Rohrabacher Challenges Implications of Global Warming
In his second hearing on “Scientific Integrity and Public Trust,” (see FYI #132 for a summary of the first hearing), House Science Energy and Environment Chairman Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) questioned the accuracy of computer models of global warming and projections of potential impacts. Remarking on continuous revisions to estimates of warming, he asked, “are we so certain...that we should take actions that would change the lives of millions of our citizens at a cost of untold millions of dollars?”
Declaring that “this subcommittee has a duty to continue to present balanced panels,” Rohrabacher had invited witnesses with differing opinions. He also invited Vice President Gore to testify, particularly to charges that the Administration stifled opposing views on the issue, but Gore declined. Rohrabacher and Rep. Lynn Rivers (D-MI) clashed over this issue, as Rivers pointed out that a witness who had made such an assertion in the previous hearing was unwilling to follow up on her claim.
All seven witnesses on the two panels, regardless of their views on global warming, agreed that continued research was vital. No one argued that climate change would not occur; instead, they disagreed over the estimated amounts and effects, and the policy implications. Peter Guerrero of the General Accounting Office explained that lack of knowledge about environmental processes like cloud formation, and insufficient computing power, limited the accuracy of computer models. But he supported the scientific consensus that continued unrestricted growth of greenhouse gas emissions would lead to global warming. The limitations of the computer models, he said, “do not change the likelihood that the climate will change.”
Jerry Mahlman of NOAA agreed that “none of the uncertainties...can make current concerns...go away. The problem is very real, and will be with us for a very long time.” However, Mahlman said that society’s responses to the threat were “value judgments” that were beyond the realm of science. Patrick Michaels of the University of Virginia cast doubt on the models by pointing out that estimates of potential warming had decreased over the years, but he called this “a classic example of the normal tension” between theory and data. Michaels felt the models did not yet account for all factors, and concluded that “reports of grave ecological consequences” could not be trusted.
When asked by Rohrabacher whether they supported continued study, all the witnesses agreed. Michaels stressed the importance of continuing to monitor the climate, and said he believed the computer models and reality “were converging.” Mahlman concurred, saying, “the simple truth is that no matter what opinions are, the check for the theories is in the data.” He reported that the ability to collect data had decreased in the most recent federal budget. While the cost of taking preventive actions might be very, very high, he said, the cost of doing nothing might be prodigious. He warned lawmakers, “there’s no soft landing spot.” Rohrabacher expressed skepticism of the projected impacts, saying that “mankind has a way of developing new technologies that I believe...may well solve the problem without huge government intervention.”
Robert Watson, OSTP Associate Director of Environment, summarized some major conclusions of the upcoming report by the International Panel on Climate Change: the Earth’s surface temperature has increased approximately one-half degree centigrade over the past century, and greenhouse gas concentrations, which tend to warm the atmosphere, have increased due to human activities. Concentrations of sulfate aerosols, which tend to cool the atmosphere, have also increased, possibly offsetting some greenhouse effects. The computer models simulate these effects quite well, Watson reported. He noted that both the magnitude and rate of human-induced warming would put new, additional stresses on ecological and socio-economic systems, and argued that the problem could be addressed in a cost-effective way.
William Nierenberg of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography stated “there is no question in my mind that the current anthropogenic growth of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is bound to influence climate. The question is not whether but when, how much, and the nature and magnitude.” Nierenberg explained that as more recent calculations implied a shorter lifetime for carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (thus leading to a quicker response to any remediation), he had changed his opinion to believe that “one can now safely wait...before taking action.” Thomas Moore, an economist at Stanford’s Hoover Institution, drew a correlation between past periods of warming and instances of increased population growth and human development. He concluded that global warming would be generally beneficial to the human race. Rivers inquired, “if the equation is simply that warmer equals better,” why are most equatorial nations third-world countries? Moore replied that due to technological innovation, climate has less influence on human development today than in the past. Rivers asked whether he could be certain that temperature increases due to carbon dioxide emissions would produce the same results as past periods of warming. Moore could not be sure, but said that carbon dioxide levels had been higher millions of years ago. “When there were no people,” Rivers added. Moore answered, “Yes, but the Earth didn’t burn up.”
Rep. John Olver (D-MA) responded to Moore’s thesis by citing examples of warming adversely affecting climates. Watson warned that health experts believe warming would cause malaria to flourish, and noted that the Earth was already experiencing an increase in droughts and floods. Nierenberg chided the scientific community for not taking into account human inventiveness, saying, “I believe we will come up with some cure for malaria in the next 100 years.”
Rep. Vern Ehlers (R-MI) admitted that “prevention is far cheaper and generally far better than anything we can do” afterwards. Nierenberg agreed that, in the short term, society should curtain emissions, “even if it costs a little bit.” Ehlers also expressed concern over the charge that the Administration only supported “politically-correct science.” Watson responded that they were “trying very, very hard to get a wide range of peer-review” to make that concern “a non-issue.” He added that “science only progresses when you get a wide range of views.”
Rohrabacher ended the session by stating that he was “more skeptical now than before the hearing.... I find it impossible to understand that it’s as significant as you say it is.”
