NOAA refuses US Congress request for climate records

From Nature:

Although NOAA’s latest response to the committee skirted the issue, the agency suggests in a 27 October statement to Nature that it has no intention of handing over documents that reveal its internal deliberations.

Citing confidentiality, of course.

In response to queries from Nature, Smith released a statement accusing NOAA of rigging its temperature records and stonewalling the House committee.

“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,” Smith said. “The Committee intends to use all tools at its disposal to undertake its Constitutionally-mandated oversight responsibilities.”

Confidentiality is not supposed to protect people accused of rigging the data, unless they are reserving a legal defense.

NOAA spokeswoman Ciaran Clayton denies the accusations. She notes that the agency’s study was peer-reviewed and published in a respected scientific journal, and that the agency has provided the committee with temperature data and briefings on the research.

Peer review means nothing at all nowadays. See, for example, If peer review is working, why all the retractions? and the indispensable Retraction Watch.

“We stand behind our scientists, who conduct their work in an objective manner,” Clayton says. “We have provided all of the information the Committee needs to understand this issue.”

No you haven’t, Ms. Clayton: Those who pay your—and their—salaries want independent investigators to examine and vet the whole process thoroughly.

That said, the window for getting that kind of transparency closes a bit more with each advance of progressive government. With each citizen who waits anxiously for the government cheque, and cannot afford to know what is going on otherwise…

It is interesting to listen to progressives dismiss the rage of scandals around the climate data as a mere blip in the face of overwhelming evidence. They are counting on ‘crats and proles not to see that there is no way of knowing whether there is in fact an overwhelming mountain of evidence, without the rigorous examination the climate establishment wants to stonewall.

People who don’t follow the science beat, as I do, are often surprised to discover the amount of generally accepted bunk out there. Bunk that is accepted in part because no independent investigators were involved in its creation.

That has been disastrous for social sciences, for example, because it allowed monochromatic bias to dominate, with the resulting toxic rain of otherwise avoidable scandals.