Today NOAA officially announced www.climate.gov It didn’t take skeptics long to find a sin of omission. WUWT reader Dave N. pointed this one out to me.
Let’s start with the lecture to skeptics in the Dec 31st 2009 story “What the future may hold” which is an article about sea ice extent. The climate.gov website has been in “beta” for a couple of months. It was announced first on WUWT on December 2nd, 2009. There has been plenty of time to correct this story. The story states:
“When you’re in a court of law, you have to swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The people who have been focusing on the ‘cooling’ have not been telling the whole truth,”
It appears right below this graphic:
This NOAA.gov story for their new “ClimateWatch magazine”, is written by Michon Scott. It leaves out some important data that is obvious to everyone, skeptical or not.
The sea ice data, cited from NSIDC, stops in 2007. 2008 and 2009 sea ice data and imagery, available to even the simplest of curiosity seekers at the publicly available NSIDC or even Cryosphere Today websites, is not included in the graphic. Mr. Scott chooses the historical satellite record minimum of 2007 as the endpoint for comparison. This leaves a reader who is “not in the know”, with the false impression that sea ice has not recovered in any way.
Sometimes I wonder if these government types have any idea of just how blazingly stupid they look when they lecture skeptics, but purposely dig their own obvious data omission hole in the same article.
Here’s the 2008 and 2009 imagery. It took me all of about a minute of work to find it.
Above: Average, 2007, 2008 and 2009 Arctic sea ice extent. From NSIDC
Or how about Cryosphere Today, showing the 2008 and 2009 minimum days side by side?
You don’t need to work for NOAA to find this sea ice extent imagery.
There’s no excuse for NOAA not showing the 2008 and 2009 sea ice data or imagery in this story. None, zilch, zero, zip, nada.
Suffice it to say, this piece on www.climate.gov is propaganda with a lie of omission. It is not science because it omits a portion of the data that disagrees with the article’s premise.
So to Tom Karl, the new director of this machine, I use the again words written by your employee, Michon Scott with a single substitution.
“When you’re in a court of law, you have to swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The people who have been focusing on the ‘warming’ have not been telling the whole truth,”
Rather than lecture us about “truth” while at the same time omitting data not in line with the premise of the article, I suggest that if NOAA is to have any credibility with this website, you should fix this omission and present the true and complete history of the sea ice record. The sooner the better.
For those that agree and wish to complain, a review of NOAA’s “Information Quality” policy might prove useful:
See it here: http://www.cio.noaa.gov/Policy_Programs/info_quality.html
For those who want to make the issue known to the newly appointed man in charge:
thomas.r.karl [at] noaa.gov
He might need a reminder that he works for us, not the other way around.
Rotten Agency blabbering on rotten ice?
It is full steam ahead for the Communists that think they are in control of the USA. But, alas, it is they who “don’t get it,” not us! LOL.
I really wish I was as ignorant and stupid as some of these ethical non biased scientists think I am.
I could just continue on being oblivious to the massaging of the message.
If only!!
Tom Karl is playing “Funny Doctor” with our money….
Enough is ENOUGH….
This is disappointing to me, as I have fond memories of working as a computer programmer for NOAA during the 1970s in Boulder, Colorado … and taking a larger view, all of science has suffered for becoming embroiled in politics. I am a firm believer in the separation of science and state per Eisenhower’s words of wisdom on this topic.
Anthony, how does one post a PRIMAL SCREAM on this site. Given this and the previous entry about NOAA, I feel the need to vent. My wife won’t like it if I scream inside the house and it’s too damn cold outside.
I don’t need to go to climage.gov to know the full extent of the damage done to the historical record. Perhapes a better website name would be delete.gov
The esteemed faux Dr. Thomas Karl has had his own problems with telling the whole truth. If he were in private industry he likely would have been fired.
Since when has a court of law been about truth (As that happens only in movies)?
Karl’s just delivering the message.
Following orders.
Good boy.
I view Cryosphere all the time to verify data. It has a wonderful search feature to compare any given day. (warning, they cannot tell you if satellite is on the blink for any particular image. non-data appears as no ice)
This is another hoax. Like they are the sole source of information. These people need to be fired.
If you put any stock in subliminal suggestions, take a look at the ClimateWatch Magazine banner at the top of the page.
http://www.climatewatch.noaa.gov/2009/articles/short-term-cooling-on-a-warming-planet/4
Does that resemble a hockey stick to you?
Unfortunately, scientists have been trained to manipulate and distort observations to fit the fancy of those who control their research funds.
Scientists who refuse to do so, are soon unemployed. That is how the unholy alliance of politicians, publishers and news media have transformed science into a tool of propaganda.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Emeritus Professor of
Space & Nuclear Science
Former NASA PI for Apollo
Anthony,
If it wasn’t for the millions of other’s following this site, I wouldn’t waste the electrons to send my comments to the NOAA site or it’s Director. Like NASA, CRU, CRU and the IPCC, honesty is a lesson they teach, not from experience.
But it would make for a grand inaugural to have their server shut down by millions of e-mails pointing out their errors and hypocrisy. Let’s do it.
Pure Lubchencoism. The government fights back against the “bloggers”, spits in the eye of the citizenry.
Well, it won’t work. They can try. They can spend our money to tell us how wroooong we are, but the tide of public opinion has turned. In the end, no matter what kind of government, public opinion rules. WUWT and other climate realist sites ARE the public opinion. What we are witnessing is the death spiral of AGW. Lubchenco, Karl, Jackson, Obama et al. are drowning in the incoming tide.
Keep up the spirit and the efforts. The climate.gov site is jammed with errors, speculation, and unscientific biases. They will be shamed and cast aside.
Anthony, take a look at your automatically generated links. At least on my computer, it’s some pretty weird (as in sick) stuff.
REPLY: WordPress.com automatically chooses those, I’ve turned off the feature for now. Thanks -A
So how does one tell the difference between ice that has been compacted and ice that has melted?
Both could show the same image, but one is of more concern than the other.
Michon, please leave a comment here stating Karl told you to leave out ’08 & ’09.
Don’t be the fall guy.
LEAK!
I am amazed at how much of AGW is propaganda, and I am also amazed at how little the recent revelations seem to affect politicians.
The main props for AGW have collapsed, and the remaining supports are under attack – only obfuscation preserves them [for the moment].
Politicians still seem anxious to impose massively crippling policies on their countries without a single doubt in their mind! Not only that, but the policies are ineffectual, only resulting in the transfer of industries to the developing world, and saving no CO2 at all!
I would really like to know exactly why they are doing this.
I just stopped in at http://www.climatewatch.noaa.gov/
It was a page fulll of “Oh my god! We’re all going to die.” I would ask the people at NOAA: Isn’t something positive going to happen somewhere. Is every change a disaster? It seems to them it is.
Can’t someone convince them that it is stagnation, lack of change, that is the disaster. Change leads to disequalibrium which leads to motion which is life. Lack of motion is death.
Arrgh, one wants to rant on and on.
They should have included this graphic.
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/figures/seaice2009fig2.jpg
No excuse.
[snip – funny but a bit OTT sorry]
The age of the ice was not an issue when the trend supported the narrative.
Now, age-of-ice is vital, even though, as I recall, there is notreally good metrics for age-of-ice at all.
Oh great! another politically inspired, obfuscating, tax guzzling governmental agency.
Who needs this crap?
Another US taxpayer funded propaganda site…