[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 22]
[House]
[Pages 29900-29901]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              CLIMATEGATE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OLSON. Madam Speaker, yesterday the U.N. climate change summit in 
Copenhagen, Denmark, began. The work of the summit is supported in 
large part by the research developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on 
Climate Change, or the IPCC. This panel is responsible for assessing 
the state of scientific knowledge related to climate change and 
reporting its findings to the convention.
  And it is not a stretch to say that policymakers in the United States 
and many other countries rely upon and use the data compiled by the 
IPCC as a basis for making predictions on future climate conditions and 
setting policy to limit potential causes of climate change.
  The emails that emerged recently from the University of East Anglia 
call into question the accuracy of the IPCC data. There is evidence 
that researchers suppressed science and data that did not conform to 
their preferred outcomes.
  I would like to read from one of the emails that was discovered:
  ``I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. 
Kevin and I will keep them out somehow--even if we have to redefine 
what the peer-review literature is.''
  This is scary. The availability of accurate, objective, and 
scientific data is essential for decision makers. Given that the data 
was manipulated and hidden and that opposing data was potentially 
suppressed, it's clear that the United States should not commit to any 
international agreement on climate change or implement a domestic 
regulatory system that could damage the economy and kill jobs.
  And I'm proud to be a cosponsor of Ranking Member Hall's resolution 
regarding scientific protocols and peer

[[Page 29901]]

review standards. Science is based on facts and data, but there is also 
an element of trust when public policy and science meet. If that trust 
is broken, it is irresponsible for government to legislate on half-
truths, incomplete findings, and bogus claims.
  This administration promised openness and transparency, and they use 
science as a primary means to demonstrate that practice. It's time for 
the administration to stand up for the principle of openness, even if 
it means exposing findings that don't meet their preexisting policy 
initiatives.

                          ____________________