Subscribe

Rep. Lamar Smith: NOAA hearing article skews the facts

Rep. Lamar Smith (R) of Texas takes issue with how the Monitor characterizes his views on climate science and for failing to include context about the House Science Committee's hearing and NOAA's budget. 

Your March 18 article on the Science Committee’s hearing to review the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)’s fiscal year 2017 budget is not accurate.

First, the author uses the loaded term “strict climate change denier” to describe my position.  But I have said many times that human activity likely plays some role in climate change, though it’s hard to know exactly how much given the exaggerations.

Second, the author erroneously implies that none of the Committee’s other 21 Republicans or 17 Democrats questioned NOAA’s climate change claims as I did. But she failed to mention that only a few of these members were actually present at the subcommittee hearing.

Third, the author frames NOAA’s climate change budget request as only three percent of the overall budget. But this lacks context. In a time of fiscal constraints when most spending is frozen, NOAA’s climate change research grew by more than 15 percent in just one year.

This kind of biased reporting is why a recent Gallup poll found that six in ten Americans have little or no confidence in the national media to report the news fully, accurately and fairly.

This article is below The Christian Science Monitor’s usual standards of objectivity.

Americans deserve all the facts about climate change, not just a slanted view.

Congressman Lamar Smith represents the 21st  Congressional District of Texas and is Chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.

[Editor's note: The Monitor updated the article to address some of Rep. Smith's concerns.]

About these ads
Sponsored Content by LockerDome
 
 
Make a Difference
Inspired? Here are some ways to make a difference on this issue.
FREE Newsletters
Get the Monitor stories you care about delivered to your inbox.
 

We want to hear, did we miss an angle we should have covered? Should we come back to this topic? Or just give us a rating for this story. We want to hear from you.

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...

Save for later

Save
Cancel

Saved ( of items)

This item has been saved to read later from any device.
Access saved items through your user name at the top of the page.

View Saved Items

OK

Failed to save

You reached the limit of 20 saved items.
Please visit following link to manage you saved items.

View Saved Items

OK

Failed to save

You have already saved this item.

View Saved Items

OK