In late June, Barton sent a letter to three scientists whose
findings show that global temperatures have increased
dramatically since 1900. [1] The letter calls on them to provide
all the raw data that contributed to their research. Barton has
also called on the National Science Foundation for a list of
"all grants and other funding" given for climate research.

Critics within the scientific community assert that Barton's
request is a blatant political maneuver to discourage scientists
from pursuing studies that might verify the link between global
warming and human activity.

Michael Bender, a professor of geosciences at Princeton
University and a member on the board of atmospheric sciences and
climate at the U.S. National Academies told Environmental
Science and Technology, "I feel there is an attempt to intrude
on the work of scientists...government is attempting to
intimidate scientists that have findings they don't agree with."
[2]

At issue is research conducted mainly by Michael Mann, an
assistant professor in the department of environmental sciences
at the University of Virginia. Mann's "hockey stick study," as
it is known in the field, shows that global temperatures were
relatively stable up until 1900, when the planet suddenly warmed
dramatically: on a graph the upward spike looks like a hockey
stick. [2] Many scientists cite this study to confirm that
global warming exists, and is abetted by human activity. The
Mann paper played an integral role in a 2001 report by the UN
International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Despite the fact that the paper has undergone intensive peer
review and is widely regarded as a fundamental study on climate
change, Barton has called for all the raw data and the computer
code Mann used in his study.

Growing numbers within the scientific community assert that
Barton is not actually interested in assessing how Mann reached
his conclusions. Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist at NASA's
Goddard Institute for Space Studies, told BushGreenwatch,
"Barton's request does not reflect an effort to further
understand the science, but an attempt to discredit the IPCC
report."

Harvard Professor John Holdren, president-elect of American
Association for the Advancement of Science, says numerous
separate studies have confirmed Mann's findings.

Princeton's Bender told BushGreenwatch that such a request has
had a ripple effect in the climate science community, "I feel
attacked, and I feel as if climate change science and scientists
are being attacked."

Emphasizing that he "would not bow down to such intimidation,"
Bender warned that the impact of the Barton request "has the
potential to lead some scientists, particularly scientists
feeling vulnerable financially or otherwise, to bend their work
in a way that might make it conform better to the views of
aggressive politicians who influence funding decisions and have
the power to carry out investigations outside the common
practices of journals, funding agencies, and universities."

In the letter requesting raw data from Mann, Barton predicates
his skepticism of Mann's results on a February article in the
Wall Street Journal, which cites the work of Stephen McIntyre, a
former director of several mineral exploration companies, and
economist Ross McKitrick. [3] McIntyre and McKitrick claim that
Mann's study is rife with methodological errors and data flaws.

McIntyre and McKitrick's dispute with Mann's work was published
in a little-known journal called Energy & Environment, which
according to Journal Citation Reports is found at only 25
institutions worldwide, and is not included on the Journal
Citation Reports list of impact factors for the top 6,000
peer-reviewed journals. The article was also published in
Geophysical Research Letters.

McIntyre and McKitrick's study has received substantial
criticism from several prominent climate scientists. NASA's
Schmidt told BushGreenwatch, "Most of their study has been shown
to be wrong or irrelevant."

McKitrick is a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute, a
free-market oriented Canadian think tank that received $60,000
from ExxonMobil in 2003. [4] Both McIntyre and McKitrick are
listed as "experts" for the George C. Marshall institute, which
has received $515,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998. [5]

Barton, who will chair the upcoming House-Senate conference on
the energy bill, also has close ties to the energy industry.
Since 1987, he has received $1.84 million from the oil, gas,
coal, nuclear, electricity and chemical industries -- more than
any other member of the House.

Barton's request for Mann's data comes at a time when the Bush
Administration has been consistently accused of downplaying
science on climate change.

###

SOURCES:
[1] Rep. Joe Barton's website.
[2] "Congressman unmoved by peer review, asks to see raw data,"
Environmental Science & Technology Online News, Jul. 6, 2005.
[3] Barton website, op. cit.
[4] Fact Sheet: Fraser Institute, Exxonsecrets.org.
[5] Fact Sheet: George C. Marshall Institute, Exxonsecrets.org.