by Bud Ward

Readers of three of the leading national newspapers on July 18 found substantially different stories on a science controversy swirling in Washington, D.C., on the heated climate change issue.

The stories addressed an inquiry by House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton (R-TX) into federally funded research that figured prominently in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2001 assessment of climate change. That research led to what has become known as the "hockey stick" graph, showing little temperature variation for nearly 1,000 years -- and then a sharp upward trend in recent decades. In earlier reports on the Barton inquiry, a number of leading scientists were said to find the congressional investigation "chilling."

Barton, who makes no secret of his disdain for those professing global warming or other environmental concerns, last month had asked three scientific researchers to turn over raw data, materials, and other financial information they used in generating their data. The researchers are climatologist Michael E. Mann, at the time with the University of Virginia and now with Penn State; tree ring expert Malcolm K. Hughes of the University of Arizona's Laboratory on Tree-Ring Research; and Raymond S. Bradley, a geosciences professor at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

What made Barton's June inquiry news in mid-July was an unusual public brouhaha between two Republican committee chairs: Barton and the environmentally disposed Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY), chair of the House Science Committee. Such intra-party shouting matches, while not uncommon on Capitol Hill, seldom play out in public.

The Wall Street Journal's piece, "Researchers, Lawmakers Criticize Inquiry into Climate Calculations," provided scant information on the Boehlert-Barton contretemps. The page A4 story, by Antonio Regaldo, quoted the head of the American Association for the Advancement of Science as saying Barton's demands could "chill the willingness of scientists to work on difficult problems." He also reported Boehlert's concern that the Barton inquiry "raised the specter of politicians opening investigations against any scientist who reaches a conclusion that makes the political elite uncomfortable."

The New York Times' Andrew C. Revkin, in his July 18 piece, while using that same quote, went further. Revkin, who is unique among mainstream newspaper reporters in focusing primarily on climate change issues, reported that Barton's inquiry was prompted by academic papers and opinion pieces written by "two Canadians with no expertise in climate change."

While Rep. Boehlert "noted that other recent analyses have supported the main conclusion of the study" by Mann, Hughes, and Bradley, Revkin reported, "Rep. Barton's inquiry focuses on the critique by the Canadians, Steven McIntyre, an amateur statistician and mining consultant, and Ross McKitrick, an economist at the University of Guelph."

In his piece, apparently cut by half from the version he had submitted for editing, Revkin reported a Barton committee staffer as defending the initial inquiry. The Times headline: "Two G.O.P. Lawmakers Spar over Climate Study."

The Washington Post's Juliet Eilperin, in a page A4 quarter-page article, reported that the "unusual public tiff" included Boehlert's concerns over "a misguided and illegitimate investigation." Under the headline "GOP Chairmen Face Off on Global Warming," she reported that Boehlert questioned the Energy Committee's jurisdiction over the issue in the first place. Eilperin reported that the New York moderate (progressive? environmentalist?) thought Barton was targeting the researchers simply because he disagrees with their findings.

"My primary concern about your investigation is that its purpose seems to be to intimidate scientists rather than to learn from them, and to substitute congressional political review for scientific review," Boehlert wrote. Eilperin also reported Rep. Henry A. Waxman's (D-CA) concern that the Barton effort is "a transparent effort to bully and harass climate change experts who have reached conclusions with which you disagree."

Going beyond either the Times or the Journal piece, the Post reported in detail the official response by committee staffer Larry Neal. Barton "appreciates heated lectures from Representatives Boehlert and Waxman, two men who share a passion for global warming."

"We regret that our little request for data has given them a chill. Seeking scientific truth is, indeed, too important to be imperiled by politics, and so we'll just continue to ask fair questions of honest people and see what they tell us. That's our job."

Boehlert's Science Committee staff director, David Goldston, told the Post that the Boehlert Committee is "surprised at the level of sarcasm Mr. Barton's spokesman has used to respond to our serious concerns."

Eilperin's piece also reported that National Academy of Sciences President Ralph J. Cicerone, formerly a University of California scientist with substantial expertise on climate change, expressed concern that the Barton initiative "is probably not the best way to resolve a scientific issue, and a focus on individual scientists can be intimidating." That detail was initially included also in his piece, according to Revkin, but it didn't make the cut in the final piece as published.

Given the substantial concern in the scientific community over the Barton inquiry, these reporters and others are likely to have ample future opportunities to report on the questions raised by the original research ... and on the controversy surrounding the ongoing inquiry into it.