Skip to main content

Scientists’ views and positions on global warming and climate change: A content analysis of congressional testimonies


Among many potential causes for policymakers’ contention over whether there is a largely unified scientific agreement on global warming and climate change (GWCC), one possible factor, according to the information deficit theory, is that the scientists who testified in congressional hearings might be substantially divided in their views and positions associated with GWCC. To clarify this, we perform content analysis of 1350 testimonies from congressional GWCC hearings over a period of 39 years from 1969 to 2007 and use the data derived from this content analysis to provide an overview of scientist witnesses’ stances on GWCC. The key findings include: (1) among the scientists’ testimonies with an expressed view on whether GWCC is real, a vast majority (86 %) indicates that it is happening; (2) among the scientists’ testimonies with an identified stance on whether GWCC is anthropogenic, a great majority of them (78 %) indicates that GWCC is caused, at least to some degree, by human activity; (3) even under Republican controlled congresses, there is still a supermajority (75 %) - among the scientists’ testimonies with an expressed position on GWCC existence or GWCC cause - that believes that GWCC is real and that GWCC is anthropogenic; (4) most scientists’ testimonies (95 %) endorse pro-action policy to combat GWCC; and (5) the percentages of scientists’ views and positions are consistent across different types of scientist testimony groups. Our findings suggest that the scientific information transmitted to Congress is not substantially different from the general agreement in the climate science community.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.


  1. 1.

    The LexisNexis searchable database of congressional records ( was accessed and all the hearing and testimony data were collected in the spring of 2008 for a larger research project on national climate change policy processes.

  2. 2.

    We used the wildcard key term ‘greenhouse gas*’ in order to obtain any record containing “greenhouse gas” or “greenhouse gases.”

  3. 3.

    Over twenty different congressional committees in both the House and the Senate held GWCC-related hearings during the 39-year study period. These committees covered various jurisdiction areas and a wide range of issue interests, including agriculture, natural resources, science and technology, commerce, small business, energy, transportation, environment, public works, foreign affairs and relations, governmental affairs, budget, appropriations, etc.

  4. 4.

    After training, the coders were given 40 testimony records (randomly sampled from all 1350 testimonies) to code. We performed an inter-coder reliability check of these 40 coded testimonies and found over 90 % agreement between the coders (exceeding the 0.80-or-greater standard for reliable concordance in most content analysis practices). With this encouraging result, we had the coders continue with the remaining testimonies.

  5. 5.

    Witness’s stances across the three questions on GWCC existence, human cause, and GWCC policy, may vary. For example, a witness may agree on one question (i.e. GWCC existence) but disagree on another (e.g. GWCC human cause). In our coding and data analysis, witness’s stance on each of these three questions was treated separately.

  6. 6.

    The focus on reported profession and affiliation is a limiting condition of our measurement approach. Witnesses might have multiple affiliations, different past professions, etc. The data that were readily available did not include these potential alternative affiliations and professions. We believe this source of measurement error is rare (in most cases, the reported profession and affiliation are primary and representative of the witnesses’ identities) and unlikely to bias the results.

  7. 7.

    Data for partisan composition of Congress were drawn from official US House and Senate websites. See, and

  8. 8.

    While the terms “mitigation” and “adaptation” were not always used during testimony, specific policy proposals can be directly linked to these strategies. Policies that would reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions, with the goal of limiting the impact of GWCC at the source of the pollution, are mitigation strategies; policies designed to adapt to the repercussions of GWCC, such as the construction of sea walls in preparation for rising sea levels, are adaptation strategies. While these represent different strategies for addressing GWCC, they were coded as a single category, ‘Pro-action,’ to identify those who testified before Congress and made policy recommendations that would address GWCC.

  9. 9.

    While this study focused on committee hearings specifically on GWCC, it is possible that contrary positions on GWCC might be more commonly found during hearings that were excluded from this examination because they were not specifically on GWCC. This possibility indicates an additional avenue for future research.


  1. Aderholt R (2009) Climate change: don’t place the cart ahead of the horse. 13 December 2009. The Daily Mountain Eagle. Accessed 4 November 2014

  2. Anderegg WRL, Prall JW, Harold J, Schneider SH (2010) Expert credibility in climate change. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 107(27):12107–12109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Arnold RD (1990) The logic of congressional action. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  4. Arrow K (1982) Risk perception in psychology and economics. Econ Inq 20(1):1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Baumgartner FR, Jones BD (2009) Agendas and instability in American politics, 2nd edn. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Book  Google Scholar 

  6. Bord RJ, O’Connor RE, Fisher A (2000) In what sense does the public need to understand global climate change? Public Underst Sci 9(3):205–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Boswell C (2009) The political uses of expert knowledge: immigration policy and social research. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  8. Boxer B (2013) Statement delivered for Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works’ hearing entitled, Climate change: it’s happening now. 18 July 2013. Accessed 20 April 2014

  9. Boykoff M (2011) Who speaks for climate? Making sense of media reporting on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  10. Broun P (2009) U.S. House of Representatives floor debate over the clean energy and security act. C-Span 26 June 2009

  11. Bulkeley H (2000) Common knowledge? Public understanding of climate change in Newcastle, Australia. Public Underst Sci 9(3):313–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Burgess M (2011) Statement delivered during the House of Representatives hearing before the Subcommittee on Energy and Power of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 8 March 2011. Accessed 4 November 2014

  13. Burgess J, Harrison C, Filius P (1998) Environmental communication and the cultural politics of environmental citizenship. Environ Plan A 30(8):1445–1460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Cook J, Nuccitelli D, Green SA, Richardson M, Winkler B, Painting R, Way R, Jacobs P, Skuce A (2013) Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. Environ Res Lett 8:1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Crow DA, Boykoff MT (2014) Culture, politics and climate change: how information shapes our common future. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  16. Doran PT, Zimmerman MK (2009) Examining the scientific consensus on climate change. EOS Trans Am Geophys Union 90(3):22–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Fisher DR, Leifeld P, Iwaki Y (2013a) Mapping the ideological networks of American climate politics. Clim Chang 116:523–545

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Fisher DR, Waggle J, Leifeld P (2013b) Where does political polarization come from? Locating polarization within the US climate change debate. Am Behav Sci 57(1):70–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hansen J, Holm L, Frewer L, Robinson P, Sandøe P (2003) Beyond the knowledge deficit: recent research into lay and expert attitudes to food risks. Appetite 41(2):111–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Inhofe J (2003) The facts and science of climate change. White paper by Senator James Inhofe. Accessed 29 April 2014

  21. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2001) In: Houghton JT, Ding Y, Griggs DJ, Noguer N, van der Linden PJ, Xiaosu D, Maskell K, Johnson CA (eds) Climate change 2001: the scientific basis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  22. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2007) In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL (eds) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. Kellstedt PM, Zahran S, Vedlitz A (2008) Personal efficacy, the information environment, and attitudes toward global warming and climate change in the United States. Risk Anal 28(1):113–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Krippendorff K (1980) Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills

    Google Scholar 

  25. Leiserowitz A, Maibach E, Roser-Renouf C, Feinberg G, Howe P (2012) Climate change in the American mind: Americans’ global warming beliefs and attitudes. Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, New Haven, CT: Yale University and George Mason University. Accessed 5 May 2014

  26. Liu X, Vedlitz A, Alston L (2008) Regional news portrayals of global warming and climate change. Environ Sci Pol 11(5):379–393

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Liu X, Lindquist E, Vedlitz A (2011) Explaining media and congressional attention to global climate change, 1969–2005: an empirical test of agenda setting theory. Polit Res Q 64(2):405–419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. McComas K, Shanahan J (1999) Telling stories about global climate change: measuring the impact of narratives on issue cycles. Commun Res 26(1):30–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. McCright AM (2007) Dealing with climate change contrarians. In: Moser SC, Dilling L (eds) Creating a climate for change: communicating climate change and facilitating social change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 200–212

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  30. Neuendorf KA (2001) The content analysis guidebook. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  31. Oleszek WJ (2013) Congressional procedures and the policy process, 9th edn. CQ Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  32. Oreskes N (2005) Beyond the ivory tower: the scientific consensus on climate change. Science 306:1686

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Park HS, Liu X, Vedlitz A (2014) Analyzing climate change debates in the US Congress: party control and networks. Risk Hazards Crisis Public Policy 5(3):239–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Pew (The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press) (2012) More say there is solid evidence of global warming, Washington, DC: Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. Accessed 12 November 2013

  35. Pielke RA Jr (2007) The honest broker: making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  36. Riffe D, Lacy S, Fico F (2005) Analyzing media messages: using quantitative content analysis in research, 2nd edn. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  37. Rosenberg S, Vedlitz A, Cowman D, Zahran S (2010) Climate change: a profile of U.S. climate scientists’ perspectives. Clim Chang 101:311–329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Stoutenborough JW, Vedlitz A (2014) The effect of perceived and assessed knowledge of climate change on public policy concerns: an empirical comparison. Environ Sci Pol 37:23–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1986) Rational choice and the framing of decisions. J Bus 59(4):S251–S278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Weber RP (1985) Basic content analysis. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills

    Google Scholar 

  41. Wesselink A, Buchanan KS, Georgiadou Y, Turnhout E (2013) Technical knowledge, discursive spaces and politics at the science-policy interface. Environ Sci Pol 30:1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Wynne B (1992) Uncertainty and environmental learning: reconceiving science and policy in the preventative paradigm. Glob Environ Chang 2(2):111–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Wynne B (1996) Misunderstood misunderstandings: social identities and public uptake of science. In: Irwin A, Wynne B (eds) Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

Download references


The material used in this study is based upon research conducted by the Institute for Science, Technology and Public Policy in the George Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University and supported under Award No. award NA04OAR4600172 by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Department of Commerce. The statements, findings, conclusions, and recommendations are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or the Department of Commerce. We would like to thank the following people for their assistance: Carol Goldsmith, Ivy Cui, Jessie Wang, and Charles Lindsey. We would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xinsheng Liu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liu, X., Vedlitz, A., Stoutenborough, J.W. et al. Scientists’ views and positions on global warming and climate change: A content analysis of congressional testimonies. Climatic Change 131, 487–503 (2015).

Download citation


  • Climate Science
  • Policy Position
  • Scientist Group
  • Organizational Affiliation
  • Congressional Hearing