300 forskere kritiserer NOAA i skarpt brev

300 forskere kommer med skarp kritikk mot NOAA i et brev sendt Lamar Smith, Chairman of the House Science Committee. Årsaken til brevet er NOAAs lovstridige triksing med temperaturdata, legitimert med tvilsom forskning som omtalt av oss her, og på WUWT 4.juni 2015. Det er denne triksingen som har gjort det mulig å erklære 2015 som det varmeste året. For fyldig omtale i USA se her.

NOAA bryter loven
Føderale etater som samler inn data til offentlig bruk og som grunnlag for politiske beslutninger er bundet til å følge «the Data Quality Act«, som blant annet har denne bestemmelsen:

“…ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information, including statistical information.”
Data Quality Act, 2001/2

Brevet som er sendt lyder i sin helhet som følger.

January 25, 2016
Chairman Lamar Smith
Committee on Science, Space and Technology
House of Representatives
Congress of the United States
Dear Chairman Smith,

We, the undersigned, scientists, engineers, economists and others, who have looked carefully into the effects of carbon dioxide released by human activities, wish to record our support for the efforts of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology to ensure that federal agencies complied with federal guidelines that implemented the Data Quality Act. This is an issue of international relevance because of the weight given to U.S. Government assessments during international negotiations such as the IPCC.

The Data Quality Act required government-wide guidelines to “ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information, including statistical information,” that was disseminated to the public. Individual agencies, such as the EPA, NOAA and many others were required to issue corresponding guidelines and set up mechanisms to allow affected parties to seek to correct information considered erroneous.

We remind you that controversy previously arose over EPA’s apparent failure to comply with these guidelines in connection with its Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding, which was the subject of a report by the EPA Office of the Inspector General in 2011, see http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-10/documents/20110926-11-p-0702.pdf In that case, EPA failed to comply with peer review requirements for a “highly influential scientific assessment” and argued that the Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding was not a “highly influential” scientific assessment. If it wasn’t, then it’s hard to imagine what would be. (For a contemporary discussion of the EPA’s stance see
http://climateaudit.org/2011/10/04/epa-the-endangerment-finding-was-not-a-highly-influentialscientific-
assessment/ ).

In our opinion, in respect to Karl et al. 2015 and related documents, NOAA has failed to observe the OMB (and its own) guidelines, established in relation to the Data Quality Act, for peer review of “influential scientific information” and “highly influential scientific assessments.”

We urge you to focus on these important compliance issues. For your consideration we attach a draft letter which directly connects these issues to your committee’s prior request for documents.

Sincerely,
(List of signatories and tag lines)

Her er listen med signaturer, Norge er godt representert: signatories_hcsst_20jan2016-1: