702 Street, NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20001 Tel: 202?462-1177 - Fax: 202-462?4507 20 February, 2015 Mr. John Koskin Commissioner Internal Revenue Service 1111 Constitution Avenue Northwest Washington, DC 20224 Dear Mr. Koskin: I am writing to you with concern that grants that the Charles G. Koch Foundation awarded to the Smithsonian Institution (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics) from 2010 to 2012, earmarked to fund scienti?c studies by Dr. Willie Soon, may have been used in violation of the law. Speci?cally, it appears that these grants may have been used to in?uence legislation, in apparent violation of Section l70(c)(2)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code. I will outline these concerns in greater detail, below. According to documents made public by the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics under the Freedom of Information Act, the Charles G. Koch Foundation sent a letter to the Harvard-Smithsonian Center on September 21, 2009, con?rming an award of $65,000 to support research by Dr. Willie Soon. ATTACHMENT The Koch Foundation letter states in pertinent part: You have previously agreed that the grant will be expended only for an educational, scienti?c, literary, or other charitable purpose described in Section 170(c)(2)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code and that the grant will not be used to in?uence legislation, to in?uence the outcome of any election, for a political campaign or intervention, or to carry on any voter registration drive. [emphasis added] Attached to the Koch Foundation letter is a copy of Dr. Soon?s proposal. According to the proposal, Dr. Soon would use the Koch money to study ?Solar Variability and Climate Change: Signals from the Temperature Records of the United States.? Smithsonian documents reveal that the Charles Koch Foundation funded Dr. Soon?s work from 2010 to 2012 with at least two separate grants listed by Smithsonian as ?Understanding Solar Variability and Climate Change? ($65,000 in 2010 and $55,000 for Fiscal Years 2010- 2012). ATTACHMENT In 2013, just after the Charles Koch Foundation provided this funding to Dr. Soon, he appeared before the House Energy and Environment Committee in the Kansas State Capitol. The Kansas Legislature was debating a bill to delay or modify mandates established by the Kansas Renewable Energy Standards Act.1 Dr. Soon testi?ed in order to in?uence the outcome of that vote. The minutes of that meeting state: Dr. Willie Soon gave a slide presentation (Attachment 2). To summarize his remarks: 1) no experimental data exist that support the view that the earth's climate is changing in a dangerous manner; 2) carbon dioxide, C02, is merely a bit player in climate change, and rising CO2 is largely bene?cial to plant and human life; 3) the sun is a primary driver of climate change, and has a greater impact than changes in and 4) climate models cannot be trusted because of their poor representation of water?solid, liquid, and gas. ATTACHMENT During his presentation, Dr. Soon presented a set of slides. One of those slides is titled ?Solar Modulation of the Daytime High Temperature of the ATTACHMENT The scienti?c data used by Dr. Soon to in?uence the Kansas State Legislature seems remarkably similar to the scienti?c research funded by Koch. The use of any Koch funded research to ?in?uence legislation? being considered by Kansas State Legislature appears, according to the Koch Foundation?s own letter, to violate Section 170(c)(2)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code. Furthermore, on November 8, 201 1, an of?cial with the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory sent the Koch Foundation an emailed letter. That email asks for an extension of the deadline for completing the goals of Dr. Soon?s project through January 2012. In the email, the Smithsonian of?cial lists several work products that Dr. Soon had accomplished with the Koch Foundation grant. These products are listed under the heading ?Progress thus far is summarized below.? One of these products reads: Preparation of the scienti?c report ?Research to date on forecasting for the manmade global warming alarm? by Scott Kesten Green, and Willie Soon (as supporting document for the Testimony of Scott to the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment on March 31, 2011). ATTACHMENT This testimony was given before a subcommittee of the House Committee on Science and Technology by Dr. Scott of the University of When we read a copy of that testimony, there was no mention that Dr. Soon?s contribution to the testimony was funded by the Charles Koch Foundation. ATTACHMENT With regards to Dr. Soon?s contribution, the testimony states ?all views expressed are strictly his own.? And the testimony argues, ?government funding should not be provided for climate-change forecasting.? Oddly enough, this Koch?supported testimony also said that the ?government should instead rely on independent forecasters.? 1 Nikki Wentling, ?Legislature considering delays in renewable energy standards,? Lawrence Journal World, Feb 5, 2013, accessed online February 3, 2015. See also: Iiworldcommews?? We are concerned that the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory (which is part of the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics) allowed Koch Foundation funds to be used to support Dr. Soon in preparing testimony to in?uence the United States Congress on potential legislation regarding government appropriations for climate change research. And we share the Koch Foundation?s concerns that Dr. Soon should not use his Koch funded research to ?in?uence legislation? in violation of Section l70(c)(2)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code. In order to clear up these matters, we are also providing this information to the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology; the Senate Committee on Finance; and the House Committee on Ways and Means. In addition, because Dr. has given similar testimony at other congressional committees, we are providing copies to the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Ann Leonard Executive Director Greenpeace US Sincerely, cc: United States House Committee on Science, Space and Technology United States Senate Committee on Finance Unites States House Committee on Ways and Means United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Mr. Richard Fink, Charles G. Koch Foundation ATTACHNIEN A Che - KO 2 l, 2009 Charles Alcock Director I-larvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics 60 Garden Street Cambridge, MA 02138-1516 Dear Mr. A lcock: Pursuant to the request of the Smithsonian Institution, we are happy to enclose our check in the amount of $65,000 in support of research to be conducted under the direction of Dr. Willie Soon at the Harvard-5111itiisontan Center for Astrophysics. You have previously agreed that the grant will be expended only for an educational, scientific. literary, or Other charitable purpose described in Section 170(c)(2)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code and that the grant will not be used to influence legislation. to in?uence the outcome of any election, for a political campaign or intervention. or to carry on any voter registration drive. The terms and conditions contained in this letter agreement supersede all prior oral or written agreements and understandings between the parties and shall constitute the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the matters contained herein. This letter agreement shall not be modified or amended except by a writing duly executed by parties hereto. According to the information that was furnished to us, your organization is qualified to be exempt under Code section 501(c)(3) and is still classified as a public charity pursuant to Code section 509(a)(1). Please inform us if there has been a change in your tax status since then. Finally, we must ask that any funds not expended for the purposes described in Code section which the grant is being made, be returned to us. Please indicate your agreement with these conditions by returning a signed copy of this letter [0 the Foundation, attention Grants Coordinator. Sincerely, as at ?ts-l: Richard H. Fink President cc: Dr. Willie Soon ?it 'et-tl to the Entithsonian Institution By: -- Print Name Title: (LP antgagting Officer Date: 12101109 Courthouse Tower - 1515 Courthouse Road Suite 200 - Arlington. VA 22201 - Phone: 703 875 1600 - Fax: 703 87?5 le Hum! Sl-000059 SW55 'h At 'alOb my sonlan 5 mp y51c serva ory Understanding Solar Variability and Climate Change: Signals from Temperature Records of the United States A Proposal for Support to Charles G. Kooh Charitable Foundation Dr. Willie Soon. Principal Investigator Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory Solar, Stellar and Planetary Sciences Division (617-495-7488; wsoon@cfa.harvard.edu) July.I 2008 Research Target and Proposal: This proposal seeks $65,000 from The Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation for year one of this two-year project, ?Understanding Solar Variability and Climate Change: .S'ignais from Temperature Records of the United States. I propose to conduct an intensive up?to-datc science review of solar variability and climate change (see 63.. Soon 20073). with emphasis on the signals from temperature records of the U.S.. that will be a clear improvement of previous studies. The goals for the first year are to collect and assess the scienti?c quality of the available temperature records from the United States. aggregated into four inter-related Spatial domains: I) a rural city (Le, a city that is minimally disturbed by urban development). 2) an individual state. 3) regional U.S. area. and 4) the whole contenninous U.S. The goals for the second year are to study any plausible connection of these U.S. temperature records with estimated solar irradiancc history for the past l12 years from 1895 to 2006. The previously published research paper by Soon (2005) identi?es both the multidecadal variation in total solar irradiance and the 1-year solar UV irradiance forcings to be important in explaining the observed Arctic surface air temperature change over the past I30 years or so. The overall goal for this 2-year pregram is to extend our basic understanding on how the variable solar irradiance outputs could be physically connected to the Earth climate system. The ability to con?rm or reject the statistical correlations shown in Figure I will be of enormous scienti?c importance. The ultimate physical understanding will arise from detailed assessments on how the solar irradiance is related to the cloud ?eld as well as how the solar irradiance may systematically and persistently modulate the land surface heat ?uxes sensible and latent beats) on mullidecadal to centennial time scales. A parallel hypothesis regarding the role of rising atmospheric carbon dioxide (see Soon 2007b) in warming the surface temperatures ofthe United States on these 4 spatial scales will also be evaluated. SDI-000060 fat-l Solar Irradiation (1/1131 Tout Solar A Sun?Climate Coincidence? tum-an. [3 rTr-r?vyuvtr?r: I (2) man um. "f?V-T?f?r?f?Y?V?f 0 mar ?Nun?- I363 1880 1900 1020 1940 100-0 1080 2000 .- 1630 1900 1920 1940 1960 1080 2000 w?p?D-r?F?TI-l?v ?Wm 3 Cantu] on. cont-ulna.- 0.mull ?mm-w ?i ?we mi . 1880 1900 [920 1940 1900 1900 2000 Year 1m: I 1 I 1500 1800 1020 1940 1900 1060 2000 Your Figure l: A plausiblc connection ofthc solar irradiance (red curves in all four plots; based on Hoyt and Schattcn l993-rescaled to the mean absolute value' measured by the ACRIM compared with US. temperature records in 4 spatial domains (the blue dotted curves are for l) Atchinson. KS, 2) state of Kansas. 3) Central region ol'thc U.S., and 4) conterminous U.S.). These results extend the previous relation found for the Arctic shown in Soon (2005). The scienti?c hypothesis for this sun-climate relation will be carefully formulated and examined in the proposed project. [Temperature Data Source: S. Notional Climatic Data Center. oa/ climate! research (393/ 639311 tml] Soon (20070) calls for the solar physics community to firmly establish this value emphasi?ng its great importance in the mean climatology in climate models: The mean climatology in rlimntn models can ho subjected to a rather arbitrary tuning given that tho absolqu level of total solar lrradlancu lli not determined to any level of con?dence, values ranging [rum 1372 to 1360 m1 2 Sl?0l10061 Expected Outcomes: Publication of both original and review papers on solar variability and climate change and various environmental impacts of that related change in leading scienti?c journals for the advancement of climate and meteorological sciences. (21 Development of tools. including power-point presentations and concise scienti?c essays, for unbiased and more accurate science accounting that will more powerfully serve infomed public policy making. (3) Better public education with active participations by the Pl ofthis research proposal in all national and international forums interested in promoting the basic understanding ofsolar variability and climate change. Research Team: Dr. Willie Soon at the Smithsoman Astrophysical Observatory, which is part of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, will lead and direct this scienti?c research program. in addition. the Pl may solicit interests for collaborative effort from interested colleagues at no additional cost to the prOposal. Funding Request: The funding is primarily to support approximately 6 months of the full-time research work of Dr. Willie Soon at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory and a small amount of travel to a scienti?c meeting or publication costs. This research proposal requests $65,000 from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation for work to start January 1. 2009. extending for a duration of about one year. Edam Hoyt D. and Schatten K. II. (I993) A discussion ufplausiblc lulu imdilnce millions, WHO-I991 Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (A I), laws-I 8906 [with updates from Dr. Nicola Scafetta. Duke University. private communication May 3t, 2007]. Soon (2005) Variable solar imdtance Is a plausible agent for multidecadal variations in theArctic-wide surface Ill temperature records of the past IJO years Geophysical Research Letters .12: Lla'l?ll Soon W. (2007a) Some Issues ol'Snlar lnndiancc Variability and Climatic Responses: A Brief Review. lnivitcd Talk GC42A-05 at the American tieophysical Union Fall Meeting (lkcemher l0?l-I. 2001) Soon (200%) Implications of the secondary role ofcsr?hon dioxide and methane foru?ng ll'l climate change Past. (resent, and future Physical Geography 28, 97- 25 Sl-000062 ATTACHMENT ATTACHMENT 5:3 Smithsonian Institution Office of General Counsel VIA US MAIL August 8, 2012 Mr. Kert Davies Greenpeace 702 Street NW. Suite 300 Washington, DC 20001 RE: Your Request for Smithsonian Records (request number 37627) Dear Mr. Davies: This responds to your e-mail dated and received in this Of?ce on March 13. 2012 in which you (I) requested a list of grants received by Dr. Willie Soon from February 2010 through the present, (2) inquired about the identity ofthe individual or corporation associated with the Donors Trust grants, and (3) inquired about ?Heartland Institute funding received (or not received) by Dr. Soon.? The Smithsonian responds to requests for records in accordance with Smithsonian Directive 807 - Requests for Smithsonian Institution Information (SD 807) and applies a presumption of disclosure when processing such reqUests. SD 807 does not require that we perform research for requesters. answer written questions, or create a record in response to a request. The policy is posted on our website at The Of?ce of General Counsel contacted the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory (SAO) as well as the Of?ce of Advancement to conduct a search for Smithsonian records responsive to your request. In response to item I of your e?mail. SAO compiled the enclosed list of grants received by Dr. Soon from February 2010 through June 2012. With respect to items 2 of your e-mail, I am enclosing a copy of Smithsonian Directive 318 (Externally Funded Grants and Sponsored-Project Contracts). No additional responsive records were located. With respect to item 3 of your e-mail. I am providing you with a copy of Smithsonian Directive 103 (Smithsonian Institution Standards of Conduct). No additional responsive records were located. This concludes the Smithsonian?s response to your request. Thank you for your interest in the Smithsonian. Sincerely, ?ssion Sanet Assistant General Counsel Enclosures Of?ce of General Counsel Smithsonian Institution Mail: P.O. Box 37012. MRC 012 - Washington DC 20013-7012 Street: 1000 Jefferson Drive SW Washington DC 20560-0012 Telephone: 202.633.5115 - Fax: 202.357.4310 . FEBRUARY 2010 - JUNE 2012 Employee Designated Code Pong-lg Agency?na?tu?on ??y-Description Allotment Year Ming (Willie) 501555 Koch Foundation Solar Variabiily and Climate Change $65,000 2010 501631 Soulnem Company Understandi Solar Radiation and Climate Chan 9 $60,003 2011 501670 Koch Foundation Understanding Solar Radiation and Climate Change 555.000 2010-2012 501685 Danors Trust Understanding Solar Radiation and Climate Change $50,000 2011 504336 Southern Company Soulhoo 11: Solar Modulation of Equator-To-Pole 359.942 201 1-2012 504364 [honors Trust A Ciroum-global Teleconnaction View of Regional Sun-Climate Connections 564.935 201 1-2012 ATTACHMENT Approved: 3/01/13 Date MINUTES OF THE HOUSE ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE The meeting was called to order by Chairman Dennis Hedke at 9:00 am. on January 31, 2013 in Room 582-N of the Capitol. All members were present except Rep. Joshua Powell and he was excused. Committee staff present: Cindy Lash, Legislative Research Department Matt Sterling, Of?ce of the Revisor of Statutes Erica Haas, Legislative Research Department Linda Herrick, Committee Assistant Conferees appearing before the Committee: Dr. Johannes Feddema, Department of Geography, University of Kansas Dr. Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Dr. John Christy, Alabama State Climatologist, University of Alabama Rabbi Moti Rieber, Director, Kansas Interfaith Power Light (written only presentation) Others attending: See attached list. Chair Hedke noted that during the last couple of weeks, the Committee has been hearing presentations on energy production, delivery, and rate paying in the state. Those presentations have been greatly appreciated. Now, we are changing gears, and today have several speakers from out-of-state on climate science. Chair Hedke expressed appreciation to the three scientists making presentations today. Dr. Feddema presented a slide presentation on climate science (Attachment 1), the basic knowledge that we have and what most climate scientists believe may be happening with the earth's climate today. Several of his points were: 1) There is accumulated evidence that greenhouse gases (GHG) (including C02) are increasing and are likely the cause of climate changes over the last few decades. The primary cause is from GHG emissions from fossil fuel burning. 2) The global temperature is warming at the rate of 0.2C per decade, which is evident by the increased heat being absorbed by the ocean. Also, sea ice is melting. Kansas will be one of the states most affected by climate change because of its location and projections of drying out. 3) The choice of energy production in the future will have consequences on climate and our economy. Different energy mixes will affect our GHG emissions and developing alternative methods can provide new business opportunities. Dr. Willie Soon gave a slide presentation (Attachment 2). To summarize his remarks: 1) no experimental data exist that support the View that the earth's climate is changing in a dangerous manner; 2) carbon dioxide, CO2, is merely a bit player in climate change, and rising CO2 is largely bene?cial to plant and human life; 3) the sun is a primary driver of climate change, and has a greater impact than changes in and 4) climate models cannot be trusted because of their poor representation of water#solid, liquid, and gas. Unless speci?cally noted, the individual remarks recorded herein have not been transcribed verbatim. Individual remarks as reported herein have not been submitted to the individuals appearing before the committee for editing or corrections. Page 1 CONTINUATION SHEET Minutes of the House Energy and Environment Committee at 9:00 am. on January 31, 2013, in Room 582-N of the Capitol. Dr. John Christy gave a presentation (Attachment 3) noting this past year was the warmest in Kansas in history. Even though it was very warm, it was only about the ?fth warmest in Kansas history. Information since 1885 indicates there have been constant increases and decreases in record high daily temperatures. Precipitation has gone up and down. Going back 800 years, globally, there were 100-year droughts, so the last couple of years have not been that bad. Evidence shows extreme events are not becoming more frequent or intense. Evidence also shows the climate models on which the alarm is based are overly sensitive to greenhouse gases. In summary, C02 is a non-toxic gas that increases food production. Dr. Christy added that he has pretty strong evidence that C02 has a small impact on climate. When you have access to affordable energy, you have a better life. The presenters stood for questions. In response to a question, Dr. Christy noted that the sea ice in Antarctica is expanding. Chair Hedke added a comment on impact. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has a similar graph to that presented by Dr. Christy, and using their data, the change in sea level by year 2100 is less than six inches, and the possible change in temperature is less than 1/2 of one degree. This Panel is the purportedly the ?gold standard? for climate change evaluation. Rabbi Moti Rieber, Director, Kansas Interfaith Power Light, had provided a written presentation (Attachment 4). Chair Hedke thanked the presenters and they stood for questions. There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:50 am. Unless speci?cally noted, the individual remarks recorded herein have not been transcribed verbatim. Individual remarks as reported herein have not been submitted to the individuals appearing before the committee for editing or corrections. Page 2 ATTACHMENT Where is the direct evidence for Goa-dominated global+ regional climate change? Willie Soon1 Independent Scientist January 31, 2013 Topeka, Kansas WI ?run ExpressIdAre Strlotly MyOwn and Do Not Re?ectThoseofAny Institution (302m tier-rpm} If Caramel wannan causation In so sure and so strong, wiry would the persistent not continue? own Take it from HansenlNASA GISS (January 15. 2013) Mean Global Surface Temperature VJ ill .- Temperature Anomaly '0 Stations - DIM: 1032 2006 mus 20m 20!: Volumetric sampling of the world oceans: ARGO project since 2003 Where is all the predicted accumulation of COzinduced h_eat if it is not inithe ocean? Glow Dean Heat Content Modal-Don Cornell-hon (woman-nun) am In ?In goIt.? MI. 30!] I'll I _r Spectral Fingerprinting of the 002 Monster: Just exactly where is "?rm the co2 I thou mommiequ greenhouse effect: tram epoch-a] magi-printing? anolonglh (um) cm? Adopted from praseom?on bmefusor John Hulk: ?ling-IE: m. 4. 2009! How well can simulations replicate the real?world observations? A a . -2 Simulailons 4 (NOT very IMO-RS April-June 1997 (HMS) minus 1970 -5 S'mdoliml?O'N to 30's troplcal oceans) I 1 600 800 1000 1200 1400 Wavenumber In." unjur?tuh..4.n. lhg-??m-D??II - no urn-tau ?No amount of experimentation can ever- prove me right; a single experiment can prove to wrong.? Albert Einstein Serious misrepresentations in 2009 report! Sepualing Human and Natural Influences on Climala mill. Puma? u?L-di ?lliur?ll 56;" may 7950 7 2600 Year m'aalom We M95 us no o-h- name! More Medals u: 1:9 beer: mlmalmm form-s A: the?: Ww?lmi} Mnmdeduymymerruuldeadu. Whammy-aunt.? rim "My {Black In}. new Wi?hnpcumnl hm clinqu {parkland} How authors mistakenly re?transformed global temperature from ?angmallea' unlgg go ahgglute unilsl Damaging side-effect Persisting error in US EPA webpage! 'Tm hour! rim-Irate! om niece of evidence that shows that recent global warming is primarily 9 Hunt: at graenl-Iousa gas emissions from human activities.? with human affects U1 co I observed Temperature tn id 56 1 natural {01:83 only I 1 9 1 950 2000 Year Ham 9, w. Observations Models using only natural forces 1 Models using both natural and human forces Reality; Does this looks like reasonable agreement between observation and model calculations now? Important public science- education-policy questions: if 602 control on the climate is so self-apparent and scienti?cally correct, then why the graphical ?confusion?? Will climate scientists stand up and condemn the HEW we?an 24 climate models simulate seasonal and annual cycles (on land surfaces)? 12 simulations 1354-2000 I mm I scan: m1fr-?1 mum came 0 Ocarina; ,O?u?p ems-mo . _s Ill li-Q nun Elana?ca I . "av?era?can ?0 i v-2 ?mama-emu uh I: urn: rennin) ? From: Christine McNeil Sent: To: Cc: Thomas Bonneniant Subject; Request for No~Cost Extension - Chades G. Koch Charitable Foundation Award Letter dated November 8. 2011 47?; . . . t; a? Smithsonian Observatory 4 Mr. Logan Moore Exemm? Charles G. Koch Charitabie Foundation Courthouse Tower 1515 N. Courthouse Road, Suite 200 Arlington. VA 22201 Dear Mr. Moore: The period of performance of the above referenced Grant will expire on 31 July 2011. It is requested that the completion date be extended to 31 January 2012 with no increase In the total amount of the Award. no-cost extension of this ro'ect owin to the rims reason that the mampuon We are hereby requesting a six-month Princral investiator Dr. Willie Soon However. he shall complete the goals of the project by 31 January 2012. Progress thus far is summarized below: (1.) Publication of the invited paper ?Avoiding Carbon Myopia: Three Considerations for policy makers concerning man made carbon dioxide" by Willie Soon and David R. Legates (2010) in Ecology Law Currents, vol. 37, 1-9. (2) Publication of the scientific manuscript ?Sea Level Changes in Bangladesh: Observational Constraints on Human, Geologic and Weather-Climate Variability Related Factors" by David R. Legates and Willie Soon (2011) (as a book chapter) In Understanding Climate Change Issues in Bangladesh. Ratique Ahmed et al. (editors). in press. (3) Acceptance of the scienti?c manuscript "Temporal derivative of total solar irradiance and anomalous Indian Summer Monsoon: An empirical evidence for a sun-climate connection? by Retest-t Agnihotrii Koushik Dutta and W. Soon (2011) in the peer-reviewed joumai Journal of Atmospheric and Solar~Terrestrial Physics. (4) Submission of the scienti?c manuscript "Variation in surface air temperature of China during the 20th century" by Willie Soon. Koushik Dutta. David Legates. Victor Velasco. WeIJla Zhang (2011) In the peer- reviewed journal Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics. (5) Preparation of the scientific report Research to date on forecasting for the manmade global warming alarm? by Scott Kesten Green and Willie Soon (as a supporting document for the Testimony of Professor Scott to the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment on March 31. 2011). Your iavorabie consideration and timely response would be greatly appreciated. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Thomas G. Bonnenfant, Contract Administrator. at (617) 495- 7317 or e?mail tbonnenfanthfa.baruard.edu. Christine McNeil for Thomas G. Bonnenfant Christine M. McNeil Staff Assistant Sponsored Programs and Procurement (SPF) Department Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory Phone: 617 496-7923 Fax: 617 496-7692 SI-000084 ATTACHMENT Home Media Center Press Releases Witnesses Highlight Flawed Processes Used to Generate Climate Change Science, Inform Policy Washington D.C. Today, the Science, Space, and Technology Committee heard from witnesses that there are signi?cant ?aws and bias re?ected in the processes used to generate key climate change science, and to inform policy development and decision-making. "The current Administration has been moving full speed ahead with regulations and policy initiatives that itjustifies based on the available science,? said Chairman Ralph Hall (R-TX). ?Since these actions have the potential to severely damage our economy, there should be extra care in making sure they are truly necessary and appropriate.? Hall continued, ?The legitimate questions that have been raised about the processes used to generate climate change science and policy have thus far been cast aside. The reluctance to engage in conversations with people who have doubts or question the veracity of climate science is at the heart of the wrong doing that undermines trust in climate change science." The potentially monumental impact of climate change policy on the US. economy and nearly all aspects of daily life demand that not only are such policies grounded in science, but that the science itself is generated through processes and procedures that are universally accepted. Members and witnesses today discussed the leaked ?Climategate? emails from the University of East Anglia?s Climate Research Unit in November of 2009. These emails?many of which involved world-leading scientists in positions of influence with respect to key scientific assessments relied upon by policymakers?revealed significant communications suggesting a lack of adherence to basic principles of scienti?c conduct, openness, and information sharing. In his opening remarks, Chairman Hall said ?For many of us here, these emails were evidence that the trust in the underlying process was misplaced. I may not be a scientist, but as a politician, I can tell when someone is trying to pull the wool over my eyes.? Also discussed at length was the 2009 ?endangerment finding,? paving the way under the' Clean Air Act for EPA to regulate greenhouse gases (GHGs), and particularly, carbon dioxide. A majority of the scienti?c basis the Agency used for its determination came from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or from government reports that relied heavily on the as a resource. Critical of the underpinning process, Dr. John Christy, Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, discussed his skepticism of how operates. ?The Committee should understand that the presents one version of climate change science generated by an establishment that has evolved to largely reflect a particular point of point of view attempts to dismiss information that questions the belief that greenhouse gases are the dominant cause of observed climate change." Further questioning the lawful basis of the endangerment finding, Mr. Peter Glaser, a Partner at Troutman Sanders, LLP, discussed the lack of transparency by EPA in formulating this decision. ?In my view, EPA failed to observe basic requirements set forth in applicable law as to how a regulatory determination such as the Endangerment Finding should be made.? Glaser questioned the fundamental fairness and transparency of the way EPA arrived at its endangerment ?nding and the quality of the information on which EPA relied. "The procedures EPA failed to observe are designed to ensure the integrity both of the decisionmaking process and the ultimate result an agency reaches.? Witnesses also discussed potential data bias that can result from data selection, substandard temperature station quality, urban vs. rural effects, station moves, and changes in the methods and times of measurement. Beyond concerns directly involving how scientific data is used, Dr. W. David 1 Montgomery testi?ed about the economic costs associated with proposed greenhouse gas regulations, and how those costs outweigh any possible bene?ts of such policies. Montgomery also rebuked the idea that regulating GHGs would drive an economically beneficial market in the US. for green technologies. ?Any claim that a?regulation or standard will on balance save money should be regarded with a high degree of skepticism,? Montgomery said. ?Economic theory and the experience in Europe and the United States with renewable energy policies show the effect is the opposite of stimulus to clean technology industries. Clean energy equipment will be produced where it is least costly to do so, and domestic policies that raise energy costs can shift that comparative advantage against the The following witnesses testi?ed today before the Committee: Dr. J. Scott Professor of Marketing, the Wharton School, University of Dr. Richard Muller, Professor of Physics, University of California, Berkeley and Faculty Senior Scientist, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Dr. John Christy, Director, Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville Mr. Peter Glaser, Partner, Troutman Sanders, LLP Dr. Kerry Emanuel, Professor of Atmospheric Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Dr. W. David Montgomery, Economist Research to date on Forecasting for the Manmade Global Warming Alarm Testimony to Subcommittee on Energy and Environment Committee on Science, Space and Technology March 31, 2011 Professor J. Scott University of with Kesten C. Green, University of South Australia, and Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Abstract The validity of the manmade global warming alarm requires the support of scienti?c forecasts of (1) a substantive long-term rise in global mean temperatures in the absence of regulations, (2) serious net harmful effects due to global warming, and (3) cost?effective regulations that would produce net bene?cial effects versus alternatives such as doing nothing. Without scienti?c forecasts for all three aspects of the alarm, there is no scienti?c basis to enact regulations. In effect, it is a three-legged stool. Despite repeated appeals to global warming alarmists, we have been unable to ?nd scienti?c forecasts for any of the three legs. We drew upon scienti?c (evidence-based) forecasting principles to audit the forecasting procedures used to forecast global mean temperatures by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ?leg of the stool. This audit found that the procedures violated 81% of the 89 relevant forecasting principles We also did an audit of the forecasting procedures used for two papers that were designed to support proposed regulation related to protecting polar bears leg of the stool. On average, these procedures violated 35% of the 90 relevant principles. he warming alarmists have not demonstrated the predictive validity of their procedures. Instead, their argument for predictive validity is based on their claim that nearly all scientists agree with the forecasts. Such an appeal to ?voting? is contrary to the scienti?c method. It is also incorrect. We conducted a validation test of the IPCC forecasts based on the assumption that there would be no interventions. This test found that the errors for IPCC model long-term forecasts (91 to 100 years in the future) were 12.6 times larger than those from an evidence?based ?no change? model. Based on our analyses, we concluded that the global warmingalarm is an anti-scienti?c political movement. We then turned to the ?structured analogies? method to forecast ?the likely outcomes of this movement. In this ongoing study, we have, to date, identi?ed 26 historical alarmist movements. None of the forecasts for the analogous alarms proved correct. In the 25 alarms that called for government intervention, the government impost regulations in 23.-None of the 23 interventions was effective and harm was caused by 20 of them. Updated 3/29/1 1: VersionR16 Introduction The Earth?s climate clearly varies as can be seen from plots of temperature proxy data over hundreds, thousands, and hundreds-of-thousands of years, so the existence of climate change is not a matter of dispute. Global warming alarmist analysis is concentrated on the years from 1850, a period of widespread direct temperature measurement, increasing industrialization, and increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. As with other periods, during this period one can retrospectively identify upward trends and downward trends, depending on the starting and ending dates one chooses. Over the whole period that we examined, 1850 through 2007, global annual temperature proxy series constructed for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) show a small upward trend of about per year. There is some dispute over the veracity of the proxy temperature series (Christy, er al. 2010). For our analyses, however, we treat the data as if they were correct. In particular, we use the UK. Hadley Centre?s ?best estimate? series, as described in Brohan et al. (2006). We approach the issue of alarm over dangerous manmade global warming as a problem of forecasting temperatures over the long term. The global warming alarm is not based on what has happened, but on what will happen. In other words, it is a forecasting problem. And it is a very complex problem. To address this forecasting problem we ?rst describe the basis of the scienti?c principles behind forecasting. We then examine the processes that have been used to forecast that dangerous manmade global warming will occur and the validation procedures used to demonstrate predictive validity. We then summarize a validation study that we conducted. We limit our discussion to forecasting. Those who are interested in the relevant aspects of climate science can ?nd summaries in Robinson, Robinson and Soon (2007) and in Idso and Singer (2009). Based on our analyses, especially with respect to the violations of the principles regarding objectivity and full disclosure, we conclude that the manmade global warming alarm is an anti-scienti?c political movement. In an ongoing study, we identi?ed analogous situations and report on their forecasts and outcomes. The basis of scienti?c forecasting Research on proper forecasting methods has been conducted for roughly a century. Progress increased over the past four decades due to an emphasis among researchers on experiments that were designed to test the effectiveness of alternative methods under varied conditions. Forecasting research has led to many surprising conclusions. To make this knowledge useful to forecasters in all domains, I, along with an international and inter-disciplinary group of 39 co-authors and 123 reviewers, expert in various aspects of forecasting, summarized the evidence as a set of principles. A principle is a conditional action, such as ?forecast conservatively in situations of uncertainty?. There are now 140 forecasting principles. The principles are described and the evidence for them is fully disclosed in the Principles of Forecasting handbook 2001). The principles are also provided on the forecastingprinciples.com site (ForPrin.com), on which we invite researchers to contribute evidence either for or against the principles. In practice, nearly everyone believes that their situation is different and that the principles do not apply. I suggest to such people that they conduct experiments for their own situation and publish their ?ndings, especially if they contradict the principles, and by doing so advance the science of forecasting. There can never be enough situation-speci?c evidence for some people but, given the evidence that many common forecasting practices are invalid, it would be in unwise to reject the principles without strong evidence for doing so. Obtained ?'om LliEliil'IHn! notes on series at Conditions that apply in forecasting climate change The global warming alarm is based on a chain of three linked elements, each depending on the preceding element and each element highly complex due to the number of variables and the types of relationships. It is much like a three-legged stool. Each leg involves much uncertainty (Idso and Singer 2009). The alarm requires: 1. a substantive long-term rise in global mean temperatures in the absence of regulations, 2. serious net harmful effects due to global warming, and 3. cost-effective regulations that would produce net bene?cial effects versus alternatives such as doing nothing. Effective policy-making requires scienti?c forecasts for all three elements. Without proper forecasts, there can be no sound basis for making policy decisions. Surprisingly, then, despite repeated appeals to global warming alarmists, we have been unable to ?nd scienti?c forecasts for any of the three elements. Of course, there have been many forecasts based on what we refer to as unaided expert judgment: judgments made without the use of evidence?based forecasting principles. For example, in 1896 the Swedish Nobel Prize winner in chemistry, Svante Arrhenius, speculated about the effect of increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide (C02) and concluded that higher concentrations would cause wanning. His conclusion was drawn from an extrapolation of observational dataz. Arrhenius?s idea attracted little attention at the time, perhaps because he expected bene?ts from warming, rather than an impending disaster. As noted, the forecasting principles provide advice about how to forecast given the conditions. Here the evidence yields a ?nding that is surprising to many researchers: use simple methods when forecasting in a complex uncertain situation. This was a central theme in my 1978 book on long-range forecasting. Those involved in the global warming alarm have violated the ?simple methods? principle. Audit of methods used to forecast dangerous manmade global warming Kesten Green surveyed climate experts (many of whom were IPCC authors and editors) to ?nd the most credible source for forecasts on climate change. Most respondents referred to the IPCC report and some speci?cally to Chapter 8, the key IPCC chapter on forecasting (Randall et al. 2007). Kesten Green and I examined the references to determine whether the authors of Chapter 8 were familiar with the evidence-based literature on forecasting. We found that none of their 788 references related to that body of literature. We could ?nd no references that validated their choice of forecasting procedures. In other words, the IPCC report contained no evidence that the forecasting procedures they used were based on evidence of their predictive validity. We then conducted an audit of the forecasting procedures using Forecasting Audit Software, which is ?eely available on forprin.com. Kesten Green and I independently coded the IPCC procedures against the 140 forecasting principles, and then we discussed differences in order to reach agreement. We also invited cements and suggestions from the authors of the IPCC report that we were able to contact in the hope of ?lling in missing information. None of them replied with suggestions and one threatened to lodge a complaint if he received any further correspondence. We described the coding procedures we used for our audit in Green and (2007). We concluded from our audit that invalid procedures were used for forecasting global mean temperatures. Our findings, described in Green and (2007), are summarized in Exhibit 1. Based on the available information, 81% of the 89 relevant principles were violated. There were an additional 38 relevant principles, but the IPCC chapter provided insufficient information for coding and the IPCC authors did not supply the information that we requested. 2 See description on Wikipedia and original paper at 8/Arrhenius.pdf. Exhibit 1: Audit of the IPCC forecasting procedures Principles were: IPCC Chapter 8 Violated 60 Apparently violated 12 Properly applied 17 Insuf?cient information 38 Total relevant principles 127 Much of the problem revolves around the use of computer modelers? scenarios as a forecasting method. As stated correctly by Trenberth (2007), a leading spokesperson for the IPCC researchers, the IPCC provides scenarios, not forecasts. Scenarios are not a valid forecasting method (Gregory Duran 2001), but simply descriptions of their authors? speculations about what might happen in the future. Warming forecasts and polar bears we also examined two forecasts that were developed to support proposed policy changes. The reports assumed that there would be global warming as predicted by the IPCC. We examined the two reports that presented forecasts in line with the stated goal, mentioned on the ?rst page of the report ?to support US Fish and Wildlife Service Polar Bear Listing decision??which we coded as a violation of objectivity. Our procedures were similar to those in our audit of the IPCC forecasts except that we also obtained coding by a climate scientist who has published papers on climate change in the Arctic. On average, these two reports violated 85% of the 90 relevant principles. For example, long?term forecasts were made using only ?ve years of selected data. Green Soon 2008) Exhibit 2: Audit of forecasting procedures used in two papers on polar bear populations Principles were: Amstrup (2007) Hunter (2007) Violated 41 61 Apparently violated 32 19 Properly applied 17 10 Insuf?cient information 26 15 Totals 116 105 One key violation was that they did not provide full disclosure of the data in their paper, and they refused our requests for the data. They also refused to answer our questions about key aspects of their procedures that were not fully described in their papers. They re?rsed to provide peer review of our paper prior to publication. At our request, the editor of thejournal invited them to provide commentary. They missed the deadline and our paper was published with commentary by other authors and with our replies to the commentary. We were surprised when their commentary appeared in the journal some months later without us having being offered an opportunity to respond. In their commentary, the polar bear scientists claimed ?every major point in et al. (2008) was wrong or misleading.? You can read their commentary in Amstrup, et al. (2009) and form your own opinion. Tests of predictive validity by global warming alarmists For important problems, it is important to test the predictive validity of the forecasting methods used. Validation tests are normally done by simulating the conditions involved in making actual forecasts (called ex ante forecasts) by, for example, withholding some data and forecasting what that data will be. Thus, if one wanted to test the accuracy of a method for forecasting 50 years from now, one would make a series of 50-year-ahead forecasts using the method and one or more competitive alternative methods in order to compare the accuracy of the forecasts from the different methods. We were unable to ?nd any ex ante comparisons of forecasts by the alarmists. In the spirit of doing a systematic evaluation of forecasts, in 2007 I invited former Vice President Gore to join with me in a test as to the whether forecasts by manmade global warming alarmists would be more accurate than forecasts from a no-change model. Each of us would contribute $10,000 to go to the winner?s favorite charity. The period years so that I would be around to see the outcome. Note that this is a short time period, such that the probability of my winning is only about 70%, based on our simulations. Had we used 100 years for the term of the bet, I would have been almost certain to win. Mr. Gore eventually re?Jsed to take the bet (the correspondence is provided on theclimatebet.com). So we proceeded to track the bet on the basis of ?What if Mr. Gore had taken the bet? by using the IPCC per-year projection as his forecast and the global average temperature in 2007 as mine. The status of this bet is being reported on theclimatebet.com. Claims of predictive validity by alarmists The claim by alarmists that nearly all scientists agree with the dangerous manmade global warming forecasts is not a scienti?c way to validate forecasts. In addition, the alarmists are either misrepresenting the facts or they are unaware of the literature. International surveys of climate scientists from 27 countries, obtained by Bray and von Storch in 1996 and 2003, summarized by Bast and Taylor (2007), found that many scientists were skeptical about the predictive validity of climate models. Of more than 1,060 respondents, 35% agreed with the statement ?Climate models can accurately predict ?lture climates,? while 47% percent disagreed. More recently, nearly 32,000 scientists have disputed the claim of ?scienti?c consensus? by signing the ?Oregon Petition?. Perhaps in recognition that alarmist claims of predictive validity cannot sustain scrutiny, expressions of doubt about the alarm are often parried with an appeal to the so-called precautionary principle. The precautionary principle is an anti-scienti?c principle designed to silence people who have reached different conclusions. Alarmists, such as James Hansen of NASA, have even suggested publicly that people who reach different conclusions about global warming have committed crimes against the state (reported in Revkin 2008). Such attempts to suppress contrary evidence were ridiculed by George Orwell in his book 1984: The Ministry of Truth building was inscribed with the motto ?Ignorance is truth.? For a closer examination of the precautionary principle from a?forecasting perspective, see Green and (2009). Experts? opinions about what will happen have repeatedly been shown by research to be of no value in situations that are complex and uncertain. In 1980 I surveyed the evidence on the accuracy of experts? judgmental forecasts and found that experts were no better at forecasting about complex and uncertain situations than were novices 1980). Bemused at the resistance to this evidence, I proposed my Seer-sucker theory: ?No matter how much evidence exists that seers do not exist, seers will ?nd suckers.? More recently, Tetlock (2005) presented the ?ndings of 20 years of research over the course of which he obtained over 82,000 forecasts ?'om 284 experts on ?commenting or offering advice on political and economic trends,? which represented complex and uncertain problems. Consistent with earlier research, he found that the experts? forecasts were no more accurate than novices? and naive model forecasts. Our validation test of IPCC forecasting model We conducted a validation test of the IPCC forecast of per-year increase in global mean temperatures. We did this starting roughly with the date used for the start of the Industrial Revolution, 1850. As it happens, that was also the start of the collecting of temperature ?'om weather stations around the world We used the U.K. Met Of?ce Hadley Centre?s annual average thermometer data ??om 1850 through 2007. Note that the IPCC forecast had the bene?t of using these data in preparing the forecasts. Thus, it had an advantage over the no?change model. To simulate the forecasting situation, we needed unconditional (ex ante) forecasts. These were obtained through 100-year forecasts for the years from 1850 through 2007. The period was one of exponentially increasing atmospheric C02 concentrations, which is what the IPCC modelers assumed for their ?business as usual? model forecasts of per-year increase in global mean temperatures. Relative forecasting errors are provided in Exhibit 3. 3 See petitionproject.org for details. Exhibit 3 Ratio of errors in IPCC (2007) forecasts to errors in ?no change? model forecast from 1850 through 2007 Forecast horizon Error Ratio of Forecasts Rolling (1-100 years) 7.7 10,750 1-10 years 1.5 1,205 91?100 years 12.6 305 Note that the errors do not diifer substantially in the short term forecasting horizons ?om through 10 years). As a consequence, the chances that I will win my 10?year bet with former Vice President Gore are not overwhelming. The IPCC model forecast errors for forecasts 91 to 100 years in the future, however, were 12.6 times larger than those for our evidence-based ?no change? model forecasts. In an extension, we also examined a no?change model that used ten-year periods (instead of annual data) to forecast subsequent ten-year periods, updating this to make a forecast each year. The results were quite similar to those in exhibit 3. Exhibit 3 shows relative errors, but it is also important for policy makers to look at absolute errors. Absolute errors for the no-change model are presented in Exhibit 4. The accuracy of forecasts ?'om the no?change model are such that even perfectly accurate forecasts of global mean temperatures would not provide much help to policymakers. For example, the mean absolute errors for 50-year ahead no?change forecasts averaged only The alarmists claim that validation tests cannot be done because things have changed. Such claims are commonly, but illogically, made by people who believe that their situation is new or so different from other situations that they cannot learn ?'om the past or from other domains. Exhibit 4: Forecast errors for the_no-clnange model Mean absolute errors For forecasts of no change in global average temperatures vs Hadley temperature data: by forecast horizon 0.4 ?Ceicius 0100 Forecast horizon: Years in the future Conclusions from our analysis of the procedures used to forecast alarming manmade global warming Global wam'iing alarmists have used improper procedures and, most importantly, have violated the general scienti?c principles of objectivity and disclosure. They also fail to correct errors or to cite relevant literature that reaches conclusion that are unfavorable. They also have been deleting information ?'om Wikipedia that is unfavorable to the alarmists? viewpoint'1 my entry has been frequently revised by them). These departures ?om the scienti?c method are apparently intentional. Some alarmists claim that there is no need for them to follow scienti?c principles. For example, the late Stanford University biology professor Stephen Schneider said, ?each of us has to decide what is the right balance between being effective and being honest.? He also said ?we have to offer up scary scenarios? (October 1989, Discover Magazine interview). Interestingly, Schneider had been a leader in the 19705 movement to get the government to take action to prevent global cooling. ClimateGate also documented many violations of objectivity and ?rll disclosure committed by some of the climate experts that were in one way or another associated with the The alarmists? lack of interest in scienti?c forecasting proceduress and the evidence from opinion polls (Pew Research Center 2008) have led us to conclude that global warming is a political movement in the US. and elsewhere (Klaus 2009). It is a product of advocacy, rather than of the scienti?c testing of multiple hypotheses. Forecasts of outcomes of the manmade global warming alarmist movement Using a process known as ?structured analogies,? we predicted the likely outcome of the global warming movement. Our validation test of structured analogies method was provided in (Green and 2009). Global warming alarmism has the characteristics of a political movement. In an ongoing study, we have been searching for situations that are ?alarms over predictions of serious environmental harm that could only be averted at great cost.? We have searched the literature, contacted various researchers -- especially those who believe in the global warming alarm. We have also posted appeals on email lists and on websites such as publicpolicyforecasting.com. We repeat this appeal here. To date, we have identi?ed 26 analogous alarmist situations in the past. Kesten Green and 1 independently coded the alarms. We coded them for: 1. Forecasting method. Did the proposed action involve substantive government intervention? Accuracy of forecasts was rated on a -1 to +1 scale (-1 =wrong direction, 0=no, or minor, effect; +l=accurate) 4. Did substantive government intervention take place, or not? Outcome of government policies to date on the value of their net bene?t on a ?1 to +1 scale 6. Persistence of government policies, to-date, on a 0 to 2 scale (0=reversed; 1=no or little change; 2=strengthened) we 5" 4' gimf?lljj'm! 3.1.551}; 5 LUiltLIJJ?BLL-idinns; Miriam-r I: inst;- and climate-topic-banned? The descriptions include the following elements and references to sources of information: Forecasts of impending catastrophe Methods used to forecast the catastrophe Actions called for (actions by government or by others) Salient endorsements of the forecast by scientists and politicians Challenges to the forecast Outcomes of each conflict over the alarming forecast and calls for action, including forecast accuracy We have posted full disclosure of our procedures at 1gb]icpolicvforecastingcom, and have sent announcements to websites and individual requests to people to comment. Thumbnail descriptions are available for nine of the 26 situations (indicated by italics in Exhibit 5) at publicpolicyforccastingcom. Exhibit 5: Analogies to the alarm over dangerous manmade global warming (Thumbnail descriptions available for italicized analogies) Analogy Year 1 Population growth and famine (Malthus) 1798 2 Timber famine economic threat 1865 3 Uncontrolled reproduction and degeneration (Eugenics) 1883 4 Lead in petrol and brain and organ damage 1928 5 Soil erosion agricultural production threat 1934 6 Asbestos and lung disease 1939 7 Fluoride in drinking water health effects 1945 8 DDT and cancer 1 962 9 Population growth and famine (Ehrlich) 1968 10 Global cooling; through to 1975 1970 11 Supersonic airliners. the ozone hole. and skin cancer. etc. 1970 12 Environmental tobacco smoke health effects 1971 13 Population growth and famine (Meadows) 1972 14 industrial production and acid rain 1974 15 Organophosphate pesticide poisoning 1976 16 Electrical wiring and cancer, etc. 1979 17 CFCs, the ozone hole. and skin cancer, etc. 1985 1 8 Listeria in cheese 1 985 19 Radon in homes and lung cancer 1985 20 Salmonella in eggs 1988 21 Environmental toxins and breast cancer 1990 22 Mad cow disease (BSE) 1996 23 Dioxin in Belgian poultry 1999 24 Mercury in ?sh effect on nervous system development 2004 25 Mercury in childhood inoculations and autism 2005 26 Cell phone towers and cancer, etc. 2008 Exhibit 6 provides an example: Exhibit 6: Example of a thumbnail description of an analogy to the global warming alarm Title: DDT and cancer Date: Started in 1962 Forecast of impending disaster: Based on a book, Rachel Carson?s Silent Spring, DDT was claimed to be a dangerous cancer-causing chemical. Publication of the book was followed by what some called a national hysteria. The alarm over forecasts of harmful effects combined concerns about the health and wellbeing of people with concerns about other species. Papers by scientists purported to demonstrate harmful effects on people from DDT exposure. Forecasting method: A scenario based on the author?s speculations from various pieces of information about the effects of DDT. There was no direct evidence that DDT harmed people. Actions called for: Governments were asked to ban exports of DDT and World Bank loans would be banned to countries that used DDT. Endorsements of and challenges to the forecast: Leading scientists from institutions (such as Stanford University), politicians (such as Senator Al Gore,) and a report by a commission appointed by President Carter. The reports of the dangers were widely covered by the mass media. Outcomes of the con?ict: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) banned the use of DDT following an 80-day hearing in 1972. Europe and Africa, under pressure ?om international agencies, did too. No actual harmful effects on humans have been found to result from DDT. Millions of people have died from mosquito?bom diseases such as malaria. The EPA decision was based on two studies of animals: the first could not be replicated and the second used a ?awed experimental design. Sources: Edwards (2004); Waite (1994) Here are our preliminary ?ndings. None of these alarming forecasts were correct. Twenty-?ve of them called for government intervention. In the 23 cases where interventions occun?ed, none were effective. The policy changes caused harm in 20 of the cases. The ?ndings will change as the project progresses and as we identify new analogies, provide more and better description of the analogies, and obtain codings from others, especially ?'om experts in the various areas. We were not surprised by the outcomes, as none of the alarms were based on scienti?c forecasts. They typically began with stories and progressed from there with appeals to scienti?c support. Another reason that we were not surprised is that our ?ndings had been anticipated by others. For example, after compiling a list of analogous situations (source), Julian Simon said, in 1990,?As soon as one predicted disaster doesn't occur, the doomsayers skip to why don't [they] see that, in the aggregate, things are getting better? Why do they always think we're at a turning point?or at the end of the road?? And considerably earlier, in 1830, Thomas Babington Macaulay concluded, ?On what principle is it that when we see nothing but improvement behind us, we are to expect nothing but deterioration before us?? As with our other publications related to climate change, we have received no funding, so we expect this study to drag on. The good news is that it will allow an opportunity for researchers to provide peer review and to suggest further improvements in our study or, better, to conduct independent studies of analogies. Recommendations Efforts to forecast climate change should include those who have expertise in evidence-based forecasting methods. After all, public policy changes are avowedly implemented in the expectation that they will make things better in the ?xture than they would otherwise have been. To help ensure objectivity, government ?mding should not be provided for climate-change forecasting. Kealey (1996) summarized evidence on the dangers of bias in govemment?frmded research. The government should instead rely on independent forecasters. As we have noted, simple methods are appropriate for forecasting for climate change. Large budgets are therefore not necessary. Private individuals have been willing to invest much time and effort in examining the global warming alarm without external rewards. In fact, a number of them have engaged in research on the global warming alarm at great personal cost. The cost has been at least in part because governments have almost universally sponsored scientists who have supported the manmade global warming alarm and these scientists have, as a consequence, attained considerable power over learned societies, journals, funding, and universities. With the power has come in?uence over the news media that, by their nature, are attracted to stories such as environmentalist alarms that grab the attention of audiences The burden of proof should be on government to provide convincing scienti?c proof before increasing the burden of laws and regulations. It is not defensible to use anti-scienti?c procedures such as asking scientists or scienti?c organizations to ?vote? on policy recommendations, even when the experts are provided with excellent information. This is especially so given the evidence that that expert opinions are useless for complex problems such as climate change. Instead government should look for strict standards of objectivity in the evidence. Thus we suggest that government should address each of the legs on the three-legged stool involving climate change, effects of climate change, and outcomes of alternative proposed policy changes, including ?don?t just do something, stand there!? The following should be included for each leg: I. evidence, rather than experts? opinions, 2. research from scientists with diverse views, 3. research that involves testing of multiple reasonable hypotheses, 4. use of scienti?c (evidence-based) forecasting methods 4. ?ll] disclosure of data and research methods, 5. criticism, replications, and extensions, and 6. testimony ?'om scientists who have nothing to gain from the acceptance of their evidence. References Amstrup, Steven C., et al. (2009), ?Rebuttal of "Polar bear population forecasts: A public-policy forecasting audit' Interfaces, 39 (4), 353-369. Amstrup, S. C., B. G. Marcot, D. C. Douglas (2007), Forecasting the rangewide status of polar bears at selected times in the 215t Century. Administrative Report, USGS Alaska Science Center, Anchorage, AK. J. S. (1978; 1985), Long-Range Forecasting: From Ball to Computer. New York: Wiley- Interscience. J. S. (1980), ?The Seer?sucker Theory: The value of experts in forecasting,? Technology Review, 83 (June/July), 18-24. J. (2001), Principles of Forecasting. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. J. S., Green, K.C., Soon, W. (2008), ?Polar bear population forecasts: A public-policy forecasting audit,? Interfaces, 38, No. 5, 382?405. [Includes commentary and response] Bray, D. von Storch, H. (2007). Climate scientists? perceptions of climate change science. GKSS Forschungszentrum Geesthacht GmbH. 10 Brohan, P., Kennedy, .J ., Harris, I., Tett, S.F.B. Jones, PD. (2006). Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature changes: a new dataset ?'om 1850. J. Geophys. Res, 1 l, D12106, Christy, J.R., B. Herman, R. Pielke, Sr., P. Klotzbach, R.T. McNider, J.J. Hnilo, R.W. Spencer, T. Chase and D. Douglass, 2010: What do observational datasets say about modeled tropospheric temperature trends since 1979? Remote Sensing, 2148-2169. Edwards, J. Gordon (2004), A case study in scienti?c fraud,? Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, 9 (3), 83-88. Green, K. C. J. S. (2007), ?Global warming: Forecasts by scientists versus scienti?c forecasts,? Energy and Environment, 18, No. 7+8, 995-1019. Green, K. C. J. S. (2008), ?Uncertainty, the precautionary principle and climate change,? Available on-line at publicpolicyforecasting.com and other web sites. Green, K. C. J. S. (2011), ?Effects of the global warming alarm: A forecasting project using the structured analogies method,? Working Paper. Latest version available at Green, K. C., J. S. Soon W. (2009), ?Validity of Climate Change Forecasting for Public Policy Decision Making,? International Journal of Forecasting, 25, 826-832. Gregory, W. L. Duran, A. (2001), ?Scenarios and acceptance of forecasts.? In J. S. Principles of Forecasting. Kluwer Academic Publishers (Springer). Hunter, C. M., H. Caswell, M. C. Runge, S. C. Amstrup, E. V.Regehr, I. Stirling (2007), ?Polar bears in the Southern Beaufort Sea II: Demography and population growth in relation to sea ice conditions.? Administrative Report, USGS Alaska Science Center, Anchorage, AK. Idso, C. Singer, S. F. (2009). Climate Change Reconsidered: The Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change. Chicago: The Heartland Institute. Kealey, Terence (1996), The Economic Laws of Scienty?ic Research. Hampshire, UK: Macmillan Press. Randall, D.A., et al. eds. (2007). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the ourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press. Revkin, A. (2008). ?Are big oil and big coal climate criminals?? The New York Times: Dot Earth, June 23. Available from Robinson, A.B, Robinson, NE, and Soon, W. (2007). Environmental effects of increased carbon dioxide. Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, 12, 79?90. Schneider, S. H. (1989). As quoted in an interview in Discover Magazine, October. Available at htlpi". Papers.- Tetlock, P. E. (2005), Expert Political Judgment. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Trenberth, Kevin E. (2007), ?Global warming and forecasts of climate change?, Nature.com?s Climate Feedback: the climate change biog. Available at Waite, Donald E. (1994). and facts about in D. E. Waite, Environmental Health Hazards, Environmental Health Consultant; Columbus, Ohio. Author and collaborators J. Scott MIT, 1968), a Professor at the Wharton School of Management, University of is the author of Long-range Forecasting, the creator of forecastingpr?inciplescom, and editor of Principles of Forecasting (Kluwer 2001), an evidence-based summary of knowledge on forecasting methods. He is a founder of the Journal of orecasting, the International Journal q? Forecasting, and the International Symposium on Forecasting. He has spent 50 years doing research and consulting on forecasting (details at He can be reached at 11 Contributions to this report were made by: Kesten C. Green of the International Graduate School of Business at the University of South Australia is a Director of the Intemational Institute of Forecasters and is co-director with Scott of the Forecasting Principles public service Internet site (F orPrin.com He has been responsible for the development of two forecasting methods that provide forecasts that are substantially more accurate than commonly used methods. (Kesten.Green@unisa.edu.au) Willie Soon is an astrophysicist and a geoscientist at the Solar, Stellar, and Planetary Sciences division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. He is also the receiving editor in the area of solar and stellar physics for the journal New Astronomy He has 20 years of active researching and publishing in the area of climate change and all Views expressed are strictly his own. (vanlien@earthlink.net) 12