Global Warming – Submissions and Responses to Government Inquiries


SENATE TESTIMONY: December 15 2011 I testified before the Senate Standing Committee on Energy, Environment and Natural Resources in Ottawa. Unlike in the US, our Senate has little formal power, but does play an advisory role to the House of Commons in the formation and passage of legislation ("sober second thought" as the tradition goes). 

US CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS: On March 31 2011 there were hearings on climate science before the US House Science, Space and Technology Committee. John Christy of the University of Alabama-Huntsville was a witness and included in his submission a letter I wrote to some members of the incoming Congress on my concerns with some parts of previous IPCC reports. 


CLIMATEGATE INQUIRIES: With the release of the IAC Report in August 2010, and the follow-up hearings in the UK House of Commons, I have now been able to complete my response to the climategate inquiries. I owe a vote of thanks to a number of readers who provided feedback on the first draft.  

SUBMISSIONS TO CRU INQUIRIES: I made submissions both to the UK Parliamentary Inquiry into the CRU emails, as well as the Independent Inquiry headed by Sir Muir Russell.
Submission to Parliamentary Inquiry
Submission to Muir Russell Inquiry


CRU UPDATE: When the UK House of Commons Inquiry into Climategate reported, it punted most of the hard questions over to the Review led by Sir Muir Russell. To make sure they received the pass I sent them a letter. 

In December 2008 I made a  Submission to the US EPA in response to its Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for greenhouse gases.

It includes my letters to Inhofe and Dingell as well as some supplementary material. 

In October 2008 I was sent a list of questions from Senator Inhofe of the US Environment and Public Works Committee, concerning the validity of climate models in view of the plans to regulate greenhouse gases. My response is here: 


Following my June 2008 testimony to the US House Committee on Energy and Commerce I was issued a set of follow-up questions by Chairman Dingell. My response is here.

On June 26 I testified before the US House of Representatives Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality. My spoken comments were only about 4 minutes (not as long as what's written here) but I made an extended submission.

In September 2007 I was contacted by a politician outside of Canada who was preparing for cabinet-level decisions on global warming policy. I was asked to identify half a dozen of the main assumptions about global warming that, if wrong, would invalidate the usual conclusions. Of course the topic is so big I could easily have written a book in response. A tidied-up version of my actual reply is here. I do not know what effect, if any, it had on the individual's views.

I delivered the following to the Canadian Parliamentary Committee looking into Canada's Kyoto commitment. It was not well-received.

On occasion I have been encouraged to put in a submission to ongoing inquiries. These two went to the Australian Parliament and the UK House of Lords. In each case the outcomes were actually pretty good, so maybe it was worth the effort.

This one, on the other hand, was a waste of my time. It was provided to the Stern Review, and while I think it was a good submission, the outcome was, well, the Stern Review.

The Stern Review came in for a lot of professional criticism, and I was coauthor of what I consider the best and most thorough of the lot.