'Bnitcd ~tatc.s ~cn\ltc
WASHINGTON. DC 20510
December 8, 2009
SCn:liOr John D. Rockefe ller Chairman Commit tee on Commerce. Sc ience and Transponmion
United States Senate
Washington. DC 20510
Dear Chairman Rockefe ller:
When you assumed Ihe chairman sh ip o flhi s commincc YO ll anno unced an aggressive overs ight agenda for the com mittee. When announcing the new rul es for the cOlllmincc you slated , "This Com mittee mu st and will brin g in \0 Congressional and publi c view importan t information about how well the Jaws and programs under OUf jurisdiction work. and we stand ready 10 address mani pulat ion or neglect by either the Executive Branch or ou tside parties as needed." The recen t disclosure of the manipulmion of scientific evidence by climate researchers is exactly the ki nd o f important information that needs to be brought to light.
The cmai ls and documents recently disclosed paint an alarming picturc of the state of cl imate research. In the emails that have been disclosed we've seen evidence of manipulation. efforts to avo id freedom of information act requests, abuse of the peer review process and a research process that is driven more by a polit ical agcnda than a quest fo r the truth. Some examples include: Th is ema il from Mr, Kenneth Trenberth from the National Center for Atmosph eric Research (which receives tens of mi ll ions in federal funding from the ngencics under ou r jurisdiction): ''The fac t is that we can't account for the lack o f wanning at thc moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CE RE S dma pub li shed in the Aug ust BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be evcn morc warm ing: but the data arc surcly wrong. Our observing system is inadequate." Or thi s email from Dr. Phil Jones - who was recent ly suspcnded from hi s post at the Uni vers ity of East I\nglia - to thrcc acadcmic researchcrs in the U.S. (all ofwholl1 were rece iving fcdcral fund s): " PS: l'lll gelling hassled by a couple of people to rcleasc thc CRU station tempcrature data. Don't any of yo II three tcll anybody that the UK has a Frecdom of Information Act!" Or this email fromDr.A ndrew ~.lanningt oDr. Phil JOlles that highlights the climme rcsearch industry that has grown up around cap and trade: "I-Ii Phil, is this another witch hu nt (like Mann ct al.)? Il ow shou ld I respond to the be low? (I'm in the process of ll)' ing 10 persuade Siemens Corp. (a com pany wit h haifa mi llion em ployees in 190 countries!) to donate mc a liule cash to do some C02 measurments here in the UK - looking promising, so thc last thing I need is news al1iclcs ca lling into question (again) observed temperature increases"
Or this ema il from Phil Jones to Pen n State Pro fessor Michael Mann (who receives and oversces mill io ns of do llars in fe deral climate research fundi ng) rega rd ing the inclusion of research critical of the in nucnce of humans o n climate: "[ can't see either of these papers being in the next [pee report, Kevin and [ will keep them Out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review lilCrature is!" Our concern is that these email s on ly show a smal l picture of possible sc ientific fra ud. A number of federa l ,11ld independem scien ti sts receiving fede ral fun ds nrc included in the emai ls and documen ts. There is clearly more in fonnation that federal researchers and researchers receiv ing federal fund s could provide to the committee. The American people deserve to know that fe deral sc ientific fund ing is nOI be ing used to distort science to reach a polilica l end . The publi c is only pri vy to the emails that whi stle blowers ha ve di sclosed and thi s Committee needs to prov id e confirmation that American taxpaye r do llars are nOi be in g misused. We urge yo u to open an offi c ial bi part isan in vesti gat ion uti lizi ng all the too ls at the committee's d isposal to get to the truth in this mailer. Witho ut it, Congress wi ll be making serio us policy deci sions wilh mi sleading and fau lty scientific data . Sincerely.
~,.---