Lamar Smith, Chairman, House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, initiated a Congressional inquiry of NOAA, requesting documents regarding Thomas R. Karl’s publication in Science. NOAA is objecting to the inquiry. Does it have something to hide?
Karl’s publication disputed the existence of a global warming pause based on global surface temperature data that NOAA’s federal scientists “corrected.” The corrected data shows warmer temperatures than actual measurements. It was in the best interests of the global warming narrative that the NOAA’s data should be “corrected” to match the prevailing political climate change story. NOAA is a federally funded agency.
That is not how science works. Modern climate fear-mongering is the latest example of the prostitution of science in the service of liberal ideology. If the noted late CalTech physicist, Richard Feynman, were alive today, he would condemn the whole climate conspiracy as a gross abuse of the good name of science.
Feynman declared that a theory is not true if it doesn’t match experimental data. The experimental data in the climate change case shows no warming for the last two decades. Federal scientists, in an effort to make experimental data fit their theory, “corrected” the data to fit their global warming theory. This is not how science works; it is how science works at NOAA.
NOAA penned a letter of its own to Lamar Smith gratuitously acknowledging the need for oversight of congressionally funded federal research, but its scientists “should not be subjected to fraud investigations or harassment.” The Congressional Committee seeks additional documentation in the form of the emails between the federal scientists. If there were nothing to hide in those documents, why would NOAA throw sand in the gears of scientific inquiry?
Is science immune to objective inquiry when an inquiry is directed at federally funded climate science? “Science cannot thrive when policymakers . . . use policy disagreements as a pretext to attack scientific conclusions without public evidence,” said NOAA’s Karl.
Only federal scientists are allowed to come to scientific conclusions, to the exclusion of scientists who cast doubt on those federally funded conclusions, according to NOAA. And, doubting the scientific conclusions of federal scientists somehow constitutes harassment, also according to the NOAA claim.
As a federal science agency, NOAA’s science and stance are absurd on all points. Its science supports the Administration’s policies on climate change more than it supports scientific discovery.