As the planet warms, doubters launch a new attack on a famous climate change study

Feb 10, 2017

By Chelsea Harvey

A former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientist has reopened a contentious debate over the validity of a key agency climate change study, asserting that procedures for archiving its data were not properly followed by its authors.

The claims by John Bates, first published in the Mail on Sunday and later amplified in a blog post he authored, have prompted Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.), chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, to criticize NOAA senior officials for “playing fast and loose with the data in order to meet a politically predetermined conclusion.”

But many scientists, although hesitant to pronounce on the specific charges about data archiving, have pointed out that the research has been independently confirmed by another recent study — and that in any case, none of this raises any significant doubt about human-caused climate change. Meanwhile, the researchers behind the original NOAA paper have disagreed strongly with Bates’s charges, as has at least one scientist who worked with the team.

Continue reading by clicking the name of the source below.

7 comments on “As the planet warms, doubters launch a new attack on a famous climate change study

  • @OP – The claims by John Bates, first published in the Mail on Sunday and later amplified in a blog post he authored, have prompted Rep. Lamar Smith

    Ha! Ha! Ha! – The Mail on Sunday, as a science source???? –
    Cherry picked by science illiterate, climate change denier, carbonaceous stooge, Lamar Smith!

    Next they will be citing “The Sun” as a source of sports reports from Liverpool Football Club!



    Report abuse

  • @OP – The claims by John Bates, first published in the Mail on Sunday

    The Mail on Sunday version of the “Daily Fail” – “up-market” posing propaganda rag!

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Daily_Mail

    the Daily Mail tries to appear more upmarket and respectable than the red-top British tabloids though it does sometimes go in for the full front-page picture or headline characteristic of the populist rags.
    It is also notorious for its frequent harassment of individuals, campaigns of hate directed at various minorities (lately focusing on Muslims), and willfully deceiving and lying to its readers.




    Report abuse

  • Bates And Smith. Hmm, to my suspicious mind , sounds like some shady firm of Lawyers trying to gain advancement on the slippery pole of politics.

    The science was good, but apparently the procedures weren’t so good ?

    The excuses get Lamer and Lamer.



    Report abuse

  • Mr DArcy #4
    Feb 13, 2017 at 3:18 pm

    The excuses get Lamer and Lamer.

    . . . And of course when lame-brains criticize data from NOAA, – demonstrating their “depth or research and understanding of the subject”, it would never occur to them that NOAA is NOT the ONLY government agency or science research organisation in the world which is monitoring climate change!

    International Partner agency logos.

    United States – NASA.
    Russia – Roscosmos.
    Canada – CSA.
    Japan – JAXA.
    Europe – ESA country members include: Belgium. Denmark – DNSC. France – CNES. French version. English version. Germany – DLR. German version. English version. Italy – ASI. Italian version. English version. Netherlands. Norway – NSC.

    and then there are the university teams . . . . . . . .



    Report abuse

  • Madness!

    NPR’s Nathan Rott reports that the Senate […] passed a resolution to undo the Obama administration’s Stream Protection Rule, also largely along party lines, by using the review act. The goal of the rule was to minimize coal mine pollutants in waterways and would have required coal companies to monitor water quality in nearby streams during mining operations. Republicans argued the law was too burdensome and would kill jobs in the coal industry. NPR February 2, 2017

    Those maddening Republicans!



    Report abuse

Leave a Reply

View our comment policy.