The federal government’s chief climate research agency is refusing to give House Republicans the detailed information they want on a controversial study on climate change. Citing confidentiality concerns and the integrity of the scientific process, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said it won’t give Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) the research documents he subpoenaed. At the center of the controversy is a study that concluded there has not been a 15-year “pause” in global warming. Some NOAA scientists contributed to the report. Timothy Cama,The Hill 28 October 2015
Worried about climate fraud, Congress is investigating a federal agency for allegedly manipulating weather data to show recent global warming when there is none. So why is the agency refusing to cooperate? Taxpayers pay for this research, which is being used to justify massive new federal spending and regulation. They deserve to know what NOAA and other federal agencies are doing — and whether they're being honest or serving an unspoken extreme political agenda. --Editorial, Investor’s Business Daily, 28 October 2015
It sounds like Climategate all over again, with climate scientists trying to cover up, obfuscate and frustrate all attempts by outsiders to get at the truth. What gives them the right to decide they are above the law? As a publically funded operation, why do they think they are entitled to pick and choose what information they release to Congress? And above all, what are they trying to hide? --Paul Homewood, Not A Lot Of People Know That, 28 October 2015
The global warming debate on Capitol Hill is heating up. Government scientists refused to comply with lawmakers’ demands they turn over internal documents regarding a study that eliminated the “hiatus” in global warming from the temperature record. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) officials argued such records are confidential and “essential to frank discourse among scientists.” The science agency said it has a history of protecting the “confidentiality of deliberative scientific discussions.” NOAA’s decision not to comply with a subpoena from House science committee lawmakers has only angered Chairman Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican, who says Americans have a right to know what taxpayer-funded scientists were thinking when they altered the temperature record in June. --Michael Bastasch, Daily Caller News Foundation, 28 October 2015
NOAA needs to come clean about why they altered the data to get the results they needed to advance this administration’s extreme climate change agenda. Congress cannot do its job when agencies openly defy Congress and refuse to turn over information. When an agency decides to alter the way it has analyzed historical temperature data for the past few decades, it's crucial to understand on what basis those decisions were made. This action has broad national and policy implications. --Committee Chairman Rep. Lamar Smith, The Christian Science Monitor, 28 October 2015
The federal government’s chief climate research agency is refusing to give House Republicans the detailed information they want on a controversial study on climate change.
Citing confidentiality concerns and the integrity of the scientific process, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said it won’t give Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) the research documents he subpoenaed.
At the center of the controversy is a study that concluded there has not been a 15-year “pause” in global warming. Some NOAA scientists contributed to the report.
Skeptics of climate change, including Smith, have cited the pause to insist that increased greenhouse gas emissions, mostly from burning fossil fuels, are not heating up the globe.
Smith, the chairman of the House Science Committee, vehemently disagreed with the study’s findings. He issued a subpoena for communications among the scientists and some data, leading to charges from Democrats that he was trying to intimidate the researchers.
Late Tuesday, NOAA provided Smith with some more information about its methods and data but refused to give Smith everything he wanted.
NOAA spokeswoman Ciaran Clayton said the internal communications are confidential and not related to what Smith is trying to find out.
“We have provided data, all of which is publicly available online, supporting scientific research, and multiple in-person briefings,” she said.
“We stand behind our scientists who conduct their work in an objective manner. It is the end product of exchanges between scientists — the detailed publication of scientific work and the data that underpins the authors’ findings — that are key to understanding the conclusions reached.
Clayton also refuted Smith’s implication that the study was political.
"There is no truth to the claim that the study was politically motivated or conducted to advance an agenda,” she said. “The published findings are the result of scientists simply doing their job, ensuring the best possible representation of historical global temperature trends is available to inform decision makers, including the U.S. Congress.”
Smith defended his investigation, saying NOAA’s work is clearly political.
“It was inconvenient for this administration that climate data has clearly showed no warming for the past two decades,” he said in a statement. “The American people have every right to be suspicious when NOAA alters data to get the politically correct results they want and then refuses to reveal how those decisions were made.”
Smith also said NOAA’s assertion of confidentiality is incorrect.
“The agency has yet to identify any legal basis for withholding these documents,” he said, adding that his panel would use “all tools at its disposal” to continue investigating.
Smith has been communicating with NOAA about the research since it was published in the summer, and their exchanges have grown increasingly hostile.
It sounds like Climategate all over again, with climate scientists trying to cover up, obfuscate and frustrate all attempts by outsiders to get at the truth.
What gives them the right to decide they are above the law? As a publically funded operation, why do they think they are entitled to pick and choose what information they release to Congress?
The global warming debate on Capitol Hill is heating up. Government scientists refused to comply with lawmakers’ demands they turn over internal documents regarding a study that eliminated the “hiatus” in global warming from the temperature record.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) officials argued such records are confidential and “essential to frank discourse among scientists.” The science agency said it has a history of protecting the “confidentiality of deliberative scientific discussions.”
NOAA’s decision not to comply with a subpoena from House science committee lawmakers has only angered Chairman Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican, who says Americans have a right to know what taxpayer-funded scientists were thinking when they altered the temperature record in June.
“It was inconvenient for this administration that climate data has clearly showed no warming for the past two decades,” Smith said in an emailed statement. “The American people have every right to be suspicious when NOAA alters data to get the politically correct results they want and then refuses to reveal how those decisions were made.”
Republican lawmakers have been interested in holding hearings and gathering information on NOAA temperature adjustments for months. Lawmakers’ interests peaked when scientists put out a study claiming the 15-year “hiatus” in global warming never existed.
“Newly corrected and updated global surface temperature data from NOAA’s [National Centers for Environmental Information] do not support the notion of a global warming ‘hiatus,’” NOAA scientists led by Tom Karl wrote in their study.
Karl and his team made adjustments to past temperature data to eliminate a prolonged period of little to no statistically significant global warming. They largely did this by adjusting upward sea surface temperature readings taken from ships and buoys.
The NOAA study was highly criticized by scientists more skeptical of man-made global warming and directly contradicts findings by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world’s main authority on global warming. Many scientists are still skeptical of NOAA’s elimination of the pause.
What concerned Smith and other lawmakers about the data adjustments was the timing. They were just two months before President Barack Obama unveiled sweeping Environmental Protection Agency regulations limiting carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.
The adjusted NOAA data also came about six months ahead of when United Nations delegates are set to meet in Paris to hash out a global agreement to cut CO2 emissions. Obama has made signing such an agreement a main part of his presidential legacy. The White House would no doubt welcome data showing more global warming in the past 15 years.
“NOAA needs to come clean about why they altered the data to get the results they needed to advance this administration’s extreme climate change agenda,” Smith said. “The agency has yet to identify any legal basis for withholding these documents.”
Smith has been especially frustrated by NOAA because the science agency ignored three attempts by lawmakers to get internal communications before he was forced to issue a subpoena for the data. NOAA did provide Smith with scientific data and methodology regarding the June study — most of which is publicly available.
“We stand behind our scientists, who conduct their work in an objective manner,” a NOAA spokeswoman told Nature. “We have provided all of the information the Committee needs to understand this issue.”
“The Committee intends to use all tools at its disposal to undertake its Constitutionally-mandated oversight responsibilities,” Smith said.
Smith’s actions, however, have been heavily criticized by Democrats and liberal media outlets.
Texas Democratic Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson , the science committee’s ranking minority member, sent a letter to Smith calling the subpoena “a serious misuse of Congressional oversight powers.”
The liberal explanatory journalism site Vox ran the headline “The House science committee is worse than the Benghazi committee” in reaction to Smith’s subpoena.
A study done by NOAA scientists in July contradicted previous evidence that global warming was declining. The House science committee now demands internal communications related to the study.
In a study published in the journal Science in July, scientists indicated that average global temperatures have continued to rise in the 21st century, contradicting previous evidence that suggested a global warming hiatus. The analysis, based on temperature records from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), has now come under congressional scrutiny.
In July, the US House of Representatives Science, Space and Technology committee head, Rep. Lamar Smith (R) of Texas, asked NOAA for both data and internal communications related to the study led by Thomas Karl.
While NOAA conceded publicly available data related to the study, it has refused to release internal communications, citing the “long-standing practice in the scientific community to protect the confidentiality of deliberative scientific discussions,” as reported by Nature.
In response, Representative Smith filed a subpoena on October 13, a move which the Washington Examiner suggests is consistent with a “climate change doubter.”
