Thank you, Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing today. I would also like to extend a welcome to Dr. Mann -- I am glad that you are able to join us.

This afternoon we will continue to examine issues surrounding Dr. Mann's Hockey Stick Temperature Studies.

Last week we held "part one" of this hearing and heard from a number of panelists on this issue, including Dr. Crowley, who was suggested by Dr. Mann when he was unable to join us.

I would like to commend Chairman Whitfield and Chairman Barton for giving Dr. Mann the opportunity to respond to the questions and, in some cases, criticism raised about his work during last week's hearing.

It is important, as we move through testimony this afternoon, to remember that the focus of this hearing is not global climate change.

Instead, we are using these Hockey Stick temperature studies as a case study as we examine at the quality and rigor of science being performed today.

Dr. Wegman and his Ad Hoc committee have suggested that there has not been sufficient peer review of Dr. Mann's Hockey Stick studies.

They have raised the question of whether we should bring in experts outside the immediate field of the subject at hand to evaluate scientific analysis.

This is an important question and one that we should consider carefully.

As policy makers, and not scientists, we do not have the technical background to evaluate the science behind climatology. We depend on scientists and experts to review each other's work to ensure that we have sound and trustworthy scientific analysis from which to work.

I think that we, as policy makers, have the responsibility to ask tough questions too. Without sound science, we cannot have sound policy.

I'd like to thank our witnesses again from appearing before us today and am looking forward to hearing your testimony.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.