Now that NOAA has called Lamar Smith’s bluff, how does he get out of the mess?

There has been a stark contrast between what Smith said as Science Committee Chairman in his official demands to NOAA and what Rep. Smith accuses NOAA of in the media. That alone is indicative that this never was and never will be 'about the science'.

In his latest official demand he still doesn't question the science itself; only that he thinks it was 'rushed'.

Obama said his government would be the most open and transparent in the history of free democratic governments. How's that working out?

_____________________

Edit: "This administration is pursuing an extreme political climate change agenda and has made NOAA its accomplice. These are not the actions of an objective agency. NOAA needs to come clean about why it cherry-picked and changed certain data, while ignoring satellite data, to get the results it wanted." Lamar Smith http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/26/la...

Mr. "DOOM and GLOOM" is asking a question?

The "bluff" has already been established by the "clownish" acts of NOAA and NASA. They are the "established" platform on which "Global Warming" is perpetuated. All he is asking for is "scientific reasoning" for changes that were already based on previously established "scientific reasoning".

They were wrong before and now they are right?

What message does that send to concerned citizens?

It surely doesn't give much credence to past conclusions that were based on solid and "credible evidence".

Move the goal posts without any questions and never looking back? It's nothing but a shell game to these people, where they have simply removed the ball (themselves) from the equation.

SCIENTIFIC COWARDS who have joined the ranks of Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt, and James Hansen!!

YES. This is precisely how it should be, and Smith’s gross overstepping of bounds is proof of that. However, because NOAA understands that global warming is real, and has said so, they have become the target of Smith’s ire. If you are a smartphone user, do install Leo Privacy Guard, Its free available in both iTunes for iPhone, and android's PlayStore, the best security app.

What did he do to call his bluff? Or is this a bluff using a fake bluff? Gary, at least try to show some intelligence on this site, sometime.

I predict that he will just let it fade away. He knows that his public political support comes from people with limited intellectual skills who form opinions based on their emotions – so they will not notice it disappear or remember it after it is gone.

====

BB –

>> What was the " bluff"?<<

Contempt of Congress charges. If Smith follows through on this threat, he will not be able to hide behind the exemptions that allow him to make accusations without showing just cause.”

======

Zippi62 –

There were no changes in “scientific reasoning.” Deniers are the only ones who said the last 18 years of surface temperature data were evidence of either (1) a negation of AGW or (2) a change in the AGW process.

======

OM –

All of the data, methods, procedures, and justifications are available to everyone who wants them. Smith has everything and has not bothered to even look at it (or have someone competent look at it).

Your evidence is a Washington Times conspiracy story - really?

I am all for a full, complete, and open investigation; but, Congress – despite years of repeated promises - has refused to hold any such hearing (I wonder why).

He doesn't -- and it doesn't matter. His audience consists of the far right wing (anti-science) crowd. Lies are their stock in trade and they don't care if he's exposed. Bus credibility with them (if you can call it that) is based on his adherance to political dogma.

There is an easy solution for any denier in a mess:

Denial.

"Called his bluff"??....... What did I miss?? What was the " bluff"?? How was it "called"??

Oh.....now I get it. You did a drive-by.