This week, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) provided documents to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology, following criticism from the committee’s Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) regarding a climate science study published by Science in June.
In a letter to the committee, the NOAA said the provided includes “documents and communications by NOAA officials, with the exceptions of scientists acting in their official capacity, referring or relating to the Karl study, including but not limited to, any official in the Office of the Administrator, Office of Communications and External Affairs, Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, and the Office of the Chief Information Office from January 1, 2014 to present.”
The June NOAA study found that the rate of global warming in the last 15 years was just as fast, or faster, than the warming seen during the latter half of the 20th century. It refuted the claim that there has been a slowdown in global warming in recent years.
The NOAA stated it will continue to search for documents related to the committee’s request.
“I am encouraged by the NOAA’s acknowledgement of its obligation to produce documents and communications in response to the Committee’s lawfully-issued subpoena. I am also glad to see that NOAA has committed to produce additional items as they are identified,” said Smith. “We will carefully review these documents and expect additional productions form the NOAA.”
“There is nothing in these materials that would support the notion that substance or timing of the paper was politically motivated,” NOAA spokesperson Ciaran Clayton said in a statement to Popular Science.
Smith, in his reasoning behind the investigation, claimed whistleblowers approached him and said the study was rushed despite concerns from NOAA scientists regarding standard scientific processes and integrity policies. Additionally, Smith speculated the publishing of the study was meant to fit the Obama Administration’s “aggressive climate agenda.”
According to Ginger Pinholster, the chief of communications for the American Association for Advancement of Science, the study was subject to more stringent reviews that lasted 50% longer than reviews for usual studies published by Science.
