NOAA In Trouble Over Hiatus-Denial Documents
A new paper put out by a group of scientists has debunked a controversial National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) report from last year claiming global warming has accelerated faster than surface temperature readings have shown. The debunking comes as congressional investigators demand government climate bureaucrats turn over emails and documents related to the “hiatus”-busting study.
“Overall, there is compelling evidence that there has been a temporary slowdown in observed global surface warming,” Ed Hawkins, a climate scientist at the University of Reading and co-author of the paper, wrote in a blog post on the new research.
Hawkins noted that “the most recent observed 15-year trends are all positive, but lower than most previous similar trends in the past few decades” which is a “clear demonstration that the rate of change has slowed since its peak.”
The debunking comes as congressional investigators demand government climate bureaucrats turn over emails and documents related to the “hiatus”-busting study. House science committee Republicans sent a letter to NOAA, slamming the agency for dragging its feet and trying to skirt transparency.
“While I appreciate that NOAA has started to comply in part with the Committee’s lawful subpoena, I am disappointed with the slow pace and limited scope of the Agency’s production,” Texas Republican Rep. Lamar Smith wrote in a letter to NOAA Monday obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation.
Smith, who chairs the House science committee, has for months been seeking documents related to NOAA’s 2015 study claiming to have eliminated the global warming “hiatus” from the temperature record. The study was highly controversial and immediately criticized for making drastic adjustments to surface temperature data.
But NOAA has not been forthcoming with all the information Smith’s office has requested from the agency regarding the study. At first, NOAA claimed it would not release any emails from scientists, trying to create a narrative that Smith’s aim was to basically harass government researchers.
Smith fired back and continued to press the agency for documents, eventually getting them to agree to have political staff and scientists be interviewed by congressional investigators. Then things heated up when a whistleblower told Smith the study in question was “rushed” and was published “before all appropriate reviews of the underlying science.”