• 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 […]

    • @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!

    • As usual, friend of science Potholer54 is all over it.

    • 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.

    • 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 . . . . . . . .

    • Actually, Lamer and Lamer sounds like an equally good law firm ?

    • 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!