Serial No. 113-77: Examining the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Process, Hearing Before the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, House of Representatives, One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, Second Session, May 29, 2014 [open pdf - 6MB]
This is testimony from the May 29, 2014 hearing on "Examining the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Process," held before the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. From the opening statement of Chairman Lamar S. Smith: "The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently released three working group reports on climate science focused on physical sciences, impacts and adaptation, and mitigation. These documents make up the 5th Assessment Report. Similarly, the White House recently rolled out its National Climate Assessment, which takes a closer look at climate change and policy in the United States. Both the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] and the White House's documents appear, in my view, to be designed to spread fear and alarm and provide cover for previously determined government policies. The reports give the Obama Administration an excuse to try and control more of the lives of the American people. The IPCC's goal is an international climate treaty that redistributes wealth among nations. The Administration's goal is to impose greenhouse gas regulations, which will stifle economic growth and lead to hundreds of thousands of fewer jobs. On the heels of these catastrophic predictions, the President plans to announce next Monday his most costly climate regulations: new climate standards for power plants. The Administration's regulatory agenda will hit workers and families hard but have no discernable impact on global temperature. One analysis used IPCC assumptions and found that if the United States stopped all carbon dioxide emissions immediately, the ultimate impact on global temperature would only be 0.08 degrees Celsius by 2050. Serious concerns have been raised about the IPCC, including lack of transparency in author and study selection, and inconsistent approaches to data quality, peer review, publication cut-off dates, and the cherry-picking of results." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Richard S.J. Tol, Michael Oppenheimer, Albert G. Milbank, Daniel Botkin, and Roger Pielke.
Serial No. 113-77
U.S. Government Printing Office: http://www.gpo.gov/