Hello tom:

Chairman Lamar Smith:

"It was inconvenient for this administration that climate data has clearly showed no warming for the past two decades. The American people have every right to be suspicious when NOAA alters data to get the politically correct results they want and then refuses to reveal how those decisions were made. NOAA needs to come clean about why they altered the data to get the results they needed to advance this administration’s extreme climate change agenda. The agency has yet to identify any legal basis for withholding these documents. The Committee intends to use all tools at its disposal to undertake its Constitutionally-mandated oversight responsibilities."

No ambiguity there—Smith is clearly suggesting that NOAA is manipulating its results to further an external agenda. Even though his office has been provided with the raw and corrected data, as well as the details of the methods and a personal accounting of the rationale behind them, he is still accusing the scientists who published the paper in Science of fudging their results. The evidence seems to consist of the fact that he did not like those results.

I wouldn't give him any satisfaction either..

excon

Quote:

---

I wouldn't give him any satisfaction either..

---

They should then be prepared to have the subpoena enforced .
This report is just another way to 'hide the decline' ;or in this case 'hide the hiatus ' . Even IPCC scientists admits the pause.

If the taxpayers are funding their research then we definitely have the right to demand it be available to our representatives in government .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

his office has been provided with the raw and corrected data, as well as the details of the methods and a personal accounting of the rationale behind them

---

Hello again, tom:

He's been given the science. But, he wants their scalps.. I'd tell him to stick it too.

excon

A Texas Republican and NOAA are in a standoff over global warming emails

And

Global warming slowdown never happened, federal study says

Quote:

---

Regardless of whether the hiatus was really a hiatus, two things are clear. First, that slowdown is over anyway, given the record-warm 2014 andindications that 2015 may be a repeat of that. Second, focusing on relatively short timescales may be distracting from longterm global warming; however, it is important, since governments and businesses make decisions on shorter timescales. Decade-to-decade fluctuations in warming can affect everything from the productivity of agriculture in India to the likelihood that a U.N. climate treaty will be enacted, as a record-warm year can put pressure on politicians to act.The IRI's Goddard, who has published extensively on the challenge of improving predictions of climate on decadal timescales, said she is puzzled as to why the new study discounts the importance of such short-term climate zigs and zags.

---

Didn't learn anything from Benghazi did you?

Quote:

---

Didn't learn anything from Benghazi did you?

---

Yes ,We learned that Evita is a f~ng liar . Her e-mails proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt .

Quote:

---

No ambiguity there—Smith is clearly suggesting that NOAA is manipulating its results to further an external agenda.

---

Until NOAA gives him the documents subpoena so his committee can independently evaluate the data they were given then why should he believe them when even the UN agency admits there was a pause that can last for decades more ?
The way I see it ; NOAA has constructed another phony hockey stick .

Obviously another case of manipulated and flawed data. Governments always seek facts to support their view and activities and agencies are not above this to improve their funding.

Has anyone thought that our sun will eventually grow hotter, as our knowledge in this area is imperfect, could it be that that process actually takes longer than they think and it has begun, begun ten or twenty thousand years ago.

Elected officials that benefits from the contribution from oil, gas, and energy in the state of Texas, have the same motivation as the government don't they?

Yes Tal there are many people on both side of the dabate who have the motivation to work to advantage their interests. Coal, Oil and Gas don't want change, the environmentalists have a religious view on seeking the holy grail of zero emissions, emerging industries want government support, scientists want their research grants and politicians want to be seen as on the cutting edge.

We have seen this debate swing from dismantling of a clean emissions industry, nuclear, to reestablishment of it, from replacing coal with gas to replacing coal and gas with wind and solar, both industries that have other environmental impacts and some of this is driven by irrational fear. Climate has been changing for at least 10,000 years as the ice age ice caps melted and yet we strive to stop this happening