European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) Meets Deadline for Chemical Dossier Completeness Checks

The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) has reported that it has met its statutory obligation to finish "completeness checks" on chemical dossiers submitted for REACH registration.  REACH required ECHA to complete these reviews within three months following the deadline, which for the first group was November 30, 2010.  The completeness check requirement applies only to registrations for phase-in substances submitted in the last two months before the first registration deadline.  A total of 15,366 dossiers were submitted during that two month period.  According to ECHA:

Registration numbers have been granted for 20 175 of the 20 723 dossiers that were submitted by the first registration deadline, resulting in a total of 3 483 phase-in substances being registered under REACH. Dissemination of information from these dossiers has been accelerated.

The completeness check is only to "check that all required elements have been provided," i.e., that some data are there.  Much of this check is done automatically and registrants can pre-check their dossiers using a Technical Completeness Check (TCC) tool made available to all via the ECHA web site.  ECHA then repeats the TCC upon receipt and also may check other business rules.  This completeness check is different from a compliance check, which involves ECHA staff actually reviewing the substance of the data submitted.

Information about the chemicals registered and access to dossiers once they have been disseminated can be found here.

Chemical Industry Calls for Improvements to US Regulatory System

Representatives from the chemical industry called on Congress to improve the federal regulatory system," including a requirement for cumulative impact assessments of proposed rules, to protect U.S. innovation, investment and jobs."  Testifying before the House Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus Oversight & Government Spending (yes, it's a long title), American Chemistry Council (ACC) Vice President of Regulatory and Technical Affairs Michael Walls noted:

"If manufacturing is to make a significant contribution to economic recovery, including the creation and maintenance of well-paying jobs, it is imperative that we have an accurate understanding of the impact of proposed regulations on industry.  The full regulatory burden for a particular sector can only be known if the cumulative impact of overlapping regulations is identified."

In particular, Walls indicated that industry felt “the lack of cumulative impact assessments is a fundamental shortcoming in the way government agencies develop and evaluate proposed rules.”  According to the ACC press release, Walls offered four recommendations to improve the economic analysis of proposed rules:

1. Conduct cumulative impact assessments to identify the full regulatory burden being created by a proposed rule.
2. Track the sectors affected by new regulations so the most heavily regulated sectors can be easily identified and regulations can be streamlined appropriately.
3. Seek input from the businesses that will be affected before developing rules in order to better understand the effects that a potential rule may have.
4. Conduct a more comprehensive analysis of the impact of a proposed rule on jobs that considers the type and quality of jobs being affected.  

More information, including Walls' testimony (PDF), can be found on the ACC web site.

US House Hearing Today on Climate Science - With (Mostly) Actual Climate Scientists

Today, March 8, 2011, there will be a hearing of the Subcommittee on Energy and Power entitled "Climate Science and EPA's Greenhouse Gas Regulations."  The subcommittee is a part of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, now chaired by Republican Fred Upton.  Upton was responding to a request by former chair and now ranking member Democrat Henry Waxman requesting "a hearing on the science of climate change" prior to moving forward on Republican attempts to craft legislation restricting EPA's ability to regulate CO2 and other greenhouse gases.  Author and Blogger Chris Mooney points out that Democrats wanted even more scientists to testify, and that former subcommittee chair Bobby Rush had noted in the hearing Upton had called last month "Don't you find it strange that this hearing is being conducted with no scientists at all?" 

So unlike past hearings in which Republicans called as witnesses non-scientists like fiction writer Michael Crichton and professional speaker Lord Viscount Christopher Monckton, as well as industry scientists such as the Cato Institute's Pat Michaels, this hearing will have a full set of actual practicing climate scientists to testify.  While it is nice to see that the committee will rely on scientists for input on the science, the line up does tend to represent, as Joe Romm put it, "the usual suspects," presumably because the number of actual climate scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus is pretty limited.

The invited witnesses are:

Dr. John R. Christy
Director, Earth System Science Center
University of Alabama in Huntsville

Dr. Christopher Field
Director, Department of Global Ecology
Carnegie Institution of Washington
Stanford, CA

Dr. Knute Nadelhoffer
Director, University of Michigan Biological Station
University of Michigan

Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr.
Senior Research Scientist,
Cooperative Institute for Research in
Environmental Sciences
University of Colorado at Boulder

Dr. Donald Roberts
Professor Emeritus,
Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences
Bethesda, MD

Dr. Richard Somerville
Distinguished Professor Emeritus,
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
University of California, San Diego

Dr. Francis W. Zwiers
Director, Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium
University of Victoria
Victoria, British Columbia

While most are climate scientists, the inclusion of Dr. Roberts is rather puzzling since he is a medical doctor and retired professor of health sciences who is most notable for his writings supporting the use of DDT.  For the rest who actually study climate, all agree that the planet is warming and that human activity is a major factor, though perhaps some equivocate on the degree of human influence.

For those in Washington DC, the hearing will take place at 10:00 a.m. in 2123 Rayburn House Office Building.  A webcast will be posted on the Committee's web site.

Public Comment Period Open for Draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory

Last week in the February 28 edition of the Federal Register, EPA announced the availability of the draft 1990-2009 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory.  The public can now offer comments by March 25, 2011.
The document summarizes "the latest information on U.S. anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission trends from 1990 through 2009" and are "presented by source category and sector."  The inventory contains estimates of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), perfluorocarbons (PFC), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) emissions.

This emissions inventory is critical for understanding and developing policy options to address climate change.  According to the Executive Summary, the inventory adheres to both

1) a comprehensive and detailed set of methodologies for estimating sources and sinks of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, and

2) a common and consistent mechanism that enables Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to compare the relative contribution of different emission sources and greenhouse gases to climate change.

The full draft inventory report is available on EPA's dedicated web page, where it can be looked at by chapter online or downloaded as PDF documents.  The linked web page explains how to submit comments.

Comments will be accepted from the public up to March 25, 2011, though comments received after that date will be incorporated into the next edition.

Eight Scientific Organizations Offer Expertise to Solve New Chemical Testing Questions

The testing of chemicals for health and safety has been a big issue for a long time, but recently there has been heightened awareness of the problem.  The potential of Congressional action to reform the nation's chemical control law and comments being offered from all quarters on the sufficiency, or lack of sufficiency, of chemical testing has helped show some of the shortcomings in our assessment process.  Now eight scientific societies have offered the expertise of their 40,000 research scientists and clinicians. 

In a letter published in the prestigious scientific journal "Science," the societies note that "the need for swifter and sounder testing and review procedures cannot be overstated." They warn that "recent scientific evidence has established direct links between exposures that occur during fetal development and adult disease."  The point out that biomonitoring data collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) "have established that most, if not virtually all Americans, are exposed to contaminants in the environment that cause serious health effects in animal models."

One important point made by these societies, which are generally medical, genetic, reproductive health type societies instead of the traditional toxicology societies, is that there is a need to develop and validate "improved testing guidelines and better methods of assessing risks." These new methods could move away from animal models and include non-animal markers such as endocrine function, genomic fingerprinting, and other less invasive and perhaps faster and more sensitive types of studies that could be used to more rapidly identify chemicals for more in-depth study.

And so they are offering their help.  Addressing their letter mainly to the FDA and EPA:

"We ask that you use our scientific boards to provide access to leading scientists in diverse fields. These experts can help ensure that the most up-to-date scientific methodology and scientific understanding are used when devising and refining regulatory guidelines, and when reviewing scientific data pertinent to risk assessment and risk management decisions."

The letter is in the most recent issue of Science.  The eight scientific societies are (click on the name for more information about each):

• The American Society of Human Genetics
• The American Society for Reproductive Medicine
• The Endocrine Society
• The Genetics Society of America
• The Society for Developmental Biology
• The Society for Pediatric Urology
• The Society for the Study of Reproduction
• The Society for Gynecologic Investigation

Study Suggests the Pacific Northwest Could Lose All Lodgepole Pine Trees Due to Global Warming

A new study in the journal Climatic Change by scientists at Oregon State University suggests that the Pacific Northwest, a cherished old-growth forest region of the US, could lose virtually all lodgepole pine trees by 2080.  Researchers say that warming temperatures have changed the ecosystem dynamics such that conditions favor increased infestations by bark beetles.  The combined effects of global warming appear to be driving the effects already seen, and continuing warming is likely to make conditions even worse.

Part of the problem is that warming temperatures have reduced the spring frosts that inhibited the growth of competing trees.  Without them the soil has less moisture and more adaptable trees like Douglas fir are able to move into the areas previously dominated by lodgepole pines. For centuries lodgepole pines have dominated higher elevations in the Cascades (along the Pacific US) and the Rocky Mountains (further east).  This may not be the case a century from now.

The researchers estimate that lodgepole would cover "less than 6,000 square miles in America" by the year 2080, which is only "about 17 percent of its current range."  This change in ecosystem dynamics is important, as lodgepole pine is one of the first species to repopulate areas that have been decimated by fire.  They also can get a start growing in post-volcanic soil, a critical attribute in the active volcanic region that characterizes the Cascade range. [Remember Mount St. Helens, anyone?]  But now the trees are being hard hit by both soil conditions and bark beetle infestations.  Recently the Agriculture Secretary, Tom Vilsack, had "to allocate $35 million for tree removal" in the Rocky Mountains because beetles had killed more than 5,000 square miles of lodgepole pine and spruce forest."  And that is just since the late 1990s.



The abstract of the study in Climatic Change can be viewed here.

Source article by Jeff Barnard in the Seattle Times.

EPA Delays Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reporting Program to "Ensure the Requirements are Practical"

The deadline for reporting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is March 31, 2011.  Or not.  Yesterday the EPA announced that it was "extending this year’s reporting deadline" so that it could provide a reporting tool to affected industries.  EPA noted that after "conversations with industry and others, and in the interest of providing high quality data to the public this year," the deadline would be delayed.  The agency will finalize what it calls a "user friendly online electronic reporting platform," which they hope to have available this summer so that the data can be received and published later this year.


The GHG Reporting Program is being designed to address mandates from Congress, even as the new Congress is working to limit EPA's ability to follow through on those mandates.  Despite the likelihood of budget cuts EPA is continuing to develop GHG data reporting requirements "for a wide range of different industries."  According to EPA:

This program will provide Congress, stakeholder groups and the public with information about these emissions while helping businesses identify cost effective ways to reduce emissions in the future.

EPA says they need the extension "to further test the system that facilities will use to submit data and give industry the opportunity to test the tool, provide feedback, and have sufficient time to become familiar with the tool prior to reporting."

More information on the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reporting Program can be read here.

European Chemicals Agency Publishes Evaluation of REACH Chemical Registrations

By now readers should know that REACH is the EU's chemical control law, the Registration Evaluation Authorization (and Restriction) of Chemicals regulation.  November 30, 2010 was the deadline for manufacturers and importers to register their hazardous or high production volume chemicals.  And now the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) has released a report evaluating registration dossiers, as well as substance evaluations.  The goal is to summarize progress to date and provide useful feedback to future REACH dossier submitters.

There are actually three different evaluation processes. One is the "compliance check," in which ECHA "examines the quality and adequacy of data provided by the registrant." The second is examination of "testing proposals," in which ECHA "decides whether testing is necessary and may then provide permission for the tests to be performed." The third is "substance evaluation," in which the Member States prepare a dossier on chemicals they believe "there is a suspicion that certain uses of a substance may cause harm to human health or the environment."


The Evaluation report concludes that there were "quality problems in a considerable proportion of dossiers in 2010," though ECHA is still in the early stages of review. In an effort to improve future submissions, the gives specific recommendations for registrants, including:

• The identity of the registered substance needs to be clearly described;
• Any adaptation to the standard testing regime must meet the conditions set out in Annexes VII to XI of the REACH Regulation, and a clear justification for any adaptation must be provided;
• The robust study summaries should contain enough detail to allow an independent assessment of the information provided;
• Classification and labelling should be in line with the hazards identified or with the harmonized classification and labelling of the substance;
• A proposal to do testing must be submitted first (for tests under Annex IX and X) before the test is done. Doing a test before getting ECHA's decision may lead to legal action;
• Registrants have an obligation to share data resulting from animal tests and to share the costs before submitting the dossier.

The full Evaluation progress report for 2010 can be downloaded as a PDF file here.

With No Federal Action, Wal-Mart Takes the Lead in Banning Chemicals - Is Retail Regulation the Future?

Is retail regulation the wave of the future?  At this site I have talked a lot about the attempts to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  So far TSCA reform efforts have failed to produce any federal action to modernize the now 35-year old law.  But now, into this gap in federal-level regulation have come the "retail regulators."  Retail regulation is when influential retail stores like Wal-Mart, Toys-R-Us and Sears make unilateral buying decisions that could effectively ban chemicals of concern.  Call it The Wal-Mart Factor.

A recent article by Lyndsey Layton in the Washington Post discusses how Wal-Mart is "stepping ahead of federal regulators and using its muscle as the world's largest retailer to move away from a class of chemicals researchers say endanger human health and the environment."  Those chemicals, polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), have been used as flame retardants in a wide range of consumer products, including computers, furniture, and toys.  With a worldwide buying power rivaling many national economies, when Wal-Mart speaks, manufacturers listen.  And since manufacturers and formulators aren't likely to make one product for Wal-Mart and another version of the same product for other distributors, chemical bans by Wal-Mart have the ripple effect of eliminating chemicals from products sold elsewhere.

As the article points out, this is not the first foray into retail regulation by big box stores.  Toys R Us, Sears, Kmart, Whole Foods, and others have started telling suppliers that products containing chemicals such as BPA, PVC, PBDEs and others will no longer be accepted.  This is caused many suppliers to reformulate their products to replace components of toxicological concern with those that are less hazardous.  The result, in effect, is a market-based ban on certain chemicals.  Though it should be clear that the reason Wal-Mart and the other retailers have made the decision to ban is because state legislatures have been taking action to limit chemicals in which health and safety studies have raised concerns. 

Since unilateral decisions by retailers and varied state-level action could create a patchwork of "regulation" across the country, this would seem to be more impetus for moving forward with federal-level action.  Such federal action should include a modernized and rational TSCA reform legislation that encourages both innovation by retailers and manufacturers and protection of human health and the environment.

Book Review - The Climate Fix: What Scientists and Politicians Won't Tell You About Global Warming, by Roger Pielke, Jr.

Since the Pielke's (father and son) are often in the climate discussion news, I figured this would be a good book review to post here.  That said, the book is primarily for policy wonks and not so much for the general public. Pielke, Jr. is a well known political science professor and blogger who often blogs on climate change issues. His father, Roger Pielke, Sr., is a renowned climate scientist, so while Pielke, Jr. is not a climate scientist per se, he does bring considerable insight garnered from years of interaction with his father and his own career that includes working as a student assistant at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and elsewhere.

Not surprisingly, the title is a misnomer since the book doesn't actually offer a "fix" to man-made climate change. If it were that easy there would be no need for his book. The publisher's subtitle "What scientists and politicians won't tell you about global warming" is unfortunate, because it attempts to create a controversy where there really is none.  Publishers do that to sell books.  Beyond that distraction, the book is generally well-written and focuses in on the real problem - what policy options do we have to deal with climate change. This point in itself is important as Pielke, Jr. acknowledges up front the scientific consensus that climate change is happening, that human activity is the primary reason, and that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are major factors in the warming of the planet. That scientific point put aside, he focuses the majority of the book on policy.

The author spends a lot of time talking about decarbonization policies around the world, what has worked and what has not worked, and his views as to why. Pielke discusses the concept of an "iron law of climate policy," which essentially acknowledges that any policy that might be construed to cause short-term adverse economic impact cannot be implemented. Needless to say, this creates a significant barrier to policy action. Here also, in my opinion, is revealed one weakness of the book, as he tends not to discuss how certain protectors of the status quo take advantage of this "iron law" to create false understanding of the potential for such adverse economic impact. This follows along with the few places where Pielke digresses from policy to find fault with scientists' not being perfect but overlooks the intentional disinformation campaigns of the denialist community.

But those are minor quibbles in what I would consider a very worthwhile book. Pielke explores in great detail the trials and tribulations of various economic policy options, and addresses the limitations of geoengineering as a long-term adaptation alternative. He also discusses his view of "how climate policy went off course." Some of what he says I do not agree with, and some of what he says I agree with wholeheartedly, but in both cases he addresses the issues thoughtfully and honestly (though not without his own bias). Perhaps the most important contribution of this book is how he communicates the difficulties that stand in the way of taking much needed policy action. While he clearly doesn't offer a "climate fix," anyone interested in finding a policy path forward, and is wonkish enough to get into the details, will find Pielke's book an informative view of the issues. For scientists and the general public, I would recommend Pielke's earlier book, The Honest Broker.

Even Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) are Affected by Climate Change

I have spoken about the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants in the past.  The Convention is an international effort to reduce emissions of persistent organic pollutants (POPs).  But now a new report of the UNEP/AMAP expert group,‘’Climate change and POPs: Predicting the Impacts,’’"provides a comprehensive view of the complex inter-linkages between climate and POPs."

The report suggests that rising temperatures could result in increased emissions from both primary and secondary sources of POPs.  This would have the effect of offsetting some of the efforts undertaken to reduce emissions under the convention.  In other words, take away all the gains made to eliminate POPs in the environment.  Because one of the major factors important in classifying POPs is their ability to transport long ranges, e.g., emissions in Italy end up in polar bears in the Arctic, changes to the overall climate could impact atmospheric and oceanic transport of these very persistent and often bioaccumulative environmental pollutants. Melting of both land and sea ice could further impact distribution.  And since many POPs build up in the fat reserves of Arctic animals like bears, whales and fish, disruptions in normal feeding patterns could result in re-mobilizing the chemicals into metabolic pathways, with toxic effects.

The report concludes that there is the potential for significant climate-induced changes in relation to future releases of POPs into the environment, their long-range transport and environmental fate, and human and environmental exposure, and "subsequently leading to higher health risks for both human populations and the environment."


The report can be downloaded by chapter or as a full report in PDF format: http://chm.pops.int/Programmes/GlobalMonitoringPlan/ClimateChangeandPOPsPredictingtheImpacts/tabid/1580/language/en-US/Default.aspx.

US Chemical Makers to Seek Authorization for Continued European Use of Phthalates Under REACH Regulation

As noted previously the European Commission has announced that "six substances of very high concern will be banned within the next three to five years unless an authorisation has been granted to individual companies for their use." Three of these substances (DBP, BBP, and DEHP) fall into a general category called phthalates and now a major US trade association has indicated that phthalate manufacturers they represent will file applications for authorization to continued use in "important medical applications."  According to Steve Risotto, Phthalate Esters Panel, quoted in the American Chemical Council (ACC) statement:

"There is a large body of scientific information and a number of government safety assessments in the U.S. and abroad that give the manufacturers of these three phthalates confidence that their products are being used safely. In fact, phthalates are one of the most extensively studied groups of chemical compounds in the world." 

US manufacturers "will work with European regulatory authorities" (primarily the European Chemicals Agency, ECHA, in Finland) to "submit all the necessary data and seek approval for the continued use of these substances."  Without authorization, use of all six of the substances of very high concern (SVHC) will cease at their sunset dates in either 2014 or 2015. According to ECHA, these SVHCs are "are carcinogenic, toxic for reproduction or persist in the environment and accumulate in living organisms."

More information on phthalates can be found on the Phthalates Wikipedia page or ACC's Phthalate Esters Panel web page.  For contrasting information from an NGO activist organization, the Environmental Working Group also has a Phthalate web page.

ECHA Says - Time to Start Preparing Chemical Authorization Applications Under REACH

I mentioned last week that the European Commission had formally published the first six chemical substances onto Annex XIV of REACH, the Registration Evaluation and Authorization (and Restriction) of CHemicals regulation in Europe.  Now ECHA, the European Chemicals Agency in Helsinki, Finland, is telling companies that manufacture those six chemicals that the time is now to start preparing their authorization applications if they want to save some uses of those chemicals for a period of time beyond the assigned "sunset" dates.  Authorization would only be for specific uses and for specific periods of time, though renewals are possible.

Applications can be pretty comprehensive.  They require a full Chemical Safety Report, which summarizes the health and safety hazard data, the exposure potential for all uses, and demonstrates how the risk will be controlled for specific uses.  In addition, companies have to provide a "alternatives analysis," i.e, an analysis of existing or potential chemicals of lower risk that can be substituted for the Annex XIV listed "substances of very high concern (SVHC)."  For chemicals in which no alternative appears to be available, the companies requesting authorization must describe a plan for how they (or someone else) might develop an alternative. Companies can also provide a socioeconomic assessment (SEA) in which they quantify the societal benefit of the chemical substance, or the loss of such benefit should it be removed from the market with no suitable alternative.

Since it is likely that a particular chemical substance would have more than one manufacturer, authorization applications may be made both by individual companies and by groups of companies.  An authorization fee would be charged to cover the costs of the ECHA review. 

To facilitate the preparation of the application ECHA has recently published two new guidance documents.  The first "explains how to prepare an application for authorisation, the analysis of alternatives and the substitution plan."  The second "shows how to prepare a socio-economic analysis if the risks of the continued use of the substance cannot be adequately controlled."  Both documents can be downloaded here.

House Republicans Vote to Repeal Climate Science Funding

In a vote held just before 2 am ET, Republicans in the House of Representatives voted Saturday to eliminate the United States' contribution to funding the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  The final vote on the amendment was 244-179 on an essentially party line split.  The vote is disturbing to scientists because the basis for it, as presented by its sponsor, Republican Representative Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO-9) was contrary to established fact and science.

Rep. Luetkemeyer argued that the IPCC is "fraught with waste and fraud, and engaged in dubious science," though these arguments have largely been shown to be both false and specious.  Luetkemeyer also cited a list of "more than 700 acclaimed international scientists have challenged the claims made by the IPCC, in this comprehensive 740-page report."  The report is the list of quotes and abstracts compiled by Marc Morano (a lobbyist funded non-scientist) when he worked for James Inhofe during Inhofe's previous chairmanship of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.  While some of the scientists listed are in fact acclaimed, mostly they are in completely separate fields of study and have never done any climate research.  Others are not scientists at all.  And many of the quotes and abstracts have been edited to suggest positions many of the scientists say they do not hold.  Rep. Luetkemeyer also cites an opinion by "famed Princeton University physicist Dr. Robert Austin, who has published 170 scientific papers and was elected a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences."  It's unclear why Luetkemeyer believes Dr. Austin's opinion holds more sway than active climate researchers that are also members of the National Academy of Sciences and have similar publication records, given that Dr. Austin works in a completely different field of science and has never done any climate science research.  Meanwhile, actual climate scientists with thousands of scientific papers in climate science are dismissed by Luetkemeyer as less capable and/or trustworthy.

Luetemeyer also cited the 2009 "climategate" emails in which more than 1000 emails dating back 13 years were stolen from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit in the UK. Again, Rep. Luetemeyer suggests that the emails indicate foul play on the part of scientists, despite the fact that at least five separate investigations have debunked that contention as utterly false.  In fact, the investigations showed that climate scientists had worked with great diligence and that the anti-science accusers had cherry picked and intentionally misinterpreted selected passages out of context to misrepresent what was said.

While Luetemeyer and his fellow House Republicans vote to defund our portion of the IPCC commitment (note that he also misrepresents the actual funding amount), the US National Academy of Sciences has recently said that:

"...the compelling case that climate change is occurring and is caused in large part by human activities is based on a strong, credible body of evidence."

NASA, NOAA and the World Meteorological Organization, along with all the major Academies of Sciences around the world and all major relevant scientific organizations, all concur that the climate is changing and that human activity is the cause.  The science that led to this conclusion is robust and voluminous. 

But apparently the Republican Congress thinks they know better than climate scientists and can overrule basic atmospheric physics going back through more than 200 years of understanding.  Ironically, a group of scientists recently wrote a letter to Congress asking it to avoid inserting politics into science.  The letter "emphasizes the importance of truly understanding the science of climate change, and stresses the need to prevent political ideology from clouding our scientific understanding of how climate change is impacting our way of life." 

It remains to be seen whether the Senate will follow suit in denying scientific funding, or whether any such amendment would survive the conference committee reconciliation of the separate House and Senate appropriations bills.