Scientists hold their ground against Rep. Smith's NOAA subpoena

As the debate between climate scientists and Rep. Lamar Smith builds, the scientific community still agrees that the peer-reviewed data is legitimate.

Drew Angerer/AP
In this Aug. 10, 2010 file photo, Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas speaks during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R) of Texas, Chairman of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, is adamant that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) should turn over internal communications relating to a June climate-change study.

In July, Rep. Smith first questioned the NOAA study, published a study in the prestigious peer-reviewed journal Science, which found that a "pause" in global warming found in a previous study never existed – the Earth continues to warm because of human activity.

A prominent climate change denier, Smith sent a subpoena to NOAA on Oct. 13 demanding that internal communications between the study's authors be turned over to his committee for examination.

Arguing she has never engaged with a “politically correct agenda,” NOAA Administrator Kathryn Sullivan refuses to answer the congressman’s subpoena. “I have not or will not allow anyone to manipulate the science or coerce the scientists who work for me,” Dr. Sullivan wrote in a letter to Smith, Friday.

Sullivan’s stance against Smith has garnered support from Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker, the committee’s ranking Democrat Rep. Eddie Johnson and many in the scientific community.

“There’s been a united front because many, if not most, scientists see this as an attack on the science process and it has a real chilling effect on science more broadly,” Andrew Rosenberg, Director of the Center for Science and Democracy with the Union of Concerned Scientists, tells The Christian Science Monitor in a phone interview. 

“Chairman Smith is sending a message to young scientists that you shouldn’t work on controversial issues, because if someone doesn’t like your results – beware. You will have to hire lawyers and they’ll go after you with the weight of a congressional committee subpoena.” 

Rep. Smith’s office did not respond immediately to a request for comment.  

“The American people have every right to be suspicious when NOAA alters data to get the politically correct results they want and then refuses to reveal how those decisions were made,” Smith said in a statement last month. But NOAA says they have given the congressman all relevant information pertaining to the study.

“In six separate, and increasingly aggressive, letters, the only thing you accused NOAA of doing is engaging in climate science – i.e., doing their jobs,” Rep. Johnson wrote to Smith in a Nov. 19 letter.

Rep. Johnson also notes that Smith’s "whistleblowers" don’t actually refute the scientific findings that support climate change – they only suggest the study was "rushed."

"His argument is about going after communications between scientists," Rosenberg tells The Monitor. "He’s looking for sound-bites, but that’s not how science works." 

But the scientific community doesn’t show any signs of backing down.

"This paper went through as rigorous a review as it could have received," Ginger Pinholster, chief of communications fro the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which publishes the journal Science, told the Washington Post. "Any suggestion that the review was 'rushed' is baseless and without merit." 

"No one is saying he shouldn’t speak his beliefs," says Rosenberg "but he can’t change the science around to support his view."

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.