The evidence was released yesterday by top skeptic science blog, Watts up With That (WUWT)

Professors Jones and Acton had vigorously sought to defend themselves last week under cross-examination at the Parliamentary Select Committee Hearing against accusations that their university criminally defied demands under the Freedom of Infrormation Act (FOIA). In his testimony Jones claimed various nations, including Sweden, would not authorise release of their climate data and this was why he could not comply with FOIA requests. But the Swedes’ evidence proves this is a lie. SMHI have just released the following PDF files as proof:

Request from Professor Phil Jones regarding the release of data from the HadCRUT dataset dnr SMHI

Data from the HadCRUT dataset_100304

DOC111209

The much respected SMHI objected strongly to Jones’s flagrantly false testimony by releasing evidence to the public that proves Swedish climate data was readily available in the public domain. In fact, the new evidence shows that the Swedes had merely refused Jones’s request to attribute his ‘homogenized’ data to them. This revelation is so far the most disturbing because it constitutes blatant deceit by Climategate conspirators perpetrated directly upon Parliamentary investigators.

Professor Acton, head of the University of East Anglia, backed up Jones and may also be proven to have conspired to mislead Parliament about withholding data as shown by his answer in the Committee’s transcript (as per Q94) :

Chairman: “Why did you hide it then?”

Professor Acton:  “Unfortunately, several of these countries impose conditions and say you are not allowed to pass it on…. Seven countries have said, ‘No you cannot publish it’ [including] Sweden.”

Uncorrected Transcript of Oral Evidence

Both discredited professors may now stand accused of conspiring to commit fraud by false representation. Climate skeptics have long argued that the CRU was using a ‘homogenizing’ process on climate data to falsely make global temperatures appear warmer than they actually are. This latest news certainly gives further credibility to the accusation that Jones deliberately, rather than accidentally, ‘lost’ his data. Jones has already narrowly escaped criminal prosecution under the Freedom of Information Act by way of a technicality. But police now have a mounting case to charge Jones for conspiracy to commit fraud where no such technicalities will this time save the errant professor.

We now expect other nations to follow the Swedes and to defend themselves against the false statements of climatologists who refuse to release their climate data. Another key Climategate fraud suspect, Michael Mann, of Penn. State University has been named by US Senator Inhofe among a further dozen potentially criminal climate fraudsters exposed in the leaked CRU emails of November 2009. Without doubt this unravelling story is still set to cause further embarrassment to the British and other world governments who have premised trillion dollar ‘green’ tax raising policies on such discredited and fraudulently obtained junk science.

The Royal Statistical Society (RSS) recently made some statements about data needing to be available to the public to have its validity proven, because we can’t just trust data from “peer reviewed journals.” If you’re not familiar with the RSS, a memorandum they submitted (CRU 47) provides a little background on themselves before diving into the nitty-gritty:

The Royal Statistical Society (RSS) is the UK’s only professional and learned society devoted to the interests of statistics and statisticians. Founded in 1834 it is also one of the most influential and prestigious statistical societies in the world. The Society has members in over 50 countries worldwide and is active in a wide range of areas both directly and indirectly pertaining to the study and application of statistics. It aims to promote public understanding of statistics and provide professional support to users of statistics and to statisticians.

Knowing how different scientific organisations operate in competing hierarchies must be causing a lot of teeth grinding at the University. It’s like being taught how to count all over again.

The RSS believes that the debate on global warming is best served by having the models used and the data on which they are based in the public domain. Where such information is publicly available it is possible independently to verify results. The ability to verify models using publicly available data is regarded as being of much greater importance than the specific content of email exchanges between researchers.

The submission does include some conditional and limited exceptions but further adds:

More widely, the basic case for publication of data includes that science progresses as an ongoing debate and not by a series of authoritative and oracular pronouncements and that the quality of that debate is best served by ensuring that all parties have access to the facts. It is well understood, for example, that peer review cannot guarantee that what is published is ‘correct’. The best guarantor of scientific quality is that others are able to examine in detail the arguments that have been used and not just their published conclusions. It is important that experiments and calculations can be repeated to verify their conclusions. If data, or the methods used, are withheld, it is impossible to do this.

The RSS believes that a crucial step in improving the quality of the debate on global warming will be to place the data, the analysis methods and the models in the public domain.

This leads to the conclusion that the University should have published their data as a priority, and for anything they couldn’t publish for whatever reason, then it should have been excluded, otherwise it formed the foundation of unsubstantiated and untestable theories.

Source: Parliament UK

Hanuman’s statement reads:

“From my experience as a former postgraduate student of the UEA, I have documentary evidence that the UEA as an institution and it’s agents have often indulged in falsifications, distortions, and misrepresentations.”

The former post-graduate now working as an Independent Legal Services Professional, claims to have submitted physical evidence that proves systemic fraud that “was manifestly in compliance with the University’s policies and practices.” If confirmed by the inquiry that such evidence relates to conduct of researchers inside the CRU, it would ensure a full-scale police investigation far greater than anyone might have anticipated.

This revelation adds further woe to the CRU on top of the damning submission to the Parliamentary Committee last week from the 36,000 scientists of the Institute of Physics agreeing with climate skeptics that the leaked emails prove:

“prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law.”

This scandal has now opened up a can of worms for a British Labour Government eager to play down the climate controversy so close to the country’s general election this Spring.

The full text of Lalu Hanuman’s submission reads as follows:

Memorandum submitted by Lalu Hanuman (CRU 07)

1. As a former postgraduate student of the University of East Anglia [UEA], and a British Citizen, I would like to comment on your committee’s planned review of the disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit [CRU] at the UEA. In particular the issue of : “Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA, adequate”.

2. The current furore that the UEA has created by it’s falsifying of climate change information, has undermined global climate change action at the recent Copenhagen talks, with some countries relying on these UEA revelations to question the validity of climate change. The resultant catastrophic effect of the UEA’s actions on future generations, cannot be exaggerated, as it has helped delay united action against looming climate change. A robust and thorough transparent inquiry is called for. Sir Muir Russell’s review is inadequate at least as far as point 3 of his remit goes ie “Review CRU’s compliance or otherwise with the University’s policies and practices regarding requests under the Freedom of Information Act and the Environmental Information Regulations for the release of data”.

3. From my experience as a former postgraduate student of the UEA, I have documentary evidence that the UEA as an institution and it’s agents have often indulged in falsifications, distortions, and misrepresentations. Hence the CRU in distorting information was manifestly in compliance with the University’s policies and practices. There is an urgent need for a wider remit, namely to look into the institutional failings of the UEA itself.

4. Declaration of interests: None.

5. DPA: I give permission for my name, and contact details, to be released.

Lalu Hanuman
January 2010

University of East Anglia Professor Phil Jones

Finally, after all this time we start hearing the truth out of a government inquiry.

Next to him, holding a metaphorical hand, was Professor Edward Acton, his vice-chancellor, who interrupted at intervals to tell the committee what a splendid fellow Jones was and how his unit was doing magnificent work warning the world.

Acton conceded that not everything pointed in the same direction. It’s acknowledged that several hundred years ago Earth became much warmer. If we knew why, we could explain a lot. “The early medieval period is something we should spend more time researching,” he mused.

The infamous ‘hockey stick graph’ is now debunked even by those who used to worship it.

If you use a graph as evidence, then the data you used to make it up is therefore equally exposed as being faulty.

All around it was a bad day for warmism and Dr Phil Jones.

The sight of another scientist being skewered makes for painful viewing. Whatever your view on man-made global warming, you had to feel sorry for Professor Phil Jones, the man behind the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia

Feel bad? You’ve got to be kidding me.

Source: UK Guardian

Most of the witnesses seemed like polished BSers. But Jones isn’t as polished. He seemed very nervous.

He was all over the place on his answers regarding the question of if data was withheld and why, but he did end up admitting that he had withheld some scientific data about global temperatures.

Why would he not want to release it? Well, for one thing, even though he said it would be a good idea, it was “not standard practice.” Following up, Labour MP Graham Stringer asked him: “If that’s not standard practice, how can science progress?” Professor Jones replied: “Maybe it should be but it isn’t.”

He also said, “because all he [a skeptic] wants to do is find something wrong with it.” To which Mr. Stringer again challenged Jones: “But scientists make a name by proving and disproving things, don’t they? The statement seems to be anti-scientific. It is an absolutely clear denial of the man’s attempt to get at what you were doing. He wanted your information and you refused to give it to him? Why?”

Jones’ answer: “Because we had invested a lot of work and resources in it, and this was before FOI [Freedom of information legislation] started.”

And he’s calls himself a scientist?

Oh wait, there is some good news: Jones says that children will likely still see some snow someday.

To see Phil Jones squirm, watch the video beginning at aorund the 01:02:00 hour/minute/sec mark.

Source: Independent UK

In all seriousness, you can watch this afternoon’s proceedings from the UK Parliament’s Select Committee Hearing on the Climategate Scandal held in the House of Parliament’s Grimond Room, with Phil Jones testifying. We’re watching it right now, so we can’t comment on it yet.

Watch it on this page. Sorry we don’t have an embeddable version (if anyone does give us the link).

Here is the agenda:

The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia

Witnesses:

1. Rt Hon Lord Lawson of Blaby, Chairman, and Dr Benny Peiser, Director, Global Warming Policy Foundation
2. Richard Thomas CBE
3. Professor Edward Acton, Vice-Chancellor, University of East Anglia, and Professor Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit
4. Sir Muir Russell KCB, Head of the Independent Climate Change E-Mails Review
5. Professor John Beddington, Government Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor Julia Slingo OBE, Chief Scientist, Met Office, and Professor Bob Watson, Chief Scientist, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia has prompted the world-renowned Institute of Physics, with a membership of over 36,000 physics-related scientists, to publish a report condemning junk climate science.

The Institute has just submitted its views to the UK’s House of Commons Science and Technology Committee’s inquiry set up to investigate the Climategate scandal revealing unethical and criminal conduct by researchers at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

The Institute agrees with climate sceptics that the leaked emails prove

“prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law.”

The Institute totally vindicates the attempts of independent auditors such as Canadian researcher, Steve McIntyre, to access the hidden and/or destroyed climate data. The illegal refusal to disclose has undermined claims the world’s climate is undergoing ‘catastrophic’ human-influenced change. This powerful lobby group lambastes crooked climate scientists for their “inappropriate” conduct that made it necessary for analysts like McIntyre to waste years seeking appeals via Freedom of Information legislation. Nevertheless, the Institute says, the “right to such appeals has been shown to be necessary.”

Thus the voice of tens of thousands of honorable scientists unhappy with climatologists, has been put to Parliament calling for “a wider inquiry into the integrity of the scientific process in this field.”

Here is the text of the report:

Memorandum submitted by the Institute of Physics (CRU 39)

The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia

The Institute of Physics is a scientific charity devoted to increasing the practice, understanding and application of physics. It has a worldwide membership of over 36,000 and is a leading communicator of physics-related science to all audiences, from specialists through to government and the general public. Its publishing company, IOP Publishing, is a world leader in scientific publishing and the electronic dissemination of physics.

The Institute is pleased to submit its views to inform the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee’s inquiry, ‘The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia’.

The submission details our response to the questions listed in the call for evidence, which was prepared with input from the Institute’s Science Board, and its Energy Sub-group.

What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?

1. The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context

2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself – most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change.

3. It is important to recognise that there are two completely different categories of data set that are involved in the CRU e-mail exchanges:

· those compiled from direct instrumental measurements of land and ocean surface temperatures such as the CRU, GISS and NOAA data sets; and

· historic temperature reconstructions from measurements of ‘proxies’, for example, tree-rings.

4. The second category relating to proxy reconstructions are the basis for the conclusion that 20th century warming is unprecedented. Published reconstructions may represent only a part of the raw data available and may be sensitive to the choices made and the statistical techniques used. Different choices, omissions or statistical processes may lead to different conclusions. This possibility was evidently the reason behind some of the (rejected) requests for further information.

5. The e-mails reveal doubts as to the reliability of some of the reconstructions and raise questions as to the way in which they have been represented; for example, the apparent suppression, in graphics widely used by the IPCC, of proxy results for recent decades that do not agree with contemporary instrumental temperature measurements.

6. There is also reason for concern at the intolerance to challenge displayed in the

e-mails. This impedes the process of scientific ‘self correction’, which is vital to the integrity of the scientific process as a whole, and not just to the research itself. In that context, those CRU e-mails relating to the peer-review process suggest a need for a review of its adequacy and objectivity as practised in this field and its potential vulnerability to bias or manipulation.

7. Fundamentally, we consider it should be inappropriate for the verification of the integrity of the scientific process to depend on appeals to Freedom of Information legislation. Nevertheless, the right to such appeals has been shown to be necessary. The e-mails illustrate the possibility of networks of like-minded researchers effectively excluding newcomers. Requiring data to be electronically accessible to all, at the time of publication, would remove this possibility.

8. As a step towards restoring confidence in the scientific process and to provide greater transparency in future, the editorial boards of scientific journals should work towards setting down requirements for open electronic data archiving by authors, to coincide with publication. Expert input (from journal boards) would be needed to determine the category of data that would be archived. Much ‘raw’ data requires calibration and processing through interpretive codes at various levels.

9. Where the nature of the study precludes direct replication by experiment, as in the case of time-dependent field measurements, it is important that the requirements include access to all the original raw data and its provenance, together with the criteria used for, and effects of, any subsequent selections, omissions or adjustments. The details of any statistical procedures, necessary for the independent testing and replication, should also be included. In parallel, consideration should be given to the requirements for minimum disclosure in relation to computer modelling.

Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA adequate?

10. The scope of the UEA review is, not inappropriately, restricted to the allegations of scientific malpractice and evasion of the Freedom of Information Act at the CRU. However, most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other leading institutions involved in the formulation of the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change. In so far as those scientists were complicit in the alleged scientific malpractices, there is need for a wider inquiry into the integrity of the scientific process in this field.

11. The first of the review’s terms of reference is limited to: “…manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice…” The term ‘acceptable’ is not defined and might better be replaced with ‘objective’.

12. The second of the review’s terms of reference should extend beyond reviewing the CRU’s policies and practices to whether these have been breached by individuals, particularly in respect of other kinds of departure from objective scientific practice, for example, manipulation of the publication and peer review system or allowing pre-formed conclusions to override scientific objectivity.

How independent are the other two international data sets?

13. Published data sets are compiled from a range of sources and are subject to processing and adjustments of various kinds. Differences in judgements and methodologies used in such processing may result in different final data sets even if they are based on the same raw data. Apart from any communality of sources, account must be taken of differences in processing between the published data sets and any data sets on which they draw.

The Institute of Physics

February 2010

Fox News reported:

At a meeting on Monday of about 150 climate scientists in the quiet Turkish seaside resort of Antalya, representatives of the weather office (known in Britain as the Met Office) quietly proposed that the world’s climate scientists start all over again on a “grand challenge” to produce a new, common trove of global temperature data that is open to public scrutiny and “rigorous” peer review.

But it is hard to forget how the Met defended its previous data tooth and nail. And apparently, they still can’t let it go.

The executive summary of the Met Office proposal to the World Meteorological Organization’s Committee for Climatology was obtained by Fox News. In it, the Met Office defends its historical record of temperature readings, along with similar data collected in the U.S., as a “robust indicator of global change.” But it admits that “further development” of the record is required “in particular to better assess the risks posed by changes in extremes of climate.”

In the Met’s executive summary, they state the new effort would provide:

• verifiable datasets starting from a common databank of unrestricted data
• methods that are fully documented in the peer reviewed literature and open to scrutiny;
• a set of independent assessments of surface temperature produced by independent groups using independent methods,
• comprehensive audit trails to deliver confidence in the results;
• robust assessment of uncertainties associated with observational error, temporal and geographical in homogeneities.

The Fox News report goes on to say:

The Met Office proposes that the new international effort to recalibrate temperature data start at a “workshop”‘ hosted by its Hadley Climate Research Centre, which maintains data in collaboration with the controversial Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at Britain’s East Anglia University. The Met Office would invite “key players” to start the “agreed community challenge” of creating the new datasets. A Met Office spokesman said the new effort would take about three years to complete, but would not estimate the cost.

Maybe they should ask the British taxpayers first if they want more money spent on more false data, which has only led them to devastating cap-and-trade legislation. And, it’s certainly doubtful they want any data that is “in collaboration with the controversial Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at Britain’s East Anglia University.”

Source: Fox News

Firstly, ACPO is the statutory consultee for the British Government coordinating national police operations and major investigations. My concern, shared by many others, is that despite the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) affirming that crimes had been committed, no charges were being brought under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) because the statutory time limit had expired.

But this was a disingenuous under-reporting of the facts because criminal charges could still be brought against Professor Phil Jones, chief climate scientist at the Climatic Research Unit (CRO) at the University of East Anglia (UEA), because he confessed to destroying crucial climate data and the leaked emails appear to suggest a conspiracy among a clique of climate scientists to commit data fraud.

As I have shown in an earlier article, criminal charges may still be brought against Jones and his alleged co-conspirators because under the Fraud Act (2006), conspiracy to commit fraud is not subject to such a statutory time limit.

Question: is it true or false that ACPO, a private limited company with no obligations under the Freedom of Information Act, has investments in carbon trading stocks and thus has a personal conflict of interest in investigating ‘Climategate’ thoroughly – a scandal involving alleged global climate data fraud that concomitantly would impact the value of such stocks?

Answer: Firstly, I can confirm that the Association of Chief Police Officers does not have any investment or financial interest of any kind in the trade of carbon stocks.

On a more general point, ACPO became a company limited by guarantee in 1997. This was a pragmatic step taken to maintain independence from Government while enabling the Association to fulfill its functions, including employ staff, enter into contracts for accommodation and allow for transparency in publishing accounts. All funds to ACPO are employed in the public interest.

As a company limited by guarantee, you correctly point out ACPO has no obligations under the Freedom of Information Act. However you may be interested to know that the Ministry of Justice has said it intends that ACPO will be added to the list of bodies subject to the Act, an intention which we welcome.

Question: Can you confirm or deny that officers under your sway are following up the recent Information Commissioner’s (ICO) admission that government officials working at the University of East Anglia did, indeed, unlawfully break the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), such offences not being subject to any statute of limitations (see below) so that you are now centering your investigations, not solely on ‘hacking’ of emails, but the illegal conduct and possible data fraud of international climate scientists involving many millions in taxpayer grants?

Answer: On your second request, Norfolk Constabulary has confirmed it is investigating a data breach at the UEA and how the circulation of private e-mails became public, with the assistance of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) which is providing advice on Data Protection and FOI. This investigation is led by Norfolk Constabulary and the National Domestic Extremism Team has provided assistance. NDET’s role is to assist police forces: it does not have a remit to carry out investigations independently.

Question: Would you care to comment why the NDET, a non-specialist fraud unit are investigating what some legal commentators are saying is likely to be the greatest science racketeering fraud of all time, a matter more properly dealt with by the Serious Fraud Office?

Answer: NDET has provided assistance as a national police unit with relevant expertise and good background knowledge of the groups involved in climate change issues. Computer forensic expertise is one aspect of that assistance. The Serious Fraud Office has clear case criteria which are a matter for that body.

Question: Would you please relay to us your interpretation of the fraud laws so that our readership may be in no doubt that you recognise that while there may exist a continuum of fraudulent data manipulation, such crimes cannot yet be time barred under the rules of ‘compounded offences’ so that charges may still be lain under the Fraud Act (2006) and ‘conspiracy to corrupt,’ contrary to section 1 of the Criminal Law Act 1977.

Answer: It would be for Norfolk Constabulary to make any comment, if appropriate, on potential outcomes to this investigation. Under legislation, charging decisions are made by the Crown Prosecution Service.

To be frank, no one can reasonably accuse ACPO of foot dragging on this issue. It is simply the duty of ACPO to advise the government that the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) as per the recommendations of the Roskill Report (1988) ought to be conducting this case, not Norfolk Police nor NDET.

The SFO is under the sway of that political appointee, the Attorney-General who in turn is accountable to Prime Minister, Gordon Brown. The British Government knows only too well that since the Criminal Justice Act 1987, the Serious Fraud Office is mandated responsibility for the investigation and prosecution of suspected cases of serious or complex fraud where £1 million or more is involved or in cases of multi-national jurisdiction (i.e. the Climategate scandal).

Prime Minister Brown knows the buck stops with him on this but he is so far having an easy ride and not being exposed for his own complicity in this scam. While the mainstream media is yet to pick up on this it is left to the blogosphere to pursue the matter. I will now be writing to the Attorney General, the Director of the SFO and the Chief Constable of Norfolk Police and I urge other British taxpayers who also feel ripped off to help keep the pressure up.

We must ensure that self-serving politicians like Gordon Brown cannot bury Climategate by, as I suspect, unjustly under-employing the powers of the police merely because we are in the run up to a general election this Spring.

—————————————–
Acknowledgment: Gareth Bowden of ACPO

Shows Scientists Violated Ethics, Reveals Major Disagreements on Climate Science

Link to EPW Minority Report on CRU Controversy
Link to a Sampling of CRU Emails
Link: IPCC Gets the Science Wrong
Link: Endangerment Finding Based on Flawed Science

Washington, D.C.-The Minority Staff of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works released a report today titled, “‘Consensus’ Exposed: The CRU Controversy.” The report covers the controversy surrounding emails and documents released from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU). It examines the extent to which those emails and documents affect the scientific work of the UN’s IPCC, and how revelations of the IPCC’s flawed science impacts the EPA’s endangerment finding for greenhouse gases.

The report finds that some of the scientists involved in the CRU controversy violated ethical principles governing taxpayer-funded research and possibly federal laws. In addition, the Minority Staff believes the emails and accompanying documents seriously compromise the IPCC-based “consensus” and its central conclusion that anthropogenic emissions are inexorably leading to environmental catastrophes.

In its examination of the controversy, the Minority Staff found that the scientists:

• Obstructed release of damaging data and information;
• Manipulated data to reach preconceived conclusions;
• Colluded to pressure journal editors who published work questioning the climate science “consensus”; and
• Assumed activist roles to influence the political process.

“This EPW Minority Report shows that the CRU controversy is about far more than just scientists who lack interpersonal skills, or a little email squabble,” said Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. “It’s about unethical and potentially illegal behavior by some the world’s leading climate scientists.

“The report also shows the world’s leading climate scientists acting like political scientists, with an agenda disconnected from the principles of good science. And it shows that there is no consensus-except that there are significant gaps in what scientists know about the climate system. It’s time for the Obama Administration to recognize this. Its endangerment finding for greenhouse gases rests on bad science. It should throw out that finding and abandon greenhouse gas regulation under the Clean Air Act-a policy that will mean fewer jobs, higher taxes and economic decline.”

Contact:
Matt Dempsey Matt_Dempsey@epw.senate.gov (202) 224-9797
David Lungren David_Lungren@epw.senate.gov (202) 224-5642

Source: US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works