Skip to content

NOAA Refuse To Release Emails

October 28, 2015

By Paul Homewood 




Get out the popcorn, this one could run and run.

From the Hill:


The federal government’s chief climate research agency is refusing to give House Republicans the detailed information they want on a controversial study on climate change.

Citing confidentiality concerns and the integrity of the scientific process, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said it won’t give Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) the research documents he subpoenaed.

At the center of the controversy is a study that concluded there has not been a 15-year “pause” in global warming. Some NOAA scientists contributed to the report.

Skeptics of climate change, including Smith, have cited the pause to insist that increased greenhouse gas emissions, mostly from burning fossil fuels, are not heating up the globe.

Smith, the chairman of the House Science Committee, vehemently disagreed with the study’s findings. He issued a subpoena for communications among the scientists and some data, leading to charges from Democrats that he was trying to intimidate the researchers.

Late Tuesday, NOAA provided Smith with some more information about its methods and data but refused to give Smith everything he wanted.

NOAA spokeswoman Ciaran Clayton said the internal communications are confidential and not related to what Smith is trying to find out.

“We have provided data, all of which is publicly available online, supporting scientific research, and multiple in-person briefings,” she said.

“We stand behind our scientists who conduct their work in an objective manner. It is the end product of exchanges between scientists — the detailed publication of scientific work and the data that underpins the authors’ findings — that are key to understanding the conclusions reached.

Clayton also refuted Smith’s implication that the study was political.

"There is no truth to the claim that the study was politically motivated or conducted to advance an agenda,” she said. “The published findings are the result of scientists simply doing their job, ensuring the best possible representation of historical global temperature trends is available to inform decision makers, including the U.S. Congress.”

Smith defended his investigation, saying NOAA’s work is clearly political.

“It was inconvenient for this administration that climate data has clearly showed no warming for the past two decades,” he said in a statement. “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.”

Smith also said NOAA’s assertion of confidentiality is incorrect.

“The agency has yet to identify any legal basis for withholding these documents,” he said, adding that his panel would use “all tools at its disposal” to continue investigating.

Smith has been communicating with NOAA about the research since it was published in the summer, and their exchanges have grown increasingly hostile.



It sounds like Climategate all over again, with climate scientists trying to cover up, obfuscate and frustrate all attempts by outsiders to get at the truth.

What gives them the right to decide they are above the law? As a publically funded operation, why do they think they are entitled to pick and choose what information they release to Congress?

And above all, what are they trying to hide?

  1. A C Osborn permalink
    October 28, 2015 7:51 pm

    I hope that “And above all, what are they trying to hide? ” is a rhetorical question?

    • October 28, 2015 11:08 pm

      Per my more legally oriented US centric comments earlier today elsewhere (WUWT), it is probable NOAA is trying to hide quite a bit. Venturing into criminal contempt of congress territory (the legal US situation now) is ordinarily not done, because usually does not end well for those that do. Stay tuned, because it appears Rep. Smith now knows NOAA has stuff to hide.

      • October 29, 2015 6:17 am

        Next step may be NOAA claiming Executive Privilege to sustain refusal to release emails.

        What I cannot understand is why Congress is missing the opportunity to use the budget process to force the Executive Branch to yield on this and several other Republican issues.

        After all that is how the UK Parliament forced the Monarch to yield. And what is the President if he is not an elected Monarch?

  2. Mark Hodgson permalink
    October 28, 2015 8:15 pm

    It would be nice to be able to believe in the scientific integrity of such organisations, but so long as they refuse to reveal information about how they work, and what the individuals involved say to each other when preparing their reports, they give cause for suspicion, even if they have nothing to hide. I assume they are not so stupid as not to appreciate that – which suggests that they DO have something to hide. Until they treat the rest of humanity with respect and behave openly with goodwill, then I for one will remain sceptical.

    Your 3 final paragraphs in conclusion sum up the state of play very succinctly.

    • October 29, 2015 2:45 pm

      Not only do they have something to hide but they must believe that they have support from above or consider the consequences of being exposed so dire that they have no option other than to lie and deceive. I missed out on climate gate, before I took an interest, so I am watching this one with interest.

  3. October 28, 2015 8:41 pm

    Any casual observer of recent congressional inquiries would be totally unsurprised by this.

    • October 28, 2015 11:15 pm

      The Benghazi hearings turned up Hillary’s private (and arguably illegal) private State Department server, shredded her excuse for same, shredded her claim that all official emails had been documented and turned over, and shredded her claim that nothing classified was sent privately (info on ‘private off the record’ diplomatic exchanges are automatically classified by a 2003 executive order, in order to facilitate them, and many of the released redacted ‘official’ emails are of that sort and clearly passed through). The question is, what consequences. Some of us across the pond have a vote on that.

      As here. But Rep. Smith has motivations to see this through beyond mere politics.

  4. CheshireRed permalink
    October 28, 2015 9:08 pm

    Do they actually have the legal right to withhold publicly-funded data from Congress? Surely this is none of their business whether they hand it over – it should simply be done as soon as demanded. I can’t be the only one whose astonished by their arrogance and that they even think there’s a discussion to be had here? Unbelievable.

  5. October 28, 2015 9:10 pm

    Climate alarmists…..Crooks, charlatans and carpetbaggers. They know it’s nothing but a scam, but they sure don’t want to masses to realize!

  6. Paul2 permalink
    October 28, 2015 9:21 pm

    Global warming leads to #7512:

  7. October 28, 2015 10:58 pm

    Why refuse unless they have something to hide?

    • Green Sand permalink
      October 28, 2015 11:58 pm

      “Why refuse…”

      Because they have been allowed to believe it is their right!

      Somebody needs to get a grip, not holding my breath….

    • Ben Vorlich permalink
      October 29, 2015 8:38 am

      Ezekiel 24:14 and Matthew 12:37 are appropriate.

      • Le Gin permalink
        October 29, 2015 1:09 pm

        Yeah, but it is important to understand who it is that is playing the Lord’s role! However, I can see that role might be interchangeable in the future…

  8. catweazle666 permalink
    October 29, 2015 2:31 am

    If you’ve nothing to fear, you’ve nothing to hide…


  9. eliza permalink
    October 29, 2015 4:48 am

    Its time to send the police in and arrest these people. I believe this stage has been reached

  10. Rob Jones permalink
    October 29, 2015 10:04 am

    Just to develop Eliza’s point, if law enforcement agents did descend on NOAA and seize documents and servers it could cause the whole AGW edifice to crumble in time for the Paris Conference. Remember the US agents and Swiss Police raiding FIFA’s offices and all the aftershocks for Sepp Blatter et al; how we all smiled!

    Paul, surely you can offer some cast-iron evidence of the NOAA’s recent fiddling of temperature data, just to get the convoy rolling?

  11. October 29, 2015 11:53 am

    Reblogged this on WeatherAction News and commented:
    All this has done has kicked the issue into touch until after Paris, which presumably is the plan. With Abbott and Harper out of the way (as Viscount Monckton warned) the agenda is full steam ahead.

    • October 29, 2015 2:47 pm

      Craig, surely you are correct! I am rather upset I missed the obvious!

  12. waterside4 permalink
    October 30, 2015 9:43 am

    Thanks for that Paul.
    On the question of subpoenas and freedom of info. – is my memory failing me or did not the met office refuse to release details of their book cooking a few years ago?
    Any one got a link to that please?

  13. November 7, 2015 1:16 am

    Reblogged this on Climate Collections and commented:
    “Citing confidentiality concerns and the integrity of the scientific process…” That’s precisely why NOAA is being called on the carpet–The scientific process has been corrupted while being underwritten by taxpayer money.


  1. NOAA Refuse To Release Emails | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT | Cranky Old Crow
  2. The Next Climategate? | Atlas Monitor
  3. NOAA Refuse To Release Emails | ajmarciniak
  4. Tony Thomas: The Fishy ‘Science’ of Ocean Acidification | Tallbloke's Talkshop
  5. The Fishy ‘Science’ of Ocean Acidification - Principia Scientific Intl
  6. The Fishy ‘Science’ of Ocean Acidification | No B-S here (I hope)

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: