NOAA Continues to Blow off Congress

In the summer of 2015, NOAA scientists published the Karl study, which retroactively altered historical climate change data and resulted in the elimination of a well-known climate phenomenon known as the “climate change hiatus.”  The hiatus was a period between 1998 and 2013 during which the rate of global temperature growth slowed.  This fact has always been a thorn in the side of climate change alarmists, as it became difficult to disprove the slowdown in warming.

The Karl study refuted the hiatus and rewrote climate change history to claim that warming had in fact been occurring.  The committee heard from scientists who raised concerns about the study’s methodologies, readiness, and politicization.  In response, the committee conducted oversight and sent NOAA inquiries to investigate the circumstances surrounding the Karl study.

Over the course of the committee’s oversight, NOAA refused to comply with the inquiries, baselessly arguing that Congress is not authorized to request communications from federal scientists.  This culminated in the issuance of a congressional subpoena, with which NOAA also failed to comply.

During the course of the investigation, the committee heard from whistle-blowers who confirmed that, among other flaws in the study, it was rushed for publication to support President Obama’s climate change agenda. (Congressional Committee on Science, Space & Technology)

Complete timeline of the Science Committee’s oversight of NOAA’s 2015 climate change study.

I honestly have no skin in the game to prove or disprove ocean temperatures paused or not. What does concern me is that NOAA thinks it doesn't have to respond to Congressional inquires or even subpoena's.  Government scientist saying their emails are not part of the official record is a clear indicator scientists have agendas other than the pursuit of the truth.

A more disturbing trend than data not being shared is results, papers, etc... being published and taken as fact without being duplicated. Peer review is one thing, having your experiment or analysis being successfully repeated by others is fundamental to the scientific method.