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




                              CLIMATEGATE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. According to the American Physical Society, science is 
the systematic enterprise of gathering knowledge about the universe and 
organizing and condensing that knowledge into testable laws and 
theories. The success and credibility of science are anchored in the 
willingness of scientists who, number one, expose their ideas and 
results to independent testing and replication by others. This requires 
the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, and, two, abandon 
or modify previously accepted conclusions when confronted with more 
complete or reliable experimental or observational evidence.
  Adherence to these principles provides a mechanism for self-
correction that is the foundation of the credibility of science.

                              {time}  1745

  Madam Speaker, the recent emails out of the University of East Anglia 
on the subject of climate change call into question the scientific 
integrity of several of the researchers involved in developing the 
climate science that is being used by decisionmakers around the world. 
While allegations of fraud and manipulation in the scientific community 
are troubling in and of themselves, they are even more concerning when 
the data in question is being used by United Nations negotiators as the 
basis for a global agreement to limit greenhouse gases. Such a 
situation should give international and domestic negotiators pause on 
the eve of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change in 
Copenhagen.
  Recent events have uncovered evidence from the Climate Research Unit 
at the University of East Anglia, which show that researchers around 
the globe discussed hiding, destroying, and altering climate data that 
did not support their narrow global warming claims. Their emails 
further indicate an attempt to silence academic journalists who publish 
research that is at odds with their ideology, and they even refer to 
efforts to exclude contrary views from publication in scientific 
journals.
  Scientific research should meet high standards of quality and should 
not be held hostage to the ideologies of those presenting the data. It 
is beyond comprehension that we would even consider implementing a 
carbon reduction scheme which will irrevocably alter the economy and 
lead to more joblessness based on these fabrications. Before we move 
any further, we must restore scientific integrity to the process.
  Recent events really show that this has not happened. The hacked 
emails provide evidence that researchers suppressed science and data 
which did not conform to the preferred outcomes. For example, one 
researcher commits himself to ensuring that no nonconforming science 
will be mentioned in the IPCC's fourth assessment report. He writes, 
``Kevin and I will keep them out somehow even if we have to redefine 
what peer-review literature is.''
  As a senior member of the House Science and Technology Committee, I 
cannot stress enough how important the availability of objective 
scientific data is for both decisionmakers and researchers. When it 
comes to our economy and environment, we cannot afford to make 
decisions on the basis of corrupted data.
  With this in mind, the President should call on the IPCC to establish 
a robust oversight mechanism governing its work before further climate 
legislation or regulatory measures are taken. Such action is necessary 
to prevent future infringements of public trust by scientific 
falsification and fraud.

                          ____________________