[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 22]
[House]
[Pages 29899-29900]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          RESOLUTION ON THE IMPORTANCE OF SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, in the last few weeks there has been 
some very disturbing correspondence that's surfaced and presents a real 
dilemma for the scientific community and an even greater dilemma for 
this Congress as the United Nations Climate Change Conference begins in 
Copenhagen.
  As ranking member of the Science Committee, I'm concerned about these 
revelations dubbed by the press as ``Climate-gate'' and their 
implication for the scientific community, Congress, and the American 
people. Allegations of manipulation of scientific data would be 
troublesome under any circumstance. The fact that the scientific data 
in question here is to be used as the basis for global agreement to 
limit greenhouse gas emissions or changes to the regulatory regime of 
the United States makes these allegations that much more disturbing.
  I've introduced a resolution which highlights concerns about moving 
forward with greenhouse gas emissions regulations or an agreement in 
Copenhagen on the basis of scientific data which email exchanges 
indicate has been manipulated, enhanced, or deleted in order to advance 
a political agenda. Forcing Americans to meet carbon emission 
reductions may worsen our high unemployment rate and slow our economy 
while other nations advance their own growth at our expense.
  Considering the loss of confidence in the scientific process, it's 
even more troubling that policymakers are pushing forward with a scheme 
that could irrevocably alter our economy and our prosperity.
  In the past few weeks, through the disclosure of more than a thousand 
emails, there is extensive evidence that many researchers across the 
globe discussed the destruction, alteration, and suppression of data 
that did not support global warming claims. These exchanges include a 
leading climate scientist encouraging other scientists to alter data 
that is the basis of climate modeling across the globe by using the 
``trick of adding in the real temps to each series . . . to hide the 
decline [in temperature].''
  The U.S. National Science and Technology Council defines research 
misconduct as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, 
performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.
  All of this would be troubling enough on the basis that much of this 
research is taxpayer funded. However, it is even more troubling when 
one considers that this data is held up as the reason to implement new 
regulations and laws and potentially enter into global agreements, all 
in the name of reducing emissions. Policymakers are asking citizens to 
agree to alter the economic structure of our country and possibly 
sacrifice jobs in the name of preserving this warming planet, even as 
these scientists fail to follow accepted scientific practices and seek 
to stifle contrary points of view.
  Federal policy for addressing research misconduct requires a full 
inquiry and investigation of the misconduct, as well as a correction of 
the research record, and potential referral to the Department of 
Justice. I have sent a letter to the chairman of the Science Committee 
asking there be an investigation into these matters.
  Even more troubling is that these exchanges describe attempts to 
silence academic journals that publish research skeptical of 
significant manmade global warming and refer to efforts to exclude 
contrary views from publication in the scientific journals. Some 
scientists even encouraged the deletion of data and emails to avoid 
disclosure in the event of a Freedom of Information request.
  All of this presents a troubling pattern of attempts not only to 
misrepresent the data on global warming to meet expectations contained 
in the theories, but also to silence any dissenters and cover up 
inappropriate data manipulation.

                              {time}  1730

  The emails show that raw data not meeting the expectations of the 
scientists or showing a pattern of warm were altered and the raw data 
in question was destroyed so as to ensure no further examination. When 
accepted scientific practices are not followed, there can be 
implications well beyond the scope of the narrowly focused project. I 
believe that this is the situation we have before us.
  These documents reveal actions that may constitute a serious breach 
of scientific ethics and violation of the public trust. Certain actions 
appear to qualify under the definition of U.S. Federal policy on 
research misconduct.
  While this investigation is an important step, the resolution states 
that the United States should not consider

[[Page 29900]]

limitations on emissions until sufficient scientific protocols and a 
robust oversight mechanism have been established to preclude future 
infringements of public trust by scientific falsification and fraud.
  In addition to the economic and regulatory concerns about 
international climate agreements, Congress should not allow any 
agreement with any other country nor agree to legislation or regulatory 
action that will irrevocably alter our economy until we can be assured 
that this data which forms the basis for these laws and agreements is 
based on sound science obtained and maintained using traditionally 
accepted scientific principles. Signing an internal protocol in 
Copenhagen, especially one based on questionable science, is un-
American and will kill jobs.

                          ____________________