UPDATE: Even as third parties tried to defend the scientific record (see original article, below), Congressman Lamar Smith's office has continued his war of words against the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). In a press release issued today, Smith reiterated his suggestion that NOAA's updated temperature data was a fraudulent manipulation performed for political reasons.

Smith claims his actions are an attempt to "understand agency’s decision to alter temperature data to show warming." And, in a letter demanding NOAA respond to his subpoena for all correspondence related to the temperature update, he suggests its refusal simply raises more suspicions: "Deficiencies in NOAA’s response to the Committee’s request raises serious concerns about what role officials at NOAA, including political appointees, had in the decision to adjust the temperature data and widely publicize conclusions based on those adjustments."

The release quotes his letter as suggesting that NOAA may be opening itself up to "civil and/or criminal enforcement mechanisms.”

Original article: NOAA is one of three main organizations that keep track of the global temperatures (NASA and the UK's Met Office being the others). Like the rest of them, NOAA updates its temperature record as improved methods or data become available. Its latest effort to do so was notable only because of the results. Previous records had suggested that temperature increases slowed down recently; the update indicated that this was largely an artifact due to how some ocean temperatures were handled.

Congressman Lamar Smith (R-Tex.) is clearly not happy with the fact that the apparent "pause" in temperatures has gone away. So, he started issuing requests for the data and methods used in the analysis. When NOAA pointed out that these were already publicly available, Smith issued subpoenas for all correspondence related to the temperature record, and the politician issued a statement suggesting NOAA scientists colluded to manipulate the record for political ends.

The American Meteorological Society (AMS) finds this all disturbing, and it has released an open letter to Smith in which it says the committee should be celebrating the fact that the data and methods were already available. Trying to get access to correspondence, in contrast, is worrisome:

The AMS is concerned, however, with your recent subpoena of NOAA seeking a wide range of internal documents and correspondence related to a specific set of climate research results that have been published in the peer-reviewed literature. Singling out specific research studies, and implicitly questioning the integrity of the researchers conducting those studies, can be viewed as a form of intimidation that could deter scientists from freely carrying out research on important national challenges.

The letter goes on to state, "The advancement of science depends on investigators having the freedom to carry out research objectively and without the fear of threats or intimidation whether or not their results are expedient or popular" (emphasis theirs). The best way to find out whether scientific results are valid, the AMS suggests, isn't to dig through e-mails; it's to wait for the scientific process to play out through the peer-reviewed literature.