Political Interference with Government Climate Change Science

Testimony of

James E. Hansen

to

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

United States House of Representatives

19 March 2007

2

Political Interference with Government Climate Change Science

Contents

1. Rationale of Presentation

2. My Experience

A. White House Approval and Editing of Congressional Testimony

B. Communication Constraints by NASA Office of Public Affairs

C. Executive Control of Purse Strings

3. Practical Impact of Political Interference with Climate Change Science

A. Communication of Climate Change Threat

B. Delay of Action: Potential Economic Benefits Become Costs

C. Moral and Legal Burdens

4. Issues and Questions Raised

A. Propriety of Filtering Congressional Testimony

B. Politicization of Public Affairs Office

C. Executive Control of the Purse Strings

5. Summary Implications of Climate Change Science

A. Status of Science

B. Impact of Political Interference on Quality of Decision Making

C. Recommendations to Policy-Makers

3

1. Rationale of Presentation

I provide this testimony because I believe that my experiences illustrate flaws that have

developed in the functioning of our democracy. And I will use part of my presentation to

compare the benefits of early actions to defuse the building climate crisis with the dangers of

continued business-as-usual fossil fuel emissions.

I claim no expertise in legal matters or politics. My approach is to try to imagine how

our forefathers would have viewed our present situation and how they may have dealt with the

climate change issue. A well-informed educated public was and is a premise of our democracy;

it is easy for me to imagine Benjamin Franklin presenting an objective discussion of climate

change that would be thoughtfully received. Another fundamental tenet of our democracy,

separation of powers within our government, with checks and balances, is brought into focus by

the climate crisis.

2. My Experience

A. White House Approval and Editing of Congressional Testimony

During the past 25 years I have noticed an increase in the degree of political interference

with scientific testimony to Congress. My first testimony was to a United States House of

Representatives hearing organized by Representative Al Gore in early 1982. I do not recall

whether White House approval of that testimony was required, but in any case there were no

objections to the content of that testimony1.

I testified to the United States Senate about climate change at least three times in the

period 1984-1988. These testimonies required approval by the White House Office of

Management and Budget (OMB). I did not have direct contact with people in OMB, rather

NASA Headquarters (usually the NASA Office of Legislative Affairs) was an intermediary

between the scientist (me) and OMB. In one case I strongly objected to changes that OMB made

to my testimony, because I felt that the changes substantially altered the conclusions of our

research and served to reduce concern about possible human-made climate change.

In this case the NASA intermediary in the Office of Legislative Affairs volunteered the

information that I had the right to testify as a private citizen and present my testimony with the

wording that I preferred. I took advantage of that right, testifying as a private citizen, and never

felt any repercussions for doing so.

In 1989, after climate change had become of greater public and political concern, the

constraints on communication via congressional testimony became stricter, at least in my

experience. When I submitted written testimony to NASA Headquarters in 1989 for presentation

to a Senate Committee chaired by Senator Gore, my secretary was instructed by NASA

Headquarters to send the original typescript to NASA Headquarters so that they could insert

several changes that were required by the White House OMB. When I was informed of this I

was angered, intercepted the typescript, and insisted that any changes had to be made in my

office. Several acceptable rewordings were negotiated (NASA Headquarters being the

1 In that testimony I summarized three papers published with colleagues in 1981, the principal paper being one in

Science (Reference 1) in which we showed that, when Southern Hemisphere data were included, the Earth had

warmed by about 0.4°C (0.7°F) over the previous century. The second paper showed that non-CO2 gases caused a

climate forcing almost as large as that of CO2. The third paper showed that sea level had increased about 12 cm in

the preceding 100 years and suggested for the first time, I believe, that thermal expansion of ocean water accounted

for a significant fraction of sea level rise.

4

intermediary between OMB and me), but three changes2 that OMB required were unacceptable

to me. Unlike the case earlier in the 1980s, I was told by NASA Headquarters that I needed to

accept the changes or not testify. I agreed to accept the changes, but I then sent a fax to Senator

Gore requesting that he ask me during the hearing about those specific statements, because I

wanted to make clear that they were the opinion of the White House OMB, not my opinion.

(This exchange was briefly shown in the documentary “An Inconvenient Truth”.)

Review and editing of scientific testimony by the White House OMB seems to now be an

accepted practice. The explanation I was given for why budgetary people should be allowed to

review and edit scientific testimony was that NASA plans need to be consistent with the

Administration’s budget. Discussion with NASA personnel in Legislative Affairs and in Science

program offices suggests that people at NASA Headquarters believe that NASA must “play ball”

with OMB if it wishes to be treated well in its annual funding. It seems to me that this raises

constitutional questions, because it is my understanding that the Constitution provides the power

of the purse strings to Congress, not the Executive Branch of our government. I return to this

issue in Section 4 below, after discussing in Section 3 the practical impacts of this political

interference in climate science.

B. Communication Constraints by NASA Office of Public Affairs

The Office of Public Affairs in science agencies such as NASA exists for the purpose of

helping communicate scientific results to the public. During my career I have noticed an

increasing politicization of Public Affairs at the Headquarters level, with a notable effect on

communication from scientists to the public. I refer not to the professionals in the Public Affairs

offices at the NASA science centers, but to Public Affairs at NASA Headquarters, which is in

charge overall and is generally headed by a political appointee. Interference with

communication of science to the public has been greater during the current Administration than

at any time in my career. As I was quoted on the 2006 calendar of the Freedom Forum “In my

more than three decades in government, I have never seen anything approaching the degree to

which information flow from scientists to the public has been screened and controlled as it has

now.”

The effect of the filtering of climate change science during the current Administration has

been to make the reality of climate change less certain than the facts indicate and to reduce

concern about the relation of climate change to human-made greenhouse gas emissions. For

example, one of my staff members submitted a story based on his paper that found the ocean was

less effective at removing human-made CO2 than had previously been estimated. Public Affairs

decided that this story should not be provided to the media. Another staff member had to attend

2 The three changes were: (1) addition of a caveat after my discussion of expected climate changes due to increasing

greenhouse gases that “these changes should be viewed as estimates from evolving climate models and not as

reliable predictions”; this change negated much of the testimony, in which I argued, on heuristic grounds with

support from models, that global warming would lead to increases in the extremes of the hydrologic cycle, i.e., more

intense heat waves and droughts but also heavier rainfalls and floods; (2) addition of a suggestion that the increases

of greenhouse gases could be partly or largely due to natural processes; again this was misleading because we were

aware that the greenhouse gas increases are primarily of human origin; (3) addition of a statement that “any policy

options which should reduce atmospheric CO2 growth rates should make good economic and environmental sense,

independent of concerns about an increasing greenhouse effect; although the meaning of this statement was unclear,

it seemed to say that the greenhouse effect (global warming) should not have any effect on policies. Although some

other scientists agreed with the White House OMB edits to my testimony (Reference 2), it was supposed to be my

testimony.

5

a ‘practice’ press conference, in which he was asked whether anything could be done to stem

accelerating loss of sea ice. When he suggested “we could reduce emissions of greenhouse

gases” he was told sternly “that’s unacceptable!”, with the explanation that scientists are not

allowed to say anything that relates to policy

An important example of political interference with the public’s right to know has

occurred with press releases relating to global warming science that have gone from NASA

Headquarters to the White House for review, approval or disapproval, and editing. That this

practice is inappropriate, if not illegal, is indicated by the response from NASA Public Affairs

when I made note of this practice in a public talk (Reference 3). The NASA Assistant

Administrator for Public Affairs traveled from Headquarters to Goddard Space Flight Center to

deliver an oral “dressing down” of the professional writer at Goddard Public Affairs who had

informed me about this practice. The writer was admonished to “mind his own business”. This

dressing down was delivered in front of the writer’s boss. Such reprimands and instructions are

delivered orally. If NASA Headquarters Public Affairs is queried by media about such abuses,

they respond “that’s hearsay!”, a legal term that seems to frighten the media. My suggestion for

getting at the truth is to question the relevant participants under oath, including the then NASA

Associate Administrator for Earth Sciences, who surely is aware of who in the White House was

receiving and reviewing press releases that related to climate change.

Communication constraints by NASA Headquarters Public Affairs came to light in

December 2005, after some of the instructions by Headquarters Public Affairs were written down

in memos and e-mails. This occurred shortly after my “Keeling” talk (Reference 4) at the

American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco and the release within a week thereafter

of our (GISS, Goddard Institute for Space Studies) analysis of global temperature, which showed

record global temperature in 2005. NASA Headquarters Public Affairs was furious about the

media attention, their anger being sparked by a call from the White House objecting to the

publicity on global warming. The consternation, expressed during several three-way telecons

between Headquarters-GSFC/Greenbelt-GISS/New York, was described by a participant as a

“shit-storm”. The upshot was a new explicit set of constraints on me, including requirement that

any media interviews be approved beforehand and that Headquarters have the “right of first

refusal” on all interviews, that I provide my calendar of all planned talks and meetings, and that I

obtain prior approval for every posting on the GISS web site.

These orders were delivered orally, as usual, as was a threat of “dire consequences” if I

did not comply. However, a new young political appointee at Public Affairs, apparently was not

well-schooled in the rules and left a paper trail, including a description of a specific instance in

which Public Affairs barred me from speaking to NPR, offering the Associate Administrator in

my stead. These indiscretions were perhaps the primary reason for his departure from NASA,

rather than the fact that his resume failed to show that he was one course short of the university

degree that he claimed. However, he was not acting on his own or affecting communication with

the public in a way contrary to the wishes of his bosses. The paper trail that he left showed that

the problem starts at the top, the decision to bar me from speaking with NPR being made “on the

ninth floor” of Headquarters.

It became clear that the new constraints on my communications were gong to be a real

impediment when I was forced to take down from our web site our routine posting of updated

global temperature analysis. At that time I decided to write down the constraints that I had been

placed under and to inform the media. An article appeared in the New York Times by Andy

6

Revkin, who had the courage to go with a story that had a limited paper trail. To NASA’s credit,

the Administrator promptly issued an unequivocal statement in support of scientific openness.

However, in no way has the impact of deception of the public about climate change been

undone by NASA’s forthright decision in favor of scientific openness. There remains a vast gap

between what is understood about global warming, by the relevant scientific community, and

what is known about global warming by those who need to know, the public and policy-makers.

This gap should be of concern to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, because

it relates in part to ways in which the functioning of our government is departing from the

intentions of our forefathers. Of special relevance is the usurpation of congressional prerogatives

by the executive branch, especially via increased control of the purse strings.

C. Executive Control of Purse Strings

The American Revolution launched the radical proposition that the commonest of man

should have a vote of equal weight to that of the richest, most powerful citizen. Our forefathers

devised a remarkable Constitution, with checks and balances, to guard against the return of

despotic governance and subversion of the democratic principle for the sake of the powerful few

with special interests. They were well aware of the difficulties that would be faced, however,

placing their hopes in the presumption of an educated informed citizenry, an honestly informed

public.

I have sometimes wondered how our forefathers would view our situation today. On the

positive side, as a scientist, I like to imagine how Benjamin Franklin would view the capabilities

we have built for scientific investigation. Franklin speculated that an atmospheric “dry fog”

produced by a large volcano had reduced the sun’s heating of the Earth so as to cause unusually

cold weather in the early 1780s, as he noted that the enfeebled solar rays when collected in the

focus of a “burning glass” could “scarce kindle brown paper”. As brilliant as Franklin’s insights

may have been, they were only speculation as he lacked the tools for quantitative investigation.

No doubt Franklin would marvel at the capabilities provided by earth-encircling satellites and

super-computers that he could scarce have imagined.

Yet Franklin, Jefferson and the other revolutionaries must be distraught by recent

tendencies in America, specifically increasing power of special interests in our government,

concerted efforts to deceive the public, and arbitrary actions of government executives that arise

from increasing concentration of authority in a unitary executive, in defiance of the aims of our

Constitution’s framers. These tendencies have dramatic impact on the global warming story.

Last year, about one month after the media hubbub about NASA Public Affairs’

censoring of science, the mission of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

was altered surreptitiously by executive action and the budget for Earth Science Research and

Analysis was slashed retroactively to the beginning of the fiscal year, thus subverting

constitutional division of power. Many people are aware that something bad happened to the

NASA Earth Science budget last year, yet the severity of the cuts and their long-term

implications are not universally recognized. In part this is because of a stealth budgeting

maneuver, which I suspect most members of Congress are not aware of.

When annual budgets for the coming fiscal year are announced, the differences in growth

from the previous year, for agencies and their divisions, are typically a few percent. An agency

with +3 percent growth may crow happily, in comparison to agencies receiving +1 percent.

Small differences are important because every agency has fixed costs (civil service salaries,

7

buildings, other infrastructure), so new programs or initiatives are strongly dependent upon any

budget growth and how that growth compares with inflation.

When the administration announced its fiscal 2007 budget, NASA science was listed as

having typical changes of 1 percent or so. However, Earth Science Research and Analysis

actually had a staggering reduction of about 20 percent from the 2006 budget that Congress had

passed. How could that be accomplished? Simple enough: reduce the 2006 research budget

retroactively by 20 percent! One-third of the way into fiscal year 2006, NASA Earth Science

was told to go figure out how to live with a 20-percent loss of the current year’s funds.

The Earth Science budget was further tightened in 2007 and is almost a going-out-ofbusiness

budget. From the taxpayers’ point of view it makes no sense. An 80 percent budget

must be used mainly to support infrastructure (practically speaking, you cannot fire civil

servants; buildings at large facilities such as Goddard Space Flight Center will not be bulldozed

to the ground; and the grass at the centers must continue to be cut). But the budget cuts wipe off

the books most planned new satellite missions (some may be kept on the books, but only with a

date so far in the future that no money needs to be spent now), and support for contractors, young

scientists, and students disappears, with dire implications for future capabilities.

Bizarrely, this is happening just when NASA data are yielding spectacular and startling

results. Two small satellites that measure the Earth’s gravitational field with remarkable

precision found that the mass of Greenland is now decreasing by about 150 cubic kilometers of

ice per year and West Antarctica by a similar amount. The area on the ice sheets with summer

melting has increased markedly, major ice streams (portions of the ice sheet moving most rapidly

toward the ocean and discharging icebergs) have increased doubled in flow speed, and the area in

the Arctic Ocean with summer sea ice has decreased 20 percent in the last 25 years.

One way to avoid bad news: stop the measurements! Only hitch: the first line of the

NASA mission is “to understand and protect our home planet.” Maybe that can be changed to

“…protect special interests’ backside.”

I should say that the mission statement used to read “to understand and protect our home

planet.” That part has been deleted—a shocking loss to me, as I had been using that phrase to

justify speaking out about the dangers of global warming. The quoted mission statement had

been constructed in 2001 and 2002 via an inclusive procedure involving representatives from the

NASA Centers and e-mail interactions with NASA employees. In contrast, elimination of the

“home planet” phrase occurred with no fanfare in a spending report delivered to Congress in

February 2006, the same report that retroactively slashed the Earth Science research budget. In

July 2006 I asked dozens of NASA employees and management people (including my boss) if

they were aware of the change. Not one of them was. Several expressed concern that such

management changes by fiat would have a bad effect on organization morale.

These budgetary goings-on in Washington were noted in editorials of The Boston Globe:

“Earth to NASA: Help!” (June 15, 2006) and “Don’t ask; don’t ask” (June 22, 2006), both

decrying the near-termination of Earth measurements. Of course, the Globe might be considered

“liberal media”. But it is conservatives and moderates who should be most upset, and I consider

myself a moderate conservative. When I was in school we learned that Congress controlled the

purse strings; it is in the Constitution. But it does not really seem to work that way, not if the

Administration can jerk the science budget around the way they have. It seems more like David

Baltimore’s “Theory of the Unitary Executive” (the legal theory that the president can do pretty

much whatever he wants) is being practiced. My impression is that conservatives and moderates

would prefer that the government work as described in the Constitution, and that they prefer to

8

obtain their information on how the Earth is doing from real observations, not from convenient

science fiction (see Reference 5).

3. Practical Impact of Political Interference with Climate Change Science

A. Communication of Climate Change Threat

There is little doubt that the Administration’s downplaying of evidence about global

warming has had some effect on public perception of the climate change issue. The impact is to

confuse the public about the reality of global warming, and about whether that warming can be

reliably attributed to human-made greenhouse gases.

However, I believe that the gap between scientific understanding of climate change and

public knowledge about the status of that understanding probably is due more to the impact of

special interests on public discourse, especially fossil fuel special interests, rather than political

interference with climate change science.

I have no knowledge of whether special interests have had a role in political interference

with climate change science. Nevertheless, it is my personal opinion that the most fundamental

government reform that could be taken to address climate change and government accountability

in general would be effective campaign finance reform.

B. Delay of Action: Potential Economic Benefits Become Costs

The effect of leaving the public confused about the reality of human-caused climate

change is to delay actions needed to put the nation and the world on an energy pathway that

would preserve creation, the planet that civilization developed on. If these actions are taken

early, changes can be phased in gradually with great economic benefit to the nation.

Delay, on the other hand, means that changes will need to be made rapidly and thus

inefficiently. Less appropriate technologies must be, in effect, “bull-dozed” before they are

“worn out”, and our industry will not be ready with more appropriate technology. Early action

would provide our industry a long-term competitive advantage.

An example is provided by vehicle efficiency. The 30% improvement in automobile and

light truck efficiencies proposed by California, if adopted nationally, would result in an annual

reduction in oil import requirements of more than $100 billion dollars, with oil at $50 per barrel

(Reference 6). This is opposed by United States automobile manufacturers and oil companies,

who, in my opinion, seem more concerned with their short-term profits than with the best longterm

interests of the nation, the planet, and future generations.

C. Moral and Legal Burdens

The most troubling impact of the political interference with climate change science is the

potential burden that we leave for our children and grandchildren. The Administration

continually points to China, which will soon pass the United States as the largest emitter of CO2,

as a reason for minimalist action by the United States on greenhouse gas emissions.

However, the science unambiguously shows that climate change is driven by cumulative

emissions, not current emissions. Cumulative emissions of the United States are more than three

times that of any other nation (Reference 7) and will continue to be the largest for decades.

Furthermore, rather than negotiating on the terms of the international accord designed to reduce

emissions in developed countries and slow the growth of emissions in developing nations, the

United States walked away, thus preventing effective implementation.

9

One consequence is that, as indigenous people must abandon their land to rising seas or

shifting climatic zones, they will be well aware of the principal source of the problem. Thus if

we continue on this course, failing to effectively address climate change, we will leave a heavy

moral burden, and perhaps a legal burden, for our children.

If the science and communication of the science were not interfered with, and if our

children were allowed to express a preference, would they choose the current path of our

government for energy and climate? I think not. Even with knowledge that fundamental

changes will be needed to phase into a different energy course, I am confident they would want

the United States to play a leadership role.

4. Issues and Questions Raised

A. Propriety of Filtering Congressional Testimony

What is the basis, what is the rationale, by which Congress allows the Administration to

filter, edit and alter scientific testimony of government scientists delivered to Congress? Is this

behavior a right that is granted to the Executive branch by the Constitution or authorized by other

official instruments?

Presumably there is basis for this practice or it would not be tolerated. However, based

on my experiences, discussed in part above, it seems to me that the practice is detrimental to the

functioning of our democracy. The taxpayers foot the bill for most of the research by

government and academic scientists. Thus the public should not be denied the full benefit of

knowledge that derives from that research.

B. Politicization of Public Affairs Office

The problem stems from the fact that Public Affairs offices at the headquarters level of

the science agencies are headed by political appointees. The inevitable result is a pressure for

science to show the answers that the party in power prefers to see. This is true independent of

which party is in power. Any such pressure contradicts the nature of scientific investigation,

which relies on unprejudiced evaluation of all alternatives.

The best solution to this problem would be to have the Public Affairs offices

professionally staffed, with no political appointees. If this is not possible, they should be

renamed as Offices of Propaganda.

C. Executive Control of the Purse Strings

When I came to NASA 40 years ago as a 25 year old post-doc it seemed to me that the

NASA approach was to focus on excellence in science and engineering. It was expected that

Congress and the White House would provide funding based on merits. Perhaps I was naïve.

But I did not get any sense that NASA was working for the White House. There has been a huge

change between then and now.

The Executive branch seems to be exercising greater control in the functioning of our

government, in ways that our forefathers probably did not imagine and almost certainly would

not approve. This includes White House control of testimony to Congress, White House control

of information that scientists provide to the public through Public Affairs, and most decidedly

through control of the purse strings.

Control of the purse strings is the most powerful of the tools in the hands of the

Executive branch. It has a tremendous effect on information that is provided to Congress and to

10

the public. You may think that a government scientist can easily exercise his right of free

speech, to speak as a private citizen as I am today. But how many will do so, when the power of

the purse strings is held by the Executive branch? You may think that there are plenty of

government scientists who are confident of their ability to get a job elsewhere or would not mind

being sent off to pasture. But it is not so simple as that. With the purse strings the Executive

branch holds hostage your “children”, your science programs, and your colleagues’ livelihood. It

is not easy to face your colleagues when they feel that you are damaging their support.

5. Summary Implications of Climate Change Science

A. Status of Science

Progress in climate science during the past several years has increased our understanding

of how sensitive the Earth’s climate is to forcings, such as human-made emission of gases into

the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. This understanding derives especially from the Earth’s

history, which shows how the Earth responded to changing forcings in the past (Reference 7).

The data show that the Earth’s climate has considerable inertia, due especially to the

massive oceans and ice sheets. Yet the climate can change dramatically on century time scales,

and even on decadal and shorter time scales.

The evidence confirms a predominance of positive feedbacks that amplify climate

response on short time scales, these feedbacks including increasing atmospheric water vapor and

decreasing sea ice cover as the planet becomes warmer. However, the data also indicate the

presence of feedbacks on decadal, century and longer time scales. These feedbacks include

movement of forests and other vegetation poleward as the climate warms, increased net emission

of greenhouse gases from the ocean and biosphere, and decrease in the area and brightness of ice

sheets.

The predominance of positive feedbacks, along with the inertia of the oceans and ice

sheets, has profound practical implications. It means that if we push the climate system hard

enough it can obtain a momentum, it can pass tipping points, such that climate changes continue,

out of our control. Unless we begin to slow down the human-made climate forcings, there is the

danger that we will create a different planet, one far outside the range that has existed in the

course of human history (References 7, 8, 9).

It is because of these climate feedbacks and the inertia of the ocean and ice sheets that the

global warming problem differs fundamentally from the problem of conventional air pollution

(Reference 12). By the time that the public can clearly see the existence of climate change, there

is momentum in the system for a great deal of additional change. As a result we are probably

already very near, if not beyond, the dangerous level of interference with atmospheric

composition. I have discussed the possibility of drawing down atmospheric CO2 by burning

biofuels in power plants and capturing and sequestering the CO2 (Reference 13). However, by

far the most effective actions at this time would be to slow current emissions to the atmosphere,

while better understanding and improved technologies are developed.

B. Impact of Political Interference on Quality of Decision Making

Political interference in transmittal of information about climate change science to the

public has deleterious effects on the quality of decision making. Science cannot make decisions

for the public. The public and policy makers must consider all factors in making decisions and

11

setting policy. But these other factors should not influence the science itself or the presentation

of science to the public.

One consequence of political interference is that the public is not yet well-informed about

the nature and scale of actions that will be needed to address climate change. This is important

because it will take time for the public and their policy makers to thoughtfully consider these

matters. As an example of the nature and scale of actions that I believe will be needed to address

climate change, I list in the following section some specific recommendations that I discussed at

a recent presentation in Washington (Reference 13).

C. Recommendations to Policy-Makers

1. Moratorium on new coal-fired power plants until the technology for CO2 capture and

sequestration is available. The reason for this is that about a quarter of CO2 emissions will

remain in the air “forever”, i.e., more than 500 years. As a result, I expect that it will be realized

within the next decade or so, that all power plants without sequestration must be “bull-dozed”

before mid-century. Thus it makes sense to give high priority to energy efficiency and

renewable energies in the near-term.

2. A gradually but surely increasing price on carbon emissions is needed to drive energy

efficiency improvements and innovative technologies. The results will include high-tech highpay

jobs, technologies that will increase our exports and improve our balance of payments,

improved energy independence and national security. It will require a strong leader to level with

the public that a tax on carbon emissions is needed. If this is introduced along with technology

investments, the public should be provided options that will reduce their carbon emissions and

limit their taxes. The government should avoid trying to specify the technology “winners”.

3. Energy efficiency standards are needed in addition to a price on carbon emissions.

Architects and engineers agree that the technology exists now for new and renovated buildings to

produce 50 percent less CO2 than existing buildings, and emissions can be further reduced in the

future. National adoption of the proposed California vehicle efficiency standards would make a

huge reduction in our oil and energy needs, as discussed above. Barriers to efficiency, such as

the fact that utilities make greater profits if they sell more energy, rather than if they encourage

efficiency, need to be removed.

4. Congress should request the National Academy of Sciences to carry out a study on the

stability of ice sheets, which is likely to be a driver in determining what level of global warming

constitutes “dangerous” interference with the climate system (Reference 11). The United

Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change already provides periodic reports of the

science, at about 6-year intervals, but the problem is too urgent and important for the country to

rely solely on such assessments. The National Academy of Sciences was established by

Abraham Lincoln in part with just such “Service to the Nation” in mind.

5. Congress needs to address the following threats to American democracy: (1) the

public’s right to unfiltered information, including congressional testimony free of political

interference, and Public Affairs (public information) offices that are staffed by professionals not

by political appointees, (2) the absence of effective campaign finance reform.

As long as these threats to democracy are not addressed it will be difficult to deal with

human-made climate change successfully. The Committee on Government Oversight and

Reform seems an appropriate place to raise these issues.

12

References

1. Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, G. Russell, Climate impact of increasing

atmospheric carbon dioxide, Science 213, 957-966, 1981.

2. Kerr, R A., Hansen vs. the world on the greenhouse threat Science 244 1041-1043, 1989.

3. Hansen, J., Iowa Talk (Dangerous Anthropogenic Interference: A discussion of humanity’s Faustian Climate

Bargain and the payments coming due), 2004, www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/dai_complete.pdf

4. Hansen, J., Keeling Talk (Is there still time to avoid “dangerous anthropogenic interference” with global climate?

A tribute to Charles David Keeling), 2005, www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/keeling_talk_and_slides.pdf

5. Hansen, J., Swift boating, stealth budgeting, & unitary executives, World Watch 19 (Nov/Dec), 25-31, 2006.

6. Hansen, J., D. Cain, R. Schmunk, On the road to climate stability: the parable of the secretary, 2005,

www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/ateampaper_14nov2005.pdf.

7. Hansen, J., M. Sato, P. Kharecha, G. Russell, D. Lea, M. Siddall, Trace gases and climate change, Philosophical

Transactions of the Royal Society A, in press, 2007.

8. Hansen, J, and 46 co-authors, Dangerous human-made interference with climate: a GISS modelE study, Atomos.

Chem. Phys. Discuss. 6, 12549-12610, 2006, www.copernicus.org/EGU/acp/acpd/6/12549/acpd-6-12549.pdf.

9. Hansen, J., The threat to the planet, in July 13 issue of New York Review of Books, 2006,

pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2006/2006_Hansen.pdf (also pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2006/2006_Hansen_supplement.pdf).

10. Hansen, J. Global warming: Connecting the dots from causes to solutions, presentation at National Press Club,

2007, www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/dots_feb2007.pdf.

11. Hansen, J. Scientific reticence and sea level rise, to be submitted to Environ. Res. Lett., 2007,

www.giss.nasa.gov/~jhansen/preprints/ScientificReticence.pdf.

12. Hansen, J. Special interests are the big obstacle, The Times (London), p. 53, March 12, 2007.

13. Hansen, J. Communicating dangers and opportunities in global warming, presentation given on Dec. 14, 2006,

at AGU Fall Meeting. www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/agu_communicating.pdf.

http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20070319105800-43018.pdf