NOAA responds to public watchdog's complaint over its influential ‘Billion Dollar Disaster' data

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is responding to concerns about the scientific integrity of its "billion-dollar disaster" data.

Protect the Public’s Trust (PPT), a government watchdog group, filed a complaint in April with the U.S. Department of Commerce. The group requested an investigation into what it says are “apparent scientific violations” in relation to how NOAA reports on climate-related disasters that exceed $1 billion in damages.

Since 1980, NOAA has reported an annual tally of the number of climate-related natural disasters in the U.S. that cause damages exceeding $1 billion after adjusting for inflation. According to NOAA’s calculations, the U.S. averaged 8.5 such events between 1980 and 2023. In the last five years, however, the average reported by the agency is 20.4 events.

The numbers receive a lot of media attention every year, and media often present the numbers as evidence that extreme weather events are becoming more destructive as a result of climate change.

In January, Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., retired professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder, released a preprint of his study, “Scientific integrity and U.S. ‘Billion Dollar Disasters.” The study found that the methodology NOAA uses in the tally lacks scientific integrity, as outlined in the agency’s own rules. The preprint, which is a preliminary version of a scientific manuscript that researchers post online before peer review, has since been peer-reviewed and published.

In its complaint citing Pielke’s research, PPT noted the influence of NOAA’s disaster reporting has on federal policy and research on climate change. The U.S. Global Change Research Program cites the figures as a “climate change indicator,” and they were cited in the Fifth U.S. National Climate Assessment as evidence that “extreme weather events are becoming more frequent and severe.” NOAA’s figures have also been cited as authoritative in nearly 1,000 articles, according to a Google Scholar search.

Pielke showed that NOAA periodically added and removed events without providing any documentation or justification for the changes. The agency lacks any transparency of its sources, input data or methodologies used for the annual report, according to Pielke’s study, and this makes it impossible for an independent researcher to verify the agency’s findings.

The agency also doesn’t normalize costs, which adjusts for differences in wealth over time. It’s something Pielke has studied for decades. According to his research, more development in an area will increase the damages caused by any weather event regardless of trends in the intensity or frequency of the events, and so these differences need to be controlled for in assessing costs of disasters over time. The only adjustment NOAA makes in its tally of billion-dollar disasters is for inflation.

Last month, NOAA responded to Pielke, saying it “will take actions to improve the documentation and transparency of the data set for greater compliance with NOAA’s Information Quality Guidelines.” This month, the agency said in an email to PPT that it is moving forward with an investigation in response to the watchdog’s complaint, and it will keep the organization apprised of its progress.

“We're pleased and surprised that they're being responsive and that they're taking the steps to hopefully rectify some of the flaws in the billions project,” PPT Director Michael Chamberlain told Just the News.

Chamberlain noted that, while they were pleased with the response, they’re also skeptical the investigation will be thorough. The outcome remains to be seen as well, he said.

“The Biden-Harris administration hasn't been the most transparent as far as these kinds of things go. This is definitely a positive step, but their adherence to science hasn't always lived up to the hype that they put out there,” Chamberlain said.

The watchdog has been scrutinizing the scientific integrity of federal agencies for years, and its documented problems with the methodologies used in support of federal rulemaking at the Center for Disease Control, Federal Drug Administration, and Health and Human Services. Besides climate change, the group has also examined the science behind vaccines, gender-affirming care, and COVID restrictions.

“Initially our interest was piqued by the covid responses, but then, as we started to look more deeply at HHS and other agencies, we found other areas in which their adherence to scientific integrity policies were lacking,” Chamberlain said.

NOAA didn’t provide any timeline or further details on its investigation. In its response to Pielke, however, it provided a list of corrections it will take on its “Billion Dollar Disaster” data set.