House Republicans Press NOAA Over Data Used to Push Climate Change Narrative

From THE DAILY CALLER

Daily Caller News Foundation

Nick Pope
Contributor

House Republicans are pressing the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) for answers about a signature dataset frequently cited as evidence that climate change is intensifying.

Members of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology Committee wrote to NOAA Administrator Richard Spinrad on Wednesday demanding information about several aspects of the agency’s “billion dollar disasters” (BDD) dataset, which the Biden administration has cited to justify its pause on natural gas export terminal approvals, among other things. The lawmakers allege that the BDD data may be violating NOAA’s scientific integrity rules, and they also requested clarification on NOAA’s methodology and an explanation as to why the agency does not adjust for variables like GDP.

The metric’s critics have pointed out that economic statistics are an inappropriate proxy for climate change’s intensity or changing meteorological conditions. For example, identical storms in identical locations at two different times would render different damage totals because of increases in the amount of property in harm’s way and not necessarily because climate change has gotten any worse. (EXCLUSIVE: ‘Blatant Violations’: Watchdog Challenges Key Data Used By Biden Admin To Push Sweeping Climate Agenda)

“Since the 1990s, NOAA has published annual reports showing the number of disasters that have cost more than a billion dollars in damages,” the letter states. “Debate around the validity of the reports’ methodologies has resulted in NOAA making incremental but important changes. Since 2011, the reports’ cost estimates of all past disasters in the dataset have been updated annually to account for inflation in today’s dollars.”

“However, despite adjustments for inflation, the reports have not been adjusted for increases in population or wealth in the same capacity,” the letter continues. Due to these increases in population and wealth, even mild storms can sometimes appear to cause greater damage today. The lack of updated, comprehensive data in these models raises considerable concern given that these reports have been cited by both Congress and the President as the justification for different federal government actions concerning climate change.”

BDD data was used in a flagship climate report released by the Biden administration in 2023, and it was also cited as evidence to justify the administration’s pause on approvals for new liquefied natural gas export terminals by Deputy Energy Secretary David Turk in testimony provided to Congress in February.

The letter alleges that NOAA’s adjustments for inflation appear to be inconsistent in some cases. Additionally, the lawmakers wrote that the opaque methodology for deriving BDD data makes the data nearly impossible to independently replicate and verify.

The letter’s authors — Republican Reps. Frank Lucas of Oklahoma, Max Miller of Ohio and Jay Obernolte of California — called on Spinrad to disclose why NOAA connects BDD data and climate change and the scientific basis it has for doing so, as well as for an explanation as to why the agency does not adjust its data for increases in population or wealth.

Roger Pielke Jr., a BDD critic and former environmental studies professor at the University of Colorado, raised several of these issues in his own correction request submitted to NOAA in January. In response to his request, NOAA said that it would be taking some steps to improve the BDD data’s transparency.

NOAA referred the Daily Caller News Foundation to the statement it issued upon releasing their response to Pielke’s correction request when contacted for comment for this story. An agency spokesperson added that the agency will respond to the lawmakers’ letter via official channels.

“NOAA notes that the [request for correction (RFC)] did not identify specific data points that need correcting. In conducting its review of the RFC, NOAA has not identified any data inaccuracies in the Billion Dollar Disaster data set,” an agency spokesperson said in a statement shared with the DCNF regarding Pielke’s correction request. “NOAA has determined the U.S. Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters data set meets the threshold for influential scientific information (ISI) under NOAA’s Information Quality Guidelines. As a result, NOAA will review and update its management practices for the data set.”

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

5 22 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

24 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Sparta Nova 4
September 5, 2024 10:09 am

Control the data, control the ideas.

mleskovarsocalrrcom
September 5, 2024 10:27 am

Helped by a complicit media.

Marty
Reply to  mleskovarsocalrrcom
September 5, 2024 12:05 pm

I’m coming to believe that that a corrupt news media is one of the biggest problems we have in the western world.

Reply to  Marty
September 7, 2024 4:17 am

Without a doubt. The Western Leftwing Media presents the greatest danger to the personal freedoms of everyone living in Western nations.

The Western Leftwing Media lies to their readers constantly, promoting their leftwing agenda, and Western Democracies cannot govern themselves properly based on lies, which causes them to vote for the wrong people (leftists), who seek to take their freedoms away from them.

September 5, 2024 10:36 am

The problem becomes serious when playing this ever losing game is mandated by the lunatics in power.
[Wrong thread, should have been “Gambling addiction” ]

Mikeyj
Reply to  Petit-Barde
September 5, 2024 11:13 am

fits here as well

Rud Istvan
September 5, 2024 11:09 am

NOAA will stonewall. They have no other viable choice. And then Congress will issue another sternly worded letter and move on.

September 5, 2024 11:36 am

Case in point:
In 1949 you could have bought the entire Lido Peninsula of Newport Beach, CA for about $250,000. Nur a single 1/16 acre lote goes for more than $1MM and that is just for a tear-down. I.e., spend $1MM for a house and lot, spend another $1MM to tear down the existing structure and build new.

So a storm could have wiped out the entire peninsula in 1950 and it would not make the list. Same storm today would be a multi-billion dollar event.

Now do Malibu, Catalina Island, Marina Del Rey…

damp
Reply to  Fraizer
September 5, 2024 12:46 pm

Fraizer, your point raises the question: Why are people building expensive things in areas that are at risk of Climate Catastrophes? It’s almost as if rich people (and their insurance companies) don’t believe in climate change at all.

Reply to  damp
September 5, 2024 6:20 pm

Why are people building expensive things in areas that are at risk of Climate Catastrophes?

Because they can. There are generally no zoning restrictions prohibiting it. They can usually buy insurance to protect their losses, and in the past, they have used their money and influence to access tax dollars to reimburse them. More dollars than ‘cents.’

Reply to  Fraizer
September 5, 2024 2:53 pm

Miami Beach

DMA
September 5, 2024 12:03 pm

““NOAA has determined the U.S. Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters data set meets the threshold for influential scientific information (ISI) under NOAA’s Information Quality Guidelines.”

Does NOAA have a definition for “Climate Disaster”? If not why are they using that terminology?

Reply to  DMA
September 5, 2024 12:33 pm

A “Climate Disaster” is a disaster blamed on climate.
A “Non-climate Disaster” does not exist.

Reply to  Mumbles McGuirck
September 5, 2024 2:55 pm

The climate must be evil to cause all these disasters. 🙂

Rick C
Reply to  DMA
September 5, 2024 1:35 pm

It also begs the question: “What NOAA data sets don’t meet the requirements for Influential Scientific Information and would apparently not be subject to their quality guidelines?”

Bob
September 5, 2024 2:04 pm

NOAA is not doing its job and hasn’t been for a while. Fire Spinrad and all top executives, blackball them from ever holding another government job or government related job. The next troop of executives will be more inclined to do a good job. Do this to one agency and watch all the others start doing a better job. It is agencies like NOAA that are the problem, fix them and most of our climate problems go away.

J Boles
September 5, 2024 3:47 pm

comment image

Reply to  J Boles
September 5, 2024 5:54 pm

MALA

September 5, 2024 5:53 pm

Fake disaster Data, what a surprise.

Reply to  karlomonte
September 7, 2024 4:26 am

NOAA needs fake disaster data and fake temperature data to hype their fake human-caused climate change meme.

NOAA’s “influential scientific information (ISI)” should be called “influential scientific fake information (ISFI)”.

September 5, 2024 8:05 pm

“NOAA has determined the U.S. Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters data set meets the threshold for influential scientific information (ISI) under NOAA’s Information Quality Guidelines.

Apparently, the “threshold” changes over time, or the addition and subtraction of listed items from the reports would not occur. That’s not indicative of “influential scientific information” in my view.

If the budget and accounting sheets from NOAA did that, people would go to prison for fraud.

Ireneusz
September 6, 2024 12:58 am

It is important to tell the truth, for example, in areas touched by hurricanes, buildings must be able to withstand strong winds, and building in the range of a strong ocean wave is always risky. 

Ireneusz
September 6, 2024 1:07 am

How do the Chinese deal with typhoons?
comment image

September 6, 2024 8:20 am

What will happen if NOAA refuses to cooperate? R’s will tweet (x?) about it and send a strongly-worded letter?
Or if NOAA does cooperate and it shows what’s expected, they’ll tweet (x?) about it and send a strongly-worded letter?