|
|
"A comprehensive, collaborative elections resource."
|
Investigation of NOAA climate scientists finds bupkis
|
|---|
| Parent(s) |
Issue
|
| Contributor | RP |
| Last Edited | RP Jan 10, 2019 03:24pm |
| Logged |
0
|
| Category | Investigation |
| Author | Scott K. Johnson |
| News Date | Thursday, January 10, 2019 07:10:00 PM UTC0:0 |
| Description | During his run as chair of the House Science Committee, recently retired Texas Congressman Lamar Smith made a habit of accusing US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientists of manipulating data to exaggerate global warming. Smith did so almost entirely on the basis of his own wishes that data would stop showing warming, relying on fever swamp bloggers and disregarding published research.
The Daily Mail/Mail on Sunday were eventually forced to publish corrections and the science moved on, but the Department of Commerce (which runs NOAA) commissioned a firm to do a third-party evaluation of Bates’ claims. Although the resulting report is dated July 2018, the Department of Commerce released it to the public just before the holidays—and just as the government shutdown took NOAA’s websites offline. As such, climate scientists only discovered it a few days ago when a retired NOAA researcher shared it on Twitter.
The report details interviews and a review of emails that settle the questions raised by John Bates. The report’s topline conclusion is hardly a surprise: “After carefully reviewing internal NOAA email correspondence, the MITRE Committee found no evidence that the Karl Study falsified, or intentionally distorted climate data. The Karl Study data were subsequently used in multiple peer-reviewed scientific publications.” |
| Share |
|
|
2¢
|
|
| Article | Read Full Article |
|
| Date |
Category |
Headline |
Article |
Contributor |
|
|
