Roy Spencer Oral Testimony for 19 March 2007: "University of Alabama Climatologist Roy Spencer's Oral Testimony
March, 19 2007
I would like to thank the Chairman and members of the Committee for the opportunity to provide my perspective on the subject of political interference in government-funded science.
I have been performing NASA-sponsored research for the last twenty-two years.
Prior to my current position as a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, I was Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, and was an employee of NASA from 1987 to 2001."
During the period of my government employment, NASA had a rule that ANY interaction between its scientists and the press was to be coordinated through NASA management and public affairs. Understandably, NASA managers do not appreciate first learning of their scientists' findings and opinions in the morning newspapers.
It was no secret within NASA that I was skeptical of the size of the human influence on global climate. My views were diametrically opposed to those of Vice President Gore, and I believe that they were considered to be a possible hindrance to NASA getting full congressional funding for Mission to Planet Earth.
So, while Dr. Hansen was freely sounding the alarm over what HE believed to be dangerous levels of human influence on the climate, I tried to follow the rules. On many occasions I avoided answering questions from the media on the subject, and instead directed reporters to John Christy, my co-worker and a university employee.
Through the management chain, I was politely told what I was allowed to say in congressional testimony. In fact, my dodging of committee questions regarding my personal opinions on the subject of global warming was considered to be quite humorous by one committee, an exchange which is now part of the congressional record.
I want to make it very clear that I am not complaining -- I am only relating these things because I was asked to. I was, and still am, totally supportive of NASA's Earth satellite missions…but I understood that my position as a NASA employee was a privilege, not a right, and that there were rules I was expected to abide by.
Partly because of those limits on what I could and couldn't say to the press and congress, I voluntarily resigned from NASA in the fall of 2001. Even though my research responsibilities to NASA have NOT changed since resigning, being a university employee gives me much more freedom than government employees have to express opinions.
So, while you might think that the political influence on our climate research program started with the Bush Administration, that simply isn't true. It has ALWAYS existed. You just never heard about it because NASA's climate science program was aligned with Vice President Gore's desire to get rid of fossil fuels.
The bias started when the U.S. climate research program was first initiated. The emphasis on studying the PROBLEM of global warming, of course, presumes that a problem exists. As a result, the funding has ALWAYS favored the finding of evidence for climate CATASTROPHE rather than for climate STABILITY.
This biased approach to the funding of science serves several goals which favor a specific political ideology:
1) It grows government science, environmental, and policy programs, which depend upon global warming remaining as much a threat as possible.
2) It favors climate researchers, who quite naturally have vested interests in careers, pet theories, and personal incomes.
3) And, it provides justification for environmental lobbying groups, whose very existence depends upon sustaining public fears of environmental disaster.
I'm NOT claiming that a global warming science program isn't needed -- It IS. We DO need to find out how much of our current warmth is human-induced, and how much we might expect in the future. I'm just pointing out that the political interference flows both ways -- but not everyone has felt compelled to complain about it.
(This concludes my oral testimony).
