I am one of the scientists who has signed the following letter to Representative Lamar Smith, Chairman of the Science, Space and Technology Committee of Congress. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), an agency of the federal government, has refused to share the scientific data which NOAA scientists have used to adjust the surface temperature records of the Earth. This is a clear violation of federal law and it is a clear thumbing of the noise by NOAA of representative government. Rep. Lamar Smith is simply trying to perform due diligence in evaluating data and scientific methods being used to justify drastic governmental regulations. There is very substantial evidence that much of the surface temperature record has been fudged to support the catastrophic man-made global warming hypothesis. NOAA is unwilling to submit its scientific claims to critical and rational scientific evaluation.
The letter in support of exposing this NOAA data and scientific methodology to open examination was signed by 300 scientists and follows:
January 8, 2016
Chairman Lamar Smith
Committee on Science, Space and Technology
House of Representatives
Congress of the United States
Dear Chairman Smith,
We, the undersigned, scientists, engineers, economists and
others, who have looked carefully into the effects of carbon dioxide released
by human activities, wish to record our support for the efforts of the Committee
on Science, Space and Technology to ensure that OMB and NOAA guidelines for
Peer Review for Influential Scientific Information and Highly Influential
Scientific Assessment are followed by federal agencies.
We remind you that controversy previously arose over EPA’s
apparent failure to comply with these guidelines in connection with its
Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding, which was the subject of a report by the
EPA Office of the Inspector General in 2011, see http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-10/documents/20110926-11-p-0702.pdf
and contemporary discussion http://climateaudit.org/2011/10/04/epa-the-endangerment-finding-was-not-a-highly-influential-scientific-assessment/. In that case, EPA had not complied with peer
review requirements for a “highly influential scientific assessment” and argued
that the Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding was not a “highly influential” scientific assessment. If it wasn’t, then it’s hard to imagine what
would be.
In our opinion, NOAA ought to have observed the OMB (and its
own) guidelines for peer review of “influential scientific information” and
“highly influential scientific assessments” in respect to Karl et al 2015 and its associated data. But NOAA seems not to have done this.
We urge you to focus on these important compliance issues.
For your consideration we attach a draft letter which directly connects these
issues to your committee’s prior request for documents.
Sincerely,
More context for this letter is provided in this Daily Caller article.
Posts
