- News Home
19 December 2013 12:36 pm ,
Vol. 342 ,
Five federally funded optical and radio telescopes in the United States could be forced to shut down over the next 3...
A 2-year budget agreement pushes back the threat of sequestration but leaves scientists still wondering how much money...
After a decade away from physics, Robert Laughlin, a Nobel laureate at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California,...
Computer scientists and others have teamed up to persuade the 117 state parties to the Convention on Certain...
The swine flu pandemic of late 2009 had a peculiar aftereffect in parts of Europe: a spike in children being diagnosed...
After 20 years of trying, researchers have finally convicted massive volcanic eruptions in Siberia as the culprit in...
- 19 December 2013 12:36 pm , Vol. 342 , #6165
- About Us
War and Peace Over Holdren's Climate Testimony
18 February 2011 11:30 am
A fleeting peace broke out yesterday on Capitol Hill over the contentious issue of climate change.
For a few minutes it looked like a détente had been reached between John Holdren, the president's science advisor, and Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), the leading climate skeptic on the House of Representatives science committee. But the moment passed quickly after Holdren made a belated reference to something Rohrbacher said earlier, invoking the wrath of the panel's chair, Representative Ralph Hall (R-TX). Soon the gloves were off again, and the good feelings were a distant memory.
The occasion was Holdren's first appearance before the committee since the Republicans took control last month of the House. He came to defend the president's 2012 budget request for science, a document that called for spending billions more than Hall and other fiscal conservatives feel is prudent. The hearing itself was delayed for 2 hours as the House debated dozens of amendments to the Republican plan to cut current spending by $61 billion. And once it began, there were few surprises in either Holdren's staunch defense of additional investments in such priorities as energy research, nor in the Republican opposition to them.
When his turn to question Holdren arrived, Rohrabacher began by requesting permission to submit the names of 100 climate scientists who disagree with the consensus on global warming, including people Rohrabacher described as prominent academics. Then he asked Holdren to disavow previous comments in which he labeled such critics as "deniers," saying that the word is commonly used only to describe those who deny that the Holocaust occurred. Using it with regard to climate science impugns their motives, Rohrabacher suggested. "What purpose does it serve?" he asked.
Holdren immediately ceded Rohrabacher's point. "It was not my intent to compare them to Holocaust deniers, and I regret it," he replied. "In the future I will find other terms to use."
The rest of Rohrabacher's queries were relative softballs. Within minutes, the two men had also agreed that it was important to prepare for climate change, whether human-induced or natural, and that an expansion of nuclear reactors to generate power could help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As his time expired, Rohrabacher acknowledged that some might be surprised to learn that there were climate-related issues "on which I agree with the Administration." Then Rohrabacher left the hearing room, a common practice for legislators juggling a busy schedule.
But Holdren hadn't forgotten about Rohrabacher's list of scientists, which was first compiled 2 years ago. After fielding questions from other legislators on unrelated topics, Holdren mentioned the list in the course of answering a question about the nature of scientific consensus from Representative John Sarbanes (D-MD), who shares Holdren's views on climate change.
"I haven't seen the list," Holdren began. "But in the past, most of the names on such petitions have turned out not to be climate scientists, and one could assume that they had not spent much time reviewing the literature." Holdren repeated his earlier remarks summarizing the basis for the overwhelming scientific consensus on the topic, and ended his statement by asking why anyone would "bet the public welfare against the small odds that the vast majority of scientific opinion is wrong and the tiny group [of dissenters] is right?"
That was too much for Hall, who interrupted a line of questioning from a junior member of the committee to say that he felt obliged to speak on behalf of his absent colleague. "There might be some scientists on that list who know what they are doing. Don't pooh-pooh what you call the minority viewpoint," he chastised Holdren. "We need to get them in here to explain their views, and then we can take a shot at them."
So much for détente on the climate front.