Those who worship at the altar of environmentalism adhere this view despite the findings of a 2013 research study conducted by a Nobel Peace Prize-winning panel of scientists, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The panel found the rise of global temperatures appeared to have slowed between 1998 and 2012—dubbed the global warming “hiatus,” meaning “the worst is yet to come”--when compared to the period between 1951 and 2012.
IPCC’s findings proved to be a boon to the so-called “climate deniers” who seized upon the study’s results to support their argument that global warming, if it’s happening at all, isn’t due to human activity. Bovine flatulence, maybe. But, not human activity.
In an effort to rebut those findings, those who worship at the altar of environmentalism may have entered into a secret alliance with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). A recent NOAA study—published in the June 2015 issue of Science—refutes the so-called “hiatus,” asserting “the central estimate for the rate of warming during the first 15 years of the 21st century is at least as great as the last half of the 20th century.”
How so? NOAA’s study corrected for factors that weren’t unaccounted for in the IPCC report. NOAA’s study also incorporated 2013 and 2014 data.
NOAA’s conclusion? The rate of global warming in the last 15 years has been as fast or faster than between 1951 and 2012.
For those who worship at the altar of environmentalism, that’s what’s called “global warming science.” Even Pope Francis drank the Kool Aid.
But, thankfully, this story doesn’t end there, as it all too frequently does. The focus of the narrative now has turned to Capitol Hill where U.S. Representative Lamar Smith R-TX—Chair of the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology (CSST)—recently subpoenaed 7 years of all internal communications related to NOAA’s climate research. According to the Christian Science Monitor, whistleblowers informed CSST that the NOAA study “was rushed to publication despite the concerns and objections of a number of NOAA scientists.”
For Smith, this allegation challenges NOAA’s “scientific integrity process” and in an email to the Christian Science Monitor wrote:
It appears NOAA altered data to get politically correct results and now refuses to reveal how those decisions were made.
Critics call him a climate “denier.”
CSST’s ranking Democrat, Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson accused Smith of going on a “fishing expedition,” “adopting the discrediting tactics of fossil fuel industry-funded climate change-denier groups,” and instigating “a constitutional conflict with an inquiry that seems more designed to harass climate scientists than to further any legitimate legislative purpose.”
The Motley Monk doesn’t think such sticks and stones are going to break any of Representative Smith’s bones. As Smith seeks to understand better the full context of how NOAA makes decisions about so-called global “warming,” he’s likely to discover that the ideologues don’t want to be confused by the facts.
Let the discussion begin…
To read study published in Science, click on the following link:http://www.sciencemag.org/content/348/6242/1469.abstract
To read the article in the Christian Science Monitor, click on the following link: