Scientists Support Earth Observing System at House Science Hearing
In the past year, NASA’s Mission to Planet Earth and its main component, the Earth Observing System (EOS), were vulnerable targets for budget cuts in the battle to reduce the federal deficit. Appropriators in the House proposed reducing Mission to Planet Earth funding by $80 million from the Administration’s FY 1996 request of $1.34 billion. (Due to the budget impasse between Congress and the Administration, fiscal year 1996 funding for NASA programs has not yet been finalized.)
House Science Committee Chairman Robert Walker (R-PA), who has been critical of the Administration’s climate research programs, scheduled a March 6 hearing to review funding for EOS and U.S. research on global climate change in general. In his opening statement, Walker charged that “countless times...people have taken it upon themselves to theorize about my motivations with regard to Mission Planet Earth.... So, today, let me set the record straight.... I do support pursuing a research program that obtains the best affordable research on the fundamental physics of global climate.” Walker questioned, however, whether the lifecycle costs (estimated by GAO at $33 billion through 2020) would make EOS unsustainable in future years.
Dr. Edward Frieman, Director of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, presented recent results of a ongoing National Research Council (NRC) review of Mission to Planet Earth and the entire U.S. Global Change Research Program. While reviewers were sensitive to concerns about budget pressures and politically-driven science, Frieman said, they concluded that “the overall quality of the program’s science is high...[and the researchers] go where science, not politics, leads.” With respect to EOS, “the centerpiece” of the U.S.'s observational program, the NRC concluded that further improvements were needed, including streamlining the data and information system (EOSDIS) and developing advanced technologies to reduce future costs.
NASA’s Associate Administrator for Mission to Planet Earth, Charles Kennel, testified that the program “was, is, and will be” science-driven and peer-reviewed, and would include a biennial evaluation to incorporate new technologies and seek commercial, interagency, international partnerships where possible. Aram Mika of Hughes Aircraft Corporation agreed that Mission to Planet Earth was already making use of state-of-the-art technologies and that the spacecraft and instrument size “flow logically from the science requirements.... I cannot recall a program with better, tighter collaboration with the science community,” he stated.
Rep. Harold Volkmer (D-MO) inquired about the impact of reducing the EOS budget by $1-2 million annually. Brad Hathaway of GAO responded that NASA would get less value for its money. He added that EOS was not the primary reason for the gap between NASA’s plans and projected budgets, and that many federal agencies were having similar problems. Several questions were raised about achieving cost-savings by purchasing commercial data and making use of DOD technologies; Kennel replied that NASA was considering those options.
Representing differing views of global warming, members of the second panel disagreed on the interpretations of climate change data, but all seven agreed on the need for further data. Robert Balling of Arizona State University declared, “No scientist would ever come here and say we don’t need more data.” The witnesses also stressed that continued data collection was the best way to avoid politicization of the science. The University of Virginia’s Robert Davis stated that continued monitoring and archiving of data was essential for an unbiased analysis of climate change. “Honest and open debate is key to making sound societal decisions,” added John Christy of the University of Alabama at Huntsville.
Robert Watson, OSTP Associate Director for the Environment, related the latest findings of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and said the uncertainties of global warming argued strongly for a comprehensive research effort. Patrick Michaels of the University of Virginia believed “firmly in collection of the facts,” and suggested that the industrial and environmental communities “assume some of the research burden.” While MIT’s Richard Lindzen stressed the necessity of prioritizing data collection efforts and complained that EOS was not focused on answering specific questions, Michael McCracken of the U.S. Global Change Research Program defended EOS as a very important contribution to observations. Asked whether the scientific community did not need observations from EOS, Michaels said that was absolutely not true, and Balling added that it was “inconceivable to think how we could better generate data” than with EOS.
Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-KS) questioned whether EOS was designed with any preconceived ideas of scientific results. Watson said no, noting that NASA’s policy was to make the data available to all scientists for analysis. Michaels stated that the peer-review process would assure that “in the long run, the truth will come out.” Lindzen concurred. “I stand as an example that government support does not determine scientific position,” he said.
“I’m hearing from all of you...that more data is better than no data,” Chairman Walker concluded, but he stressed the “need to interpret the data.” If the cost of observations could be reduced, he suggested, more money could be devoted to analysis. Such sentiments may be influential if his committee drafts NASA authorizing legislation this year.
