reflect sunlight, tens of millions of people will
die, and 20 percent of species may go extinct. We are using the
most effective way to reflect sunlight that we found and can
afford to deploy.'' Mr. Pielke, is it true that tens of
millions of people will die if they do not do this?
Dr. Pielke. There is nothing you can find in the IPCC or
other scientific literature to suggest that is a consequence.
Sometimes those stark claims are made to try to scare people
into other forms of action on climate change. So, if you do not
change energy policy, we are going to mess up the stratosphere.
And that is how I interpret that.
Ms. Greene. Sounds like a major threat for their company to
make money. They said, ``How long do Make Sunsets clouds stay
in the sky?'' ``Depending on the altitude and latitude at which
we release them, anywhere between six months and three years.''
They also say, ``Is it legal?'' They say, ``Yes, it falls under
the Weather Modification Act.'' Then they have a question here,
Mr. Martz, ``I would like you to stop doing this.'' And they
say, ``And we would like an equitable future with breathable
air and no wet bulb events for generations to come. Convince us
there is a more feasible way to buy us time to get there, and
we will stop. We will happily debate anyone on this.''
Mr. Martz, they do not think that the rest of us have a say
in this. What do you think about that?
Mr. Martz. Well, I think that the claim that the air is not
going to be breathable is just patently ridiculous. Carbon
dioxide, although it is a greenhouse gas, and yes, I do agree
that some of the warming, at least, that we have seen the last
100 years is probably due to CO2 emissions, there is
no indication that the air is going to become unbreathable. It
makes up 0.04 percent by dry air volume of Earth's atmosphere.
And some submariners in the Navy are subject to the
concentrations exceeding 5,000 parts per million and are just
fine.
Ms. Greene. Well, let me ask another question, Mr. Martz.
You know, it is sulfur, right, that is put into the air. Is
there health consequences for people, especially, like, after
volcanic eruptions? Is there health consequences to that type
of injection into the atmosphere?
Mr. Martz. Well, sulfur dioxide, if it is injected into the
stratosphere, obviously, it blocks out solar radiation, and so
that would potentially--that could, if it is implemented on a
large enough scale over a long period of time, it could reduce
crop yields because, obviously, plants need sunlight to grow.
They need water and CO2, just basic photosynthesis.
And there are also concerns that if it gets into the
troposphere, it could create acid rain. And that is called acid
deposition into the soil, and that makes it hard for plants to,
obviously to grow, and that harms plant and animal life as
well. Obviously----
Ms. Greene. Mr. Martz, I am out of time. Thank you very
much.
I now recognize Ms. Stansbury for 5 minutes.
Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Well, I do believe we have actually discovered the purpose
of the EPA. Literally, this is why the EPA exists, is to
regulate, study, and understand how modifications to the
environment impact human health and the environment. And in
fact, that is the primary purpose of the Science Advisory
Committee for the EPA. You do a regulatory process, you look at
the science, you determine whether or not it is good for the
environment and for human health. And then if it is not, then
you come up with science-based solutions to regulate it. That
is literally why the EPA exists. So, I am excited. We have
discovered why the EPA exists today in this Committee hearing.
But arguably, the largest geoengineering experiment in
human history is climate change. And Dr. MacCracken, I am
really grateful that you are here to help us cut through the
noise on all of this. You have had a distinguished career at
our premier national labs, and you have also been intimately
involved in helping to bring together consensus around climate
change, including to understand both the global implications in
carbon emissions and also what that looks like in terms of
downscaling for specific places.
And so, I just want to--I had to print--this is a well-
known graph for anybody who has studied and understands climate
change, but the science is very, very, very, very clear. Since
the beginning of the industrial revolution, you can see here
that carbon emissions have gone up steadily, and global
temperatures have also gone up. And the chemistry and the
physics of that is that it creates energy in the atmosphere
that affects the entire global distribution of weather events.
So, you know, there is a lot of misinformation that gets put
out there for folks that do not really understand the science
of climate change. And its representation at the local scale is
very different in different places, and it is always changing.
So, Dr. MacCracken, I hope that you can help us understand
a little bit more. I mean, at the most basic level, we have the
opportunity to educate the public here in this Committee today.
What is the global scientific consensus about how we address
this?
Dr. MacCracken. Well, so, we have good indications that
what is happening with CO--carbon dioxide, is it is coming from
human activities, primarily from fossil fuels, some from
deforestation. And we know also from history and physics and a
number of other ways that that is going to lead to trapping of
heat and making things warmer. If you want to stop getting
warmer, and we have been going up significantly at a very rapid
pace compared to geological times, you basically have to stop
and phaseout CO2 emissions.
Ms. Stansbury. Exactly. And, you know, I want to just
correct something that was discussed earlier, which is that the
idea was put forward that somehow we want to eliminate carbon
dioxide on planet Earth. Let us just be honest and clear about
this. That is not possible by the laws of physics, okay? So,
let us just say that. But really what we are talking about is
reducing the amount of atmospheric carbon that is in the
atmosphere so that we get back to something more approximating
preindustrial revolution activities because it is driving the
capture of heat on planet Earth, and heat creates energy.
Anyone who has taken physics or chemistry, that is what climate
change is. It is increasing energy on planet Earth. And that
causes more extreme flooding, more extreme storms. That causes
drought in some places. It changes the whole distribution of
how the planet's energy functions. And that is really what
climate change is.
So, in terms of reducing our carbon footprint, you know, we
are headed in the coming months into the latest incarnation of
the Conference of the Parties, COP, to prepare for
international climate negotiations. The President has removed
us from climate commitments, and the GOP has just taken away
many of the tools we have to reduce carbon emissions through
the big ugly bill. Tell us what the consensus is in the
scientific community about addressing carbon pollution in the
United States. What do we need to be doing here in the United
States?
Dr. MacCracken. Well, we have started by trying to use
efficiency. We have started by trying to change our energy
system. The key thing about our energy in the United States is
most of the renewable energy, solar and wind, is out West and
in the Midwest. And a lot of the demand is in the East Coast,
and just as--which is unfortunate. So, what you do with natural
gas, when you have a different place where the source is and
where it is needed is you create pipelines. We need to do the
equivalent of a pipeline for electricity across the United
States It would be very beneficial to the country to do that
and would--is necessary to get the cheapest energy for the
future.
Ms. Stansbury. Thank you.
Ms. Greene. The gentlelady's time has expired.
I now recognize Mr. Cloud from Texas for 5 minutes of
questioning.
Mr. Cloud. Thank you. Thank you all for being here.
I think most people, you know, back home tuning into this
would, first of all, be shocked to find out that maybe some of
the suspicions--like weather modification is one of those
things that has like not really been talked about, and people
are like, is it happening? Is it not? I do not know. I see
things online. And then come to find out like, okay, this has
really been happening for decades. This is not conspiracy
theory. This is, like, fact. There is businesses involved in
doing this.
And that brings up all these questions about how is this
happening? How is that permitted? Is any business just able to
go out and, hey, I want to modify the weather in my area
because I want rain. Well, what about these people who do not
want rain? And where are those lines, and how does that work?
And then there comes the liability side of this. You know,
recently--I am from Texas, and so, you know, I was there at
Kerrville when the tragedy happened, and everybody was
concerned did some cloud seeding happened a couple of days
prior. I am not a meteorologist. You are, Mr. Martz. And I
guess there is an understanding that that was too far away, I
guess. But it does bring up the question about liability and if
it was, would the business be liable then or not, and all these
questions. I was wondering, Mr. Pielke, if you could touch on,
kind of, those thoughts and what the current framework is and
just kind of give us a 101 for the citizenry in a sense.
Dr. Pielke. Yes, let me say, I mean, I have been aware of
weather modification all my life. My dad was a meteorologist.
Mr. Cloud. Yes, but you are involved in this, right?
Dr. Pielke. And so, when I was preparing for this hearing,
I looked at the NOVA data base. And I was, you know, shocked to
find there was more than 1,100 reports in that data base
covering the last ten years or so. So, weather modification is
ongoing, and the reporting is not particularly good. Assessing
the effectiveness is not good. And that leads people to ask
questions.
So, if we go back to Project Cirrus back in 1947, I think
it was Hurricane King, it started dissipating, and then it took
a left turn, and then struck the United States. It is a natural
question when someone intervenes in a system to say, did your
intervention cause this bad thing to happen?
This is why I have recommended having a very public, a very
authoritative study. We cannot have Republican science and
Democrat science. We have to have science that is trusted by
everyone to assess what weather modification has been done,
what have been the effects. If we do not know what the effects
are, what research can we do to know those effects? And if we
cannot know the effects, maybe that would structure how we
think about going forward with that technology.
Mr. Cloud. Mr. Martz, do you want to speak to that?
Mr. Martz. Yes, I largely agree with that. I was actually
going to bring up Project Cirrus, which obviously was a
concern. There is also the concern, you know, in the case of
like geoengineering--I know we are kind of going off topic from
weather modification, but it is a similar kind of issue here.
If you were to--and, again, if it were to be--if they were to
implement this and it were to be successful and it were to
cause, you know, a few 10ths up to maybe a degree Celsius of
global cooling, you know, over the course of three to five
years, and of course, you would have to continue to do that
every several years because the aerosols mix out.
But there is also the concern that say we did this, you
know, and the instantaneous cooling occurred, and there was a,
you know, a really cold winter, you know, that sent, you know,
temperatures plunging below zero down into Louisiana. We saw
this actually this past winter with the Gulf Coast winter storm
and the Arctic outbreak. Say something like that happened,
well, people will then probably, you know, blame that on the
geoengineering. In fact, we know kind of through what natural
variability, you know, obviously, the effects of this with
volcanic eruptions.
In 1815, rather, Mount Tambora erupted and caused the year
without a summer in 1816 when there were--there was two feet of
snow in Vermont in June. And during that same period, there
were frosts in Georgia, the Chairwoman's district. So, there
are definitely concerns about that, and there is--there would
be, you know, lawsuits filed. After Project Cirrus, there were
lawsuits filed.
And obviously, the results were eventually inconclusive,
and the U.S. Weather Bureau put together a team of scientists
that showed that the hurricanes can make those kinds of turns
all on their own----
Mr. Cloud. Yes.
Mr. Martz [continuing]. And that kind of let the--that
allowed the lawsuits to kind of subside. But there are
definitely real concerns about that happening in the future.
Again, we just saw this with the Texas floods, with I think it
was Rainmaker Corporation if I am correct. And obviously,
they--when they seeded, that was the days before, and it was, I
think, 150 miles southeast of Houston, so it had no effect, but
the people still asked the questions. And it also raises the
concern of lawsuits being brought against these companies.
Mr. Cloud. Well, and then I have a question. And Dr.
MacCracken, you talked about this too. You said there is no
scientific evidence that it works or that it does not. You
mentioned that, too, Mr. Pielke. You know, we have had people,
not on our Subcommittee that I am aware of, but on our general
Oversight Committee, say, you know, the Earth is going to end--
I think the countdown is down to six years now, you know, and
there is this hysteria built around what we can and cannot do,
yet there is no data for it.
And I would just say, like, our economy, we have spent
trillions of dollars on this. And like are we actually moving
that data out? Or, you know, I mean, what is the question on
that? Anyway, I yield back.
Ms. Greene. Thank you. I now recognize Ms. Norton from the
District of Columbia.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Madam Chair.
The nonpartisan civil service is essential to our
democracy. The Trump Administration's gutting of the Federal
workforce is cruel, irresponsible, and dangerous. Federal
workers keep the Federal Government running. They do essential
work every day that keeps Americans safe. Nonpartisan civil
servants at the Federal Emergency Management Agency provide aid
after storms, hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, and wildfires.
The agency's employees have warned Congress that the
Federal Government is not ready to respond to hurricane season.
More than 180 agency employees sent a letter on August 25
warning that the cuts to the agency have hurt its ability to
respond to emergencies. Instead of taking preparedness
seriously, the Trump Administration retaliated against the
employees and put the public signers on leave.
Dr. MacCracken, what are the most important things we
should be doing to ensure Federal agencies are prepared to
respond to climate change, eliminating extreme weather?
Dr. MacCracken. Well, the research they have been providing
is information on what impacts will occur in particular places.
So, we talk about global climate change, and people think about
the science from the global scale, but impacts and what happens
to people really depends on where you are.
And so, when we had the first national climate assessment,
we did 20 regional workshops asking about what was happening in
each region, what were their concerns, and it was fascinating
that water resources was common among all of those kinds of
areas and everything, but in a very different way. I mean, you
would not think water would be a problem in Alaska. You might
expect it to be a problem in the Rio Grande Valley. But it was
a problem everywhere with different kinds of changes. And what
we really wanted to do was try and provide each region access
to the information so it could keep its economy strong, so it
could keep doing things that make a difference.
I mean, in Washington, one of the very interesting things
that has been done, it is known as one of the cities with the
most trees. That is sort of a weather modification effort to
provide shade and to provide moisture evaporation. One of the
first weather modification assessments done in the United
States was done by Thomas Jefferson. He basically noticed that
clearing the coastal plain in the Atlantic of forests to have
farms affected the sea breeze. And so, there are effects going
on.
You want to think about what is going on in your region.
You need to have information that is specific to your region.
And that is a translation issue of getting from the global
models down to what is happening locally. What is the
statistics of the weather that is going to change? Warmer
nights, hotter days, more frequent hot days, higher dew points.
Those are the kinds of things that people really need to know
about to help build their resilience and protect themselves.
Ms. Norton. Dr. MacCracken, why is it so important that
scientists follow the data and not presuppose their
conclusions?
Dr. MacCracken. Well, it is very--so what we try and do as
scientists is reconcile multiple things. One is the data that
comes in and the observations. Another is our theoretical
understanding of how physics works about cold air being denser
than warm air and how things move. Another is looking back over
the history of the Earth to try and understand and figure out
why those changes were occurring that are shown in the geology.
And so, what scientists are looking for is consistency across
things, not just at any one. You cannot believe just one or the
other. You have to look at consistency across all of those
aspects.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, and I yield any time remaining to
the Ranking Member.
Ms. Greene. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
I now recognize Mr. Burchett from Tennessee for 5 minutes
of questioning.
Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Chairlady. Briefly, Mr. Martz, can
you explain what cloud seeding is?
Mr. Martz. Yes, I can. I am happy to explain it. So, cloud
seeding is the attempt to enhance rainfall or snowpack on a
very localized scale. And obviously back----
Mr. Burchett. Localized meaning?
Mr. Martz. We are talking only like a couple kilometers, a
few kilometers scale.
Mr. Burchett. Okay.
Mr. Martz. Yes. So----
Mr. Burchett. Are the materials used in cloud seeding safe?
Mr. Martz. There are some concerns with silver iodide and
how that precipitates--when it precipitates out into the soil.
There are concerns that it negatively can affect marine life,
aquatic life, terrestrial life because of the release of silver
at high concentrations.
As far as dry ice, the dry ice method of it, which is where
those pellets sublimate into CO2, that is a harmless
method.
Mr. Burchett. Would you feel comfortable drinking a glass
of water with several parts per million of silver iodide in it?
Mr. Martz. I probably would not want to do that, no.
Mr. Burchett. Okay. That is a good answer.
Are states seeing measurable successes in cloud seeding?
Mr. Martz. Not on a very large scale. We are talking not on
a scale that is for 200 kilometers. But on a localized scale,
there is some evidence that the statewide efforts, especially
in the Intermountain West in Colorado, can increase like the
snowpack or precipitation by up to 15 percent. But the range is
zero to about 20 percent based on the peer-reviewed studies
that I have read. But there is not a 100 percent success rate
with that. That being said, I do not think that we should be
trying to do that.
Mr. Burchett. Are you familiar with the process where they
basically do it in a grid, and then they follow it on the
satellite to see where the rain had fallen to verify, in fact,
that it was effective or not effective?
Mr. Martz. Yes, I have seen that they do. There are
obviously control areas and areas of experimentation, and their
results are very inconclusive in the literature on that.
Mr. Burchett. Okay. And basically, the process is they put
this stuff in the air, it gets in the clouds, moisture
condenses on it, and it falls in the form of water droplets or
snow, weather due to the temperature, correct?
Mr. Martz. Correct.
Mr. Burchett. Okay. Is it possible that there could be
lawsuits in the future of people say they are being robbed of
their rainfall, say if the winds were in a westerly position
and the clouds were to empty, say, in one county that was east
of this area, and then they thought that the rain should have
come to them, and yet it was literally stolen from them by the
cloud seeding prior to that?
Mr. Martz. I think there could be concerns for lawsuits of
stuff like that, for sure, and that is something that we
probably almost saw or we might see from the Texas floods this
year. Again, the results are going to be--and I think the court
findings would find that there is really no evidence that it
had any material effect because most of the studies show little
effect, but again, the results are inconclusive, but that does
not stop there being lawsuits being filed.
Mr. Burchett. They should have the companies that were
selling this process to have to come back and say we are not
effective.
Mr. Martz. Correct. Yes, they would have to----
Mr. Burchett. And so there would be----
Mr. Martz. Yes.
Mr. Burchett. That would be interesting to see.
Mr. Pielke, is the government engaging in any weather
modification or geoengineering activities?
Dr. Pielke. The Federal Government is not. State
governments, the GAO reported there are nine states in the
United States that support--and I will say effectiveness is
measured not just in rainfall but also in marketing. I am from
Colorado, and the state lets it be known that for ski season,
there is cloud seeding going on, so.
Mr. Burchett. Have they been doing it in the past, though?
Dr. Pielke. They have been doing it for several decades.
Mr. Burchett. The Federal Government has been doing it.
Dr. Pielke. The Federal Government peaked its weather
modification investments in the 1970s. If it was in this year's
budget, it would be the equivalent of $500 million, so it was a
substantial effort, but it did peak, and it has declined.
Mr. Burchett. Okay. What was the end result of that?
Dr. Pielke. Uncertainty, as you heard, that there is not a
lot of good science out there to say cloud seeding has this
effect in this region. And I question whether it would even be
possible because when you do an experiment, you have a control,
and then you have the experiment, and you compare the two. We
have one Earth, and so you cannot--you can use models and so
on, but it is very difficult, I think, for weather modification
to reach that bar of certainty that would be required to
understand cause and effect.
Mr. Burchett. Okay. Yet, we keep investing in it. Could the
weather modification activities of other countries have a
harmful effect on Americans?
Dr. Pielke. So, this is one where I think it necessarily
has to be international. Wee have heard in the 1960s, the U.S.
Government sought to employ weather modification techniques as
a weapon of war, and it would be important for the community to
get together, whether it is like nuclear nonproliferation, to
disclose and set the ground rules for that type of research,
just like you might do for gain-of-function research on
viruses.
Mr. Burchett. Thank you.
Thank you, Chairlady.
Ms. Greene. Thank you.
I now recognize Mr. Burlison from Missouri for 5 minutes of
questioning.
Mr. Burlison. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Dr. Pielke, just to begin with the basics, can you help us
understand the difference between localized efforts and geo-
forming efforts?
Dr. Pielke. From a policy perspective, weather
modification, as you heard from Mr. Martz, seeks to affect
rainfall over, say, a drainage, a ski area, a small area.
Geoengineering, as it is defined by the IPCC, seeks to counter
the effects of global climate change, so at the much larger
scale. And usually, the effects of climate change, for better
or worse, are measured in global average surface temperature,
so affecting that metric is the focus of geoengineering.
Mr. Burlison. Mr. Martz, I saw in your notes that you
referred to it that cloud seeding or a lot of these efforts
really do not have--and you had a term for it; I am trying to
get back to that--where the impact--it is hard to get beyond so
many kilometers, right?
Mr. Martz. Correct, yes, above--let me find it here just so
I get my terms right.
Mr. Burlison. You had a word for it.
Mr. Martz. Mesoscale?
Mr. Burlison. Yes.
Mr. Martz. Yes. And there are different levels of
mesoscale. So, basically--so I said here--so all in all, cloud
seeding is incapable of altering weather patterns on what
Orlanski in 1975, it is a peer-reviewed paper, defines as the
mesoscale level, particularly meso-alpha, which is greater than
or equal to 200 kilometers. So, above that horizontal distance,
200 kilometers, there is really absolutely, like, no effect.
That much we do know. But on much smaller scales than 200
kilometers, there is very much a lot of uncertainty as to the
efficacy of cloud seeding from a rainfall precipitation
standpoint, and the big reason for this is because natural
variability is so large.
Mr. Burlison. Yes. I hear you. So, I think if folks are
listening or paying attention, you can definitively say--I
mean, you are a Ph.D., you are a meteorologist, you can
definitively say that these are--cloud seeding, while it may
occur, it is probably not occurring as often as people think
because its effects are unknown or not certain. And then, in
addition, it only affects a small region. Would you both agree
with that?
Dr. Pielke. Yes. For all the effort that has been put into
weather modification, if it is having effects, they are not
large enough that we can really see them very clearly.
Mr. Martz. I would agree to that, yes.
Mr. Burlison. Would you say that, in general, we kind of
have a little bit of an arrogance about our impact on this
planet?
Mr. Martz. Very much so. And I also find that it is a lot
with climate change as well. Obviously, again, I am going to
just put a disclaimer here before I am called a climate denier
by people. I agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and
yes, all else being equal, it does cause warming in the lower
atmosphere. However, how that translates to changes in extreme
weather is very much more complicated, and I find that there is
a very stark parallel between people who claim that, you know,
hurricanes are being caused--are caused by cloud seeding, and
that they are able to control hurricanes, as well as people who
think that hurricanes are caused by, you know, a one part per
10,000 increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.
And in fact, in my chart here that I show, it shows data
that shows that neither hurricane frequency nor intensity, as
measured by the accumulated cyclone energy index, have
increased since 1990, and that is data from Colorado State
University, actually, one of the schools that Dr. Pielke's
father taught at, I believe.
And there is also no increase that--there is an increase in
rapid intensification events globally. This is a chart. It went
back to 1990. This was provided to me by Dr. Phil Klotzbach,
also from CSU, and it shows that there is no increase since
1990 in the number of rapid intensification events, which is a
measure of how fast hurricanes intensify, and it is defined as
a 30-knot increase or greater in 24 hours.
So, there have been increases in heavy rainfall in some
regions, and there have been decreases in other regions, and
some of that could be tied to a warmer, you know, atmosphere in
the Clausius-Clapeyron relation, but overall, the idea that we
are able to control weather even through climate change is
largely grossly overstated.
Mr. Burlison. Thank you.
I yield back the rest of my time.
Ms. Greene. The gentleman yields.
I now recognize Mr. Subramanyam from Virginia for 5 minutes
of questioning.
Mr. Subramanyam. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I am very concerned about this Administration firing
climate scientists and scientists generally and cutting off
research for science. And we had a really good group of people
outside NASA yesterday talking about the importance of science
and climate science.
And Dr. MacCracken, I would just get your thoughts on what
is going to be the implications of cutting off this kind of
research and these types of firings? And what is that going to
mean for our future when it comes to our climate, as well as
science generally in our country?
Dr. MacCracken. Well, without the information, it is hard
to get projections of exactly what is going to happen, to get
the best information so people can feel--can prepare
themselves, can be resilient so society can design
infrastructure that will withstand things.
When you increase the temperature--when you have the
CO2 concentration high, the 90 percent or so of the
warming is going on in the ocean. What happens with, when the
ocean warms, it keeps the air warm, but it also evaporates more
moisture. And when that moisture-laden air comes over land and
runs into a mountain range or a mesa or something, it forces
out these drenching rains. And it is happening not just in
Texas, which was really tragic, but there have also been tragic
events in Pakistan and India and other locations that when the
ocean warms, that heat just adds to the moisture. And if the
ground is saturated in water already, all the additional
moisture that comes out will run off, and that creates floods
that are larger than the region is used to.
Mr. Subramanyam. And these weather events are costing us
tens of billions of dollars, if not more. As a country, it is
going to cost us trillions eventually. You know, what can we do
to prevent these weather events in the future?
Dr. MacCracken. Well, if you want to stop ocean warming,
you basically have to stop having carbon dioxide trapping
infrared radiation and energy. That is hard to do to stop--get
rid of all the CO2 emissions. They provide a very
valuable service, and so it is proving difficult. And that is
why climate intervention is something we want to look at. It is
an approach to trying to see if you can suppress the heating of
the atmosphere as a whole, mainly of the ocean if you can,
because the land will respond pretty quickly. But the ocean
buildup of heat is something that will persist for very long
times, and it just causes these atmospheric rivers that are
occurring that hit California, that are hitting other
countries. It is a very serious issue and can cause great harm,
and it is very hard to withstand it as things happen.
Mr. Subramanyam. And do you think it is--are we too late,
or is there things we can still do when it comes to curbing the
negative effects of climate change?
Dr. MacCracken. Well, there are some doomsayers out there,
but there are certain things we can do. One thing is cutting
methane emissions. Methane is natural gas. It leaks out from
fossil fuel things. It comes from agriculture and other things.
That has an atmospheric lifetime that is very short, whereas
CO2 has a long lifetime. So, if you can sharply cut
CO2 emissions, that really helps. And there is an
international initiative to do that, and so that is one of the
first things that people will urge as something to do.
Mr. Subramanyam. Great, thank you.
I yield back.
Ms. Greene. The gentleman yields.
I request unanimous consent that the Subcommittee have a
second round of questions for the witnesses. Without objection,
so ordered.
I now recognize myself for 5 minutes of questioning.
It is an interesting observation to listen to the
discussion between what I would call two sides in the belief on
climate. And I would like to ask each of you, and I will start
with you, Dr. Pielke, has Earth's climate and temperatures, has
that been something that has changed historically since the
creation of the world?
Dr. Pielke. Yes, there is long time series that go back
thousands, millions of years showing vast changes. However, the
changes over the last century and a half have been judged to be
largely driven by the accumulating greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere, so that is not particularly controversial. What is
controversial is what are the effects? When will we know them?
I would disagree with Dr. MacCracken that we can control
weather with carbon dioxide emissions. There is no knob that
says more extreme weather, less extreme weather. There are a
lot of great reasons for reducing carbon dioxide emissions, but
I do not think anyone should think we are going to stop
hurricanes or floods or atmospheric rivers using that knob.
Ms. Greene. Mr. Martz?
Mr. Martz. I largely agree with Dr. Pielke about that
assessment pretty much entirely. I do agree that obviously the
planet has gone through all sorts of ebbs and flows throughout
its 4.5 billion-year history, and obviously, the Earth has
gotten warmer over the last 100 years. And I do agree that
some, most, I do not know how much of it is due to
CO2 emissions because CO2 is a greenhouse
gas. The laws of physics are very clear on that.
However, there are uncertainties, as I highlighted in my
testimony here, and this is something that some of the
scientists who work very closely on this, one of them is Dr.
Roy Spencer at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. He is
the science team leader on one of NASA's satellites that
measures the radiation flows in and out of the atmosphere. I
know him very well.
Ms. Greene. Mr. Martz, I only have a short amount of time.
Mr. Martz. Okay. So, obviously, the natural energy flows in
and out of the Earth's atmosphere.
Ms. Greene. Right, but that is not controlled by man. I
mean, did man----
Mr. Martz. No.
Ms. Greene [continuing]. Create the Ice Age?
Mr. Martz. No.
Ms. Greene. Yes, right.
Mr. Martz. Yes.
Ms. Greene. So, none of us were alive back then to know for
sure.
Dr. MacCracken, do you believe that the world has seen
climate changes since the creation of the world?
Dr. MacCracken. Well, I would say I am convinced by the
evidence that that has happened, yes.
Ms. Greene. Yes, thank you. I would also like to ask you
all if you believe that people, regular people, the American
people and people all over the world, do they have the God-
given right to clean air, clean water, clean crops? Or should
governments and for-profit businesses and then scientists be
allowed to override ordinary people, citizens of the United
States, and spray all types of chemicals into the air, whether
it is from the ground or in the sky? Who has a God-given right
over that? Dr. Pielke?
Dr. Pielke. Yes, it is, in my testimony, that is why I
called for enhanced oversight and regulation. I have this old-
fashioned view--I am a political scientist by training--that
the government is the people. And if we start talking about the
government being separate from the people, then something is
messed up out there. And so, I would much rather see people,
normal people, feel like the government belongs to them and
that they are one and the same.
Ms. Greene. The government or clean air, clean skies, and
clean land?
Dr. Pielke. Well, the way we regulate and get clean air is
we come together and work and call it government, call it, you
know, whatever you want to call it. But there is no way to have
clean air to regulate geoengineering unless people can come
together and make decisions that this is in our common
interest, so.
Ms. Greene. Right. Mr. Martz?
Mr. Martz. I agree with that sentiment as well. I think
that there obviously needs to be stricter oversight and
regulation on some of these technologies and probably some more
research into them. But I think that there should be, largely
with Dr. Pielke, a non-use agreement, especially in the solar
geoengineering aspects of it. And as a final point, yes, people
should have a right to, you know, free--or sorry, to clean air,
clean water, and all of that.
Dr. MacCracken. Dr. MacCracken.
Dr. MacCracken. Yes, of course they should. And there is
actually a lawsuit of the youth trying to ensure that is
something that the government does to make sure that there is
clean air, clean water, and a healthy climate.
Ms. Greene. Yes, thank you. I agree with that. I just want
to point back to a government-funded project that was in a
government housing in St. Louis, Missouri, where the U.S. Army
sprayed some sort of chemical fog over these people, basically
making them lab rats in an experiment. And that is how people
feel today about all types of weather modification and
geoengineering. No one wants to be a lab rat. And I appreciate
your comments where we only have one Earth, one Earth, and we
really, honestly, should be taking care of that.
My time has expired. I now yield to Mr. Gill from Texas for
5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Gill. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Thank you all for being here.
Dr. Pielke, could you just briefly explain the difference
between cloud seeding and geoengineering?
Dr. Pielke. I will give you the broad brushes. But cloud
seeding is an effort to modify precipitation over a small
scale. Geoengineering is an effort to counter the effects of
human-caused climate change at the planetary scale.
Mr. Gill. All right. And last July, as you know, there were
catastrophic floods in Texas. Have you seen any evidence to
suggest that cloud seeding contributed to those floods,
exacerbated the problem, or had any impact on them?
Dr. Pielke. I will defer to Chris, who has talked about
that in his testimony.
Mr. Gill. Sure.
Mr. Martz. Hi, Congressman. There is no evidence that--
well, there is--let me backtrack here. While there is evidence
that cloud seeding can be effective, there is also evidence
that it is not as effective. So, there are very inconclusive
results and literature on it because natural variability is so
large.
As far as the Texas floods go, in particular, I think the
cloud seeding, the company that was accused of it was Rainmaker
if I am correct on that. But when they seeded, when they did
cloud seeding activities, they did it, I think, two days before
the rain began. And it was 200--I think it was 150 miles
southeast of Houston, Texas--or not Houston, San Antonio, if I
am correct on that, which means that in terms of the Texas Hill
Country, there was no way for that cloud seeding to have had
any material effect on the floods.
Mr. Gill. Got it. And Mr. Martz, I will continue with you.
Are you familiar with the butterfly effect?
Mr. Martz. Yes, I am.
Mr. Gill. Okay. Got it. You know, kind of the foundational
principle of chaos theory, that small changes in initial
conditions in a complex system can have second-, third-, or
fourth-order consequences that are seemingly unpredictable. How
do you think about that concept being applied to weather
seeding, you know, small changes in a complex system? And how
can you understand or how can we get comfortable that there are
not going to be third-, fourth-order impacts of potentially
much larger magnitude?
Mr. Martz. Well, I think that there are, again, obviously,
very much large uncertainties about it. And obviously, some
more research into it needs to be done, probably on a modeling
effort. But trying to, I think, that to do it--as far as the
environmental impacts of it in particular need to be studied,
especially with silver iodide and how it affects our water
tables and our soil because there is definitely concerns about
that. And I think there needs to be more laboratory studies on
that and more research that is funded to do that kind of thing.
Mr. Gill. Given the complexity of the issue here and how
large this problem is, how do you study something like that?
Mr. Martz. I think that you would employ a group of
scientists and, you know, do some sort of bipartisan effort to
look and see what we know about it and to do a comprehensive,
thorough report that would be people from different
perspectives that come together and discuss and mesh out the
details and then conduct experiments on it. Because in science,
you cannot just also, you cannot just use even modeling. You
also have to test things and do it through a laboratory
experiment to have observations because all science is numbers.
Mr. Gill. Got it. And Dr. Pielke, back to you. It has been
reported that China spent $2 billion in the past decade on
weather modification activities. How could an adversary use
weather modification for nefarious purposes?
Dr. Pielke. Yes, this is a great question and also gets to
your last question as to why we want to understand
effectiveness because if it is not effective, then they are not
going to be able to do much with it. And so, this is why, as I
said in my testimony, let us start with the questions that
Chairwoman Greene had in her first 5 minutes of questioning,
fantastic questions. You guys have the National Academy of
Sciences at your disposal where you can ask exactly these
questions. And a great question would be, given what we know
about weather modification, what could our adversaries and
enemies put it to use, and how would we know it?
I will also say, this is one reason why it is really
important to make sure that the observations and monitoring of
our atmosphere is fully funded, not just for scientists to do
research, but so we----
Mr. Gill. What is your opinion on how an adversary could
use weather modification?
Dr. Pielke. So, my understanding is that weather
modification is not particularly effective, and so based on
that level of knowledge, not much. But it is certainly
something that I would want a range of experts to weigh in on,
given that we do not know what is going on in China and
elsewhere.
Mr. Gill. Got it. Thank you.
Madam Chair, I yield back the remainder of my time.
Ms. Greene. The gentleman yields.
I now recognize Ms. Stansbury for 5 minutes of questioning.
Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Well, there is a lot going on in this hearing, so I want to
kind of break it into pieces because I think it might help
parse out some of the challenges I think the conversation is
having.
So, let us talk about cloud seeding as a technology. As a
technology, the idea of cloud seeding is based on the physics
of clouds, which is that in order to have rain or
precipitation, a water droplet has to be heavy enough to
condense to fall out of a cloud. That is what cloud seeding is
based on.
And so, there has been experimentation going back to the
1940s to introduce different particles into the atmosphere to
see if dust or these other chemicals can create a precipitation
moment. And, as has been identified by a number of our
witnesses today, there is still a lot of research to be done
about its efficacy. There are studies that have shown in
certain instances it may have increased the probability of a
specific incidence of precipitation, but there is also a lot of
data needed, and there is a very robust analysis that GAO has
engaged in and talked to experts. So, that is the science
around cloud seeding. That is cloud seeding.
But climate change is a different situation. Let us talk
about climate change. And I think every single witness here has
identified that there is no dispute in the scientific community
that global carbon emissions have gone up and that we know from
observational data. This is not a theory. This is not like, oh,
we are trying to figure out if this is true or not. The data
are very clear. We have had an increase in global temperature.
It has manifest in regional temperature increases across
different parts of the planet and in places like the American
Southwest, like where I am from, it has manifest in an increase
in temperature year after year, especially over the last 30
years, a decrease in precipitation year after year for the last
30 years, and the most intense drought we have seen in recorded
history since there was a major geologic change in the planet.
That is just facts. That is just observational data. That is
just measuring what we see in the environment. So, there is no
dispute over that.
And so, what scientists have consensus about is that carbon
is a pollutant that is coming from industrial activity all
around the planet. It is a challenge that involves the commons,
which is our atmosphere. I agree wholeheartedly with the
Chairwoman that we should be regulating spraying or putting
things into the atmosphere, and that is exactly what the EPA
does. That is why the EPA, on the consensus of scientists, not
only across the United States, decided to regulate the emission
of carbon because we know it is contributing to changes in the
global atmosphere, that is increasing energy in the atmosphere,
that is producing measurable effects on the ground.
Now, I agree that the incidence of individual weather
events, the ability to change the trajectory of individual
weather events, whether it is something as powerful as a
hurricane or something as powerful as an atmospheric river, as
was stated by Dr. MacCracken, those are events that are so
massive in scale, we do not know that an individual entity or
pollution in one place is culpable, if you will, for an
incident happening.
What we are talking about is a change in global chemistry
and global atmospheric physics that is driving the distribution
of weather events all across the planet, and that is why it is
a common pool problem. It is why we need international climate
agreements. It is why tens of thousands of scientists around
the world are urging countries to take climate action now. It
is why the United States regulates carbon, or was, until Donald
Trump took away those regulations just a couple of months ago.
It is why we measure carbon emissions.
It is why we are prepared, as Democratic Members of
Congress, to go show our faces and good faith on international
forums, that the United States still stands strong with climate
action because, as one of my colleagues just pointed out across
the aisle, it is an international problem. It is an
international problem. Pollution in one side of the planet
affects the entire global commons, and that is why we need
climate action in the United States and every single country on
planet Earth because it affects all of us. So, that is what the
science tells us, and I want to just be clear on that.
And with that, I yield back.
Ms. Greene. The gentlelady yields.
I now recognize Mr. Fallon from Texas for 5 minutes of
questioning.
Mr. Fallon. Thank you, Madam Chair, appreciate it. And I
love the civil discourse. We need more of it in the country.
That is for sure.
Dr. MacCracken, thank you for coming. And it is not often
that I get to talk to and converse with somebody as learned as
you, sir. You graduated from Princeton. Is that correct?
Dr. MacCracken. Yes.
Mr. Fallon. In 1964?
Dr. MacCracken. Excuse me?
Mr. Fallon. In 1964?
Dr. MacCracken. 1964, yes.
Mr. Fallon. I do not know when that became 61 years ago.
Isn't that something? So, you have been----
Dr. MacCracken. It was a long time ago.
Mr. Fallon. Fair to say you have been a climate scientist
for over half a century?
Dr. MacCracken. Yes.
Mr. Fallon. Sir, do you think that there is a growing
tendency for those in power, at least, I should say, for some
of those in power to engage in climate alarmism?
Dr. MacCracken. Scientists try, when they speak about it,
to be very careful in how they talk to the science.
Mr. Fallon. But I am not talking about scientists. I am
talking about politicians.
Dr. MacCracken. No, but in the--yes, in the media and
others, things get simplified and amplified and then that gets
reported, so.
Mr. Fallon. So, in other words, like for instance----
Dr. MacCracken. That happens, yes.
Mr. Fallon. Like making frightening, fear-mongering claims
of doom and gloom and being more hyperbolic than serious about
climate and the weather. Is that a fair statement?
Dr. MacCracken. Well, I think the situation that we are
facing is rather unprecedented in what is happening in society.
Mr. Fallon. And I apologize. Yes. Doctor, I just have
limited time. So, kind of, yes or no, I suppose. Like, for
instance, Al Gore, former Vice President of the United States,
made a name for himself. Some would say famous, some would say
notoriety with his activism within the climate realm. And in
2009, he said that he believed there was a 75 percent chance
that the polar ice cap would be ice-free in the summer months.
Did that ever happen since 2009?
Dr. MacCracken. No, that did not happen.
Mr. Fallon. That has not happened. In fact, on the Southern
Pole, Antarctica shelf grew a little bit, didn't it, from 2021
to 2023?
Dr. MacCracken. Well, there are variations that occur with
what----
Mr. Fallon. Yes, but it did not happen. He made a claim in
2009. It has been proven to be egregious. It never happened. In
2006, in his documentary ``An Inconvenient Truth,'' he claimed
that sea levels could rise up to 20 feet in the near future.
Did that happen?
Dr. MacCracken. It is starting to accelerate.
Mr. Fallon. Did it happen?
Dr. MacCracken. It has not happened yet, no.
Mr. Fallon. Not 20 feet.
Dr. MacCracken. No, but that is a possibility----
Mr. Fallon. But it did not happen in----
Mr. MacCracken [continuing]. When the global average
temperature----
Mr. Fallon [continuing]. The near future, 20 feet.
Mr. MacCracken [continuing]. Is as high as we are headed.
Mr. Fallon. In fact, right now, we are at elevation 410
feet in D.C. You grew up in Schenectady, New York. I grew up in
Pittsfield, Mass, very close to one another. We are at 1,039
feet in elevation. Princeton was at 203 feet. What is a beach
house? What is the elevation of a beach house?
Dr. MacCracken. They tend to be a few feet.
Mr. Fallon. Yes, zero, two, three, something like that.
Dr. MacCracken. Sure, yes.
Mr. Fallon. It is interesting that Al Gore ran for
President on the Democratic ticket in 2000, did not make it.
But the next Democratic President did was Barack Obama. And he
invested $12 million in a beach house in Martha's Vineyard. And
Joe Biden, the next Democratic President, has invested nearly
$4 million, at least its current value, in a beach house, sea
level, pretty much two feet, not to 20 feet. And in fact, what
really happened was sea levels rose, according to the National
Oceanic Atmospheric Administration and from 1993 to 2021, 3.8
inches, not 20 feet. By that rate, it will take 1,136 years to
reach 20 feet. I do not think we would define that as ``in the
near future.''
Another Committee Member, a former Committee Member of the
Oversight Committee in 2021 made some interesting claims. She
claimed that crop yields are already projected to fail, and by
2028, famine will hit the world's most vulnerable populations.
Do you agree with that statement, sir?
Dr. MacCracken. I am sorry, I missed exactly what you----
Mr. Fallon. Oh, sure. No, no, that is okay. A former Member
of this Committee, who is rather prominent in the political
realm, said that by 2028, which is only 18 months from--well,
less than that now--that crop yields are projected to fail, and
famine would hit the world's most vulnerable populations.
Dr. MacCracken. It is amazing how fast one can get into
situations of drought and failures in particular regions.
Mr. Fallon. But has that happened?
Dr. MacCracken. It has not.
Mr. Fallon. Okay.
Dr. MacCracken. No.
Mr. Fallon. So, again, because I just have 30 seconds left,
I just wanted to share some data and facts, which our friends
like. The five poorest countries in the world, which would be
the most vulnerable, Madagascar had a population in 2000 of 16
million. Today, it is 31 million. It has doubled. Liberia,
three million, now six. Somalia, nine million, 19 million now.
Democratic Republic of the Congo was 50 million. Now, it is 113
million. Mozambique, 18 million, 36 million. You see the trend.
It has doubled. Famine has not occurred. It is hyperbolic. It
is not serious.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Greene. The gentleman yields.
I now recognize Ms. Crockett from Texas for 5 minutes of
questioning.
Ms. Crockett. Thank you so much, Madam Chair.
The Republicans have been so busy protecting pedophiles and
rapists that they forgot what this Subcommittee is supposed to
be about. We are supposed to be talking about improving
government efficiency. We are supposed to be talking about
protecting taxpayer dollars from corruption. But congressional
Republicans have let the most corrupt Administration in
American history run wild. Republicans have turned the U.S.
Government into the world's largest Ponzi scheme. And it is not
surprising that corruption is rampant in this administration
because, well, we know who the President is.
It has actually been 84 days since our last hearing. The
Chairwoman could have called a hearing about how this is the
weakest hiring market since 2017, and we all know who the
President was in 2017. We could have had a hearing on how
Donald Trump's illegal tariffs are increasing the cost of
living for their constituents. We could have had a hearing on
why the Bureau of Prisons is accommodating human traffickers
like Ghislaine Maxwell. We could have had a hearing on how the
President is using the office to enrich himself and his family
and friends. We could have had a hearing on how this
Administration is illegally stealing more than $400 billion in
congressionally directed funds. But they would rather distract
you from the fact that their constituents are likely to die
from their decision to cut healthcare and SNAP before some
chemtrail conspiracy.
The Republicans do not care about their constituents
suffering from anything. They have been railing against the
American people for the last nine months. And they have been
doubling down. Taking your healthcare was not enough. They have
attacked Americans' housing, they have attacked Americans' food
and childcare assistance, and they have attacked Americans'
environmental protections. They are letting the oil companies
and big data companies write their energy and environmental
policies. These policies not only lead to sicker people, they
also lead to dirtier water, more polluted air, and increased
utility bills. And we know that these policies will
disproportionately impact Black and Brown communities around
the country.
So, Dr. MacCracken, the Trump Administration has dismantled
agencies, fired scientists, defunded research, and is defunding
universities. Do these actions disincentivize institutions from
engaging in research and deter students wanting to work on
climate science?
Dr. MacCracken. I would think the answer to that would be
yes.
Ms. Crockett. Thank you so much. And Dr. MacCracken,
wouldn't you agree that eliminating environmental research can
have devastating impacts on communities, particularly Black and
Brown communities, which are often located in highly
industrialized areas?
Dr. MacCracken. Yes, I agree. And I might just say during
the national assessment, that was one of the issues we tried to
address by having some of the historically Black colleges be
looking at the assessment of climate change and its
significance in the Gulf Coast region.
Ms. Crockett. Thank you so much. I have a couple of UCs
that I want to enter into the record really quickly at this
moment. One is from September 11 of 2025. It says, ``August
2025, Earth's third-hottest August on record. Four nations and
territories set or tied their all-time heat record in August:
Japan, Brunei, the UAE, and Martinique.''
Ms. Greene. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Crockett. The next one that I have is a UC that says,
``State of the climate 2025 on track to be second or third
warmest year on record.''
Ms. Greene. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Crockett. The third one is ``Natural disasters have
caused more than $131 billion in losses so far in 2025'' from
CBS News.
Ms. Greene. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Crockett. The reason that I wanted to point these
things out because I think that we cannot have a hearing like
this unless we settle on some basics, one of those basics being
that climate change is real. Whether or not any individual has
accurately predicted exactly the day or how bad it is going to
be and when is one thing. But the reality is that, as I was
listening in, while I was not physically here, I was tuned into
the hearing, I will say that even the Republican witnesses
admitted that we are heating up.
So, the question is, what is it that we need to do to
actually turn the heat down? Unfortunately, it seems like this
Administration's decision has been to defund any and every one
that actually could work on saving us because we do not know
what will happen if this daggone planet--and yes, it is more
than the United States--heats up to a ridiculous amount.
I can tell you that other countries acknowledge that
climate change is real and that we have real work to do and it
is within the science realm instead of the conspiracy realm.
And thank you. With that, I will yield.
Ms. Greene. The gentlelady yields.
I now recognize Mr. Jack from Georgia for 5 minutes of
questioning.
Mr. Jack. Well, thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman.
And I want to commend our witnesses for your testimony. I
found it enlightening throughout today's hearing.
And if I could start with Mr. Martz, just to establish for
this Subcommittee's record, could you briefly describe for us
the history of weather modification within our country? When
did it start? And how did we arrive to where we are today?
Mr. Martz. I mean, weather modification has been proposed
at least since the 1890s to my knowledge, probably before that.
And back in the 1940s is really when it got started. Obviously,
there was Project Cirrus, and then it really started to peak
about the 1960s and 1970s is when it peaked. And starting in
the 1980s, it started to significantly decrease on a Federal
level. There is still a lot that is being done at a state level
and a local level, but the Federal Government, as Dr. Pielke
had mentioned, does not largely--is not largely involved in
such activities.
Mr. Jack. And to understand the science behind this, as I
understand, the 1940s and 1950s scientists started
experimenting by using, if I am not mistaken, silver iodide and
dry ice to----
Mr. Martz. Correct. Correct.
Mr. Jack [continuing]. Simulate precipitation. And I am
glad you did mention Project Cirrus. This matters to both the
Chairwoman and I because we represent the incredible State of
Georgia. But if you could brief this Committee on what happened
with Project Cirrus. And, as I understand it, Savannah, the
third largest city in our state, was struck by a hurricane
because of some of the activities therein.
Mr. Martz. Yes, so Project Cirrus--so an atmospheric
scientist by the name of Vincent Schaefer, he worked for
General Electric Laboratories. And he discovered in 1946, he
discovered that by putting dry ice into an environment with
supercooled liquid water droplets that he could get it to
freeze. And this could be done--he extrapolated this to the
atmosphere where it could spur microphysical reactions in
clouds to alter precipitation. NOAA has a great article on
this. So, they partnered with the Naval Research Laboratory and
the Army Signal Corps to experiment in hurricanes.
So, in October 1947--I think it was October 13, 1947, they
flew two B-17s and a B-29, and they dumped huge chunks of dry
ice. And specifically in their first round, which was half an
hour, they dumped 80--hold on, where is it at? They dumped a
whole lot of dry ice. It was 80 pounds, rather, over a 100-mile
course. And they wanted to see what the cloud changes were in
the hurricane. And then they did two more mass droppings with
50 pounds each.
And obviously, the next day, the hurricane eye was 50 miles
east--or 50 miles west, rather, of where it was supposed to be,
and the hurricane made 135 degree turn and hit Georgia. And so,
this obviously was--generated a bunch of lawsuits, and they
were thrown around. And one of the, actually the head of
General Electric at the time said he was 99 percent sure that
it changed course due to cloud seeding. However, the U.S.
Weather Bureau, which is now the National Weather Service, put
together a team of scientists, and they found that really there
is no evidence that the cloud seeding had that kind of effect
because hurricanes can do those kinds of turns naturally on
their own. And there have been similar tracks to that in the
past.
Mr. Jack. I am grateful for that explanation. And again,
Madam Chairwoman, just want to submit for the record that our
own state was impacted by weather modification and a hurricane
that was not meant to strike our state naturally did strike our
state in 1947.
In closing, I am curious, one of my constituents, a really
smart guy from Coweta County, has raised the threat of SAIs,
stratospheric aerosol injections, to myself and would love for
you to comment, Mr. Martz, on how SAIs are potentially going to
be developed over the years to come and what this Committee can
do to combat the threat thereof.
Mr. Martz. Yes, to my knowledge, there is not really any
sort of solar geoengineering that is being done worldwide to my
knowledge. There have been some attempts that have been shut
down, such as the University of Washington project, which I
think got 20 minutes in before it was halted. But there--it is
the proposed attempt, and it is a very real proposal, to inject
primarily sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, which is the
layer above the troposphere where we live, and the sulfur
dioxide reacts with other gases in the atmosphere, and it forms
sulfate aerosols, which are highly reflective because their
width in terms of the microns--the tenths of microns, is about
the width of the radiation of sunlight coming in. They are very
highly reflective particles, and so it could cause--if it was
successfully implemented, if it were to be implemented, it
could cause significant global cooling that would counteract,
you know, the warming that we have seen over the last 100
years.
But we know what the climate was like during the Middle Ice
Age. We know what the winters were like in 1850. It was not a
very pleasant time. So, the claims that, you know, today's
climate is not ideal compared to then are just false.
Mr. Jack. Well, I appreciate, in closing, you acknowledging
the threat of SAIs. I want to thank my constituent for briefing
me on that threat.
And Madam Chair, I want to commend you for holding this
hearing. I think this is a hearing people will study for years
to come, and I appreciate the testimony that our witnesses
provided today.
And with that, I yield back.
Ms. Greene. Thank you, Mr. Jack.
In closing, I want to thank our witnesses once again for
their testimony today.
I now yield to Ranking Member Stansbury for closing
remarks.
Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
I will just note, you can put anything in a hearing record
whether or not it is true or not, so I will just say that for
the record.
But I am grateful that we had this hearing today because,
as I said earlier, we finally discovered the purpose of the
Environmental Protection Agency, which is to study and use
science to inform the regulation of pollution.
And I have heard a lot of statements from my colleagues
across the aisle today identifying that, yes, indeed, we do
want to study and regulate pollution in the atmosphere, that we
want to make sure it is not adversely affecting communities,
which is the foundation of environmental justice, which is
something that we care deeply about. And we understand that we
can have cross-border impacts, which is why we need
international agreements and action on climate change.
All of these are the reason why the Environmental
Protection Agency exists. All of these are the reasons why the
Federal Government funds science. All of these are the reasons
why we have Federal scientists who help to vet science, as was
noted about the National Academies. All of this is why we need
to take climate action.
Now, I want to just address some comments I heard about
urgency. Now, one of the things that we did not have the
opportunity to get into today in our discussion, even though we
did, of course, establish that the science is real, the
observational data is real about the increase of carbon dioxide
emissions and how that is driving temperature and precipitation
changes around the world. But the reason why there is a global
consensus about the need and urgency of action right now is
because there is an overwhelming consensus in the scientific
community that we could reach a tipping point. And this is
really about trying to address the global risks of reaching a
tipping point because we know from physics and chemistry that
if there is too much energy in the atmosphere, it could
continue to ratchet up the impacts of these extreme events.
And we are already seeing these impacts. We are already
seeing it. In my home state of New Mexico, we have had the
largest, most catastrophic fires ever in recorded history,
including back before humans were recording on paper what
happened. We have seen the largest-scale floods that we have
ever seen in specific locations because of extreme weather
events. We are seeing temperature changes and snowpack changes
that are impacting food production, that are impacting farmers.
It is already happening. We cannot deny our eyeballs. It is
happening in front of us. The data are there.
And so, the reason why there is an urgency to act on a
global scale right now is because we want to make sure that the
Earth does not cross a tipping point because of the things we
are putting into the atmosphere. Now, the way that we do that
is we have to take an all-of-the-above approach because carbon
emissions are coming from all different sources. There are some
sources that are putting more in the atmosphere, and there are
some less.
And that is why we passed the largest, all-of-the-above
climate strategy in American history three years ago in the
Inflation Reduction Act. That is exactly what that bill was
designed to do. It was designed to address utility sector scale
changes, transportation changes, manufacturing changes, to help
people make that transition so we can reduce carbon emissions
and we can prevent our planet from crossing a tipping point.
That is all it is. It is not alarmism. Like, that is literally
all we are trying to accomplish by climate action is to keep
our planet in some sort of balance because, yes, we have one
Earth. We have one Earth. This is our home. And so that is why
we need climate action.
That is why the firing of Federal employees, the defunding
of science, the firing of EPA's science panel, the deregulation
of carbon emissions, and the whole-scale attack that we are
seeing on the Federal science enterprise is not only
problematic for many countless reasons in terms of continuing
this enterprise, but because it is dangerous for the planet and
for our communities.
And so, I hope that my colleagues who seem to care about
emissions, who seem to care about environmental justice, as I
have heard in this hearing, who seem to care about the
localized impacts of putting things in the atmosphere, can
understand why we need climate action now.
And with that, I yield back.
Ms. Greene. I now recognize myself for closing remarks.
What we have learned here today has been fascinating. I
hope the people watching it at home have been able to see the
radicalized positions on the other side of the aisle. Remember,
if you even questioned that someone could control the weather,
you were labeled a conspiracy theorist or crazy. Then they
changed the message to, well, it is not hurting anyone and it
is to provide water for people.
And now they have come full circle around to the point that
modifying the weather is how they save the planet from the
global warming hoax, whether you agree or not. The people
clearly disagreed with the climate hoax and disagreed with my
Democrat colleagues, so much so that they made a big change
last year. They elected President Trump, and they elected
Republicans to control the House and the Senate.
These climate activists have come so far that they are
actively trying to inject chemicals into the air to block the
rays of the sun from hitting the Earth. And they want to take
away our God-given rights, our God-given rights over the Earth
in order to satisfy their godless climate cult beliefs.
Imagine these geoengineering projects were implemented at
large scale across the globe because that is what they want to
do. These lifegiving rays of the sun provide essential
functions to the human body, including the strengthening of the
immune system, inflammation reduction, strengthening of bone
health, and so much more. The effects of the human body of a
lack of sun exposure include irregular circadian rhythm,
depression and mental illness, deficiency in bone strength,
which can lead to a form of tuberculosis, and many more health
problems, not to mention the potential damage done to the plant
and animal life, as well as the possible ozone depletion. And
as mentioned here with one of our witnesses, potentially
cooling the earth could also cause people to freeze to death,
crops to die, and could literally lead to killing millions and
millions of people.
Radical climate alarmists worship the climate as if it is a
religion. They are so radical, they glue themselves to the
road, blocking traffic, and destroy artwork in museums. They
scream global warming is going to kill us all and that U.S.
cities are going to vanish underwater.
One other interesting hypocrisy of the left is that if they
truly believed their global warming hoax and the rising sea
levels, the cost of all of us will be underwater in a few short
years, why are they investing millions of dollars into
beachfront properties across the same coast they claim will be
underwater? Bill and Melinda Gates own a $43 million beachfront
home in California. The Obamas own a $12 million waterfront
compound in Martha's Vineyard. Mark Zuckerberg is building a
$270 million beachfront compound in Hawaii. Mark Cuban owns a
$19 million beachfront mansion on the coast of California.
What this whole debate comes down to is who controls the
skies. Do we believe in God and that He has dominion over His
perfect creation of planet Earth? Do we believe that He has
given us everything we need to survive as a civilization since
the beginning of time? Or do you believe in man's claim of
authority over the weather based on scientists that have only
been alive for decades and were not here to witness the climate
changes since the beginning of time?
This is why I have introduced my bill, the Clear Skies Act,
to end weather modification and geoengineering because I do not
believe planet Earth is a lab, and I do not believe people are
lab rats. I believe that people have the right and they have
the God-given right to have clean air, clean skies, clean
water, and clean food.
And with that, and without objection, all Members have five
legislative days within which to submit materials and
additional written questions for the witnesses which will be
forwarded to the witnesses.
If there is no further business, without objection, the
Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:53 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]