Ask and ye shall receive NOAA

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administratio...

Image via Wikipedia

A while back, I highlighted this, and now comments are open to the public and I’m sure there will be many readers who would like to contribute.

NOAA seeks public comments on scientific integrity policy

June 16, 2011

NOAA’s draft scientific integrity policy is available for public review and comment until Aug. 15, 2011. The policy incorporates the principles of scientific integrity contained in guidance from the White House, and addresses how NOAA ensures quality science in its practices and policies and promotes a culture of transparency, integrity and ethical behavior.

“Scientific integrity is at the core of producing and using good science,” said Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D., undersecretary for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator. “By being open and honest about our science, we build understanding and trust. This policy reflects the commitment I made when I first came to NOAA to strengthen science, ensure it is not misused or undermined, and base decisions on good science. This scientific integrity policy is about fostering an environment where science is encouraged, nurtured, respected, rewarded and protected.”

At the beginning of Lubchenco’s tenure, NOAA embarked on a thoughtful and transparent effort to draft a policy to uphold the principles of scientific integrity. The policy contains the principles articulated in President Obama’s March 9, 2009, memorandum and further guidance provided in White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) Director John Holdren’s Dec. 17, 2010, memorandum on scientific integrity. The policy responds to Holdren’s directive to agencies to submit their draft policies to OSTP by early August.

NOAA’s draft policy:

  • Lays out formal guidance with a “Code of Conduct”
  • Creates the conditions for enabling first-rate science and guarding against attempts to undermine, discredit or change it
  • States the key role of science in informing policy
  • Encourages scientists to publish data and findings to advance science, their careers and NOAA’s reputation for reliable science
  • Encourages NOAA scientists to be leaders in the scientific community
  • Provides whistle-blower protection
  • Applies to all NOAA employees and provides applicable policies for contractors and grantees who conduct, supervise, assess and/or interpret scientific information for the use of NOAA, the Department of Commerce and the nation
  • Includes a training component.

In April, NOAA submitted a progress report to OSTP describing its progress on developing a scientific integrity policy and describing relevant policies currently in effect. In February 2011, an early draft scientific integrity policy was shared with all of the agency’s employees for their review and comment. The draft announced today takes those comments into consideration.

NOAA also seeks comments on the accompanying handbook that outlines procedures to respond to allegations of misconduct. Both draft documents can be found electronically at www.noaa.gov/scientificintegrity.

Those without computer access can call 301-734-1186 to request a copy of the draft policy and handbook and instructions for returning written comments via mail by Aug. 15.

NOAA’s mission is to understand and predict changes in the Earth’s environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and to conserve and manage our coastal and marine resources. Visit us on Facebook and Twitter.

==================================================================

It seems they left out this important paragraph from the press release above, burying it in a link, so I’ll helpfully provide it for you:

Please send your feedback to integrity.noaa@noaa.gov either in an email or a MS Word document by August 15, 2011. Please include a reference to the section, sub-section, and paragraph when providing comments on specific language in the draft documents.

 

About these ads

82 thoughts on “Ask and ye shall receive NOAA

  1. Sorry, cheap shot…I couldn’t resist.
    NOAA of course does excellent work and is full of intelligent people, many of whom are skeptical about the Global Warming Scare. In fact when I’m lucky enough to have a computer nearby I often use data and graphs from NOAA to help me argue my skeptical position.
    I suspect like there’s a ‘political wing’ of NOAA high level admin who control the ‘official output’ of the agency. And they are singing directly from the hymnsheet. It is they are the problem.
    I once had an almost tearful row with an aquaintance who insisted the Arctic was melting…like immediately.
    I still remember the look on her face as she watched this…. over and over…..

    http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/animations/halfsize_20030928-20040510.avi

    She could see with her own eyes the way the currents pushed the ice around, the way a photograph of a particular stretch of coast could be solid ice one day and ice free to the horizon a few months later….she could the ice streams not ‘melting’ but exiting the arctic ocean along the western coast of Greenland and although she didn’t back down on the argument some of that disgusting fear they exploit, left her.

    I’d love to see the rest of the sequence up to 2010/11…anyone know how I could get it?

  2. All I want are the facts. I don’t want slanted results just the raw unadulterated data. Let those scientists out there who care about science come up with what it means. No more advocacy. Then they should invite Hansen over for a run through on how it’s done.

  3. I’ve asked Chris Moody when he’s going to write ‘The Democrats’ War on Science’.
    =====================

  4. er, uh Mooney. Though I often hesitate to correct slips like that.

    With Holdren and Chu as his picks, we need to worry about scientific integrity after integrity in general.
    ===================

  5. I wonder if we get to see what people suggest. I am sure a few people here will make some good suggestions, and will probably post them here, but a few other sites will have commenters who will not make their suggestions public.

  6. Is there anywhere there where it states that Hansen is to go?

    If integrity is their desire then that is the first step.

  7. “Think about what would happen if one year we had 105-degree heat waves, then the next decade we had unusually cold winters, and then we had 50 years of drought. It would be very hard to adapt to that kind of climate.”
    ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
    It is all very well to suggest such a possibility, but an AGW protagonist needs to explain by what process increased levels of CO2 bring about such variability

  8. What is their policy on AGW?

    Why do they have a policy on AGW, if they are supposed to be an outfit linked with science rather than politics?

  9. Their system, their administration, has already failed catastrophically, but they admit nothing, show no responsibility. I have no intention of making suggestions to them, of playing by their latest rules — their making the rules is what is wrong. I want them run out of their positions as incompetent scientists and political frauds. (I don’t expect it; but I want it.) This little exercise in closing the barn door after the horses have all run out, also known as “cover your rear end”, is obscene, and is just par for the course for those in essentially political (or elitist “upper management”) positions. As someone else has posted more than once, “time for torches and pitchforks”. The rot is too far advanced for papering over.

  10. Creates the conditions for enabling first-rate science and guarding against attempts to undermine, discredit or change it

    So someone obviously believes that the science is settled then.

  11. The second half of this phrase brings the medeival church to mind…

    “■Creates the conditions for enabling first-rate science and guarding against attempts to undermine, discredit or change it.”

  12. Irrelevant. These written policies only make certain kinds of lawsuits more difficult. You can be sued for not having a policy, but it’s much harder to sue an agency for inadequately enforcing its policy.

    Apparently this is only a revision of a policy that has been in place since 1990, and they haven’t used the existing policy about “conflicts of interest” to fire Hansen. That tells you all you need to know about the power and usefulness of the policy.

  13. It sounds kind of like socialism – great in theory, except for the fact it doesn’t work in practice..

    It is self-evident that asking those, who are compromised by considerations of comfortable salaries and grants, to police themselves, is simply not going to work. The Augean stable needs to be regularly cleaned out and new people installed. It is exactly the same with governments – if you have the same party in power for more than 10 years and inevitably ‘the old pals’ act’ will start running rampant creating stagnation, nepotism, incompetence and corruption.

    The cosy, old pals’ club of ‘climate scientists’ needs to be dismantled, or this unchallenged AGW nonsense will continue unabated.

  14. Where’s the beef: personal financial disclosure statements, oci statements, data and source code archival policies, , etc.?

  15. From NOAA working draft.

    “Scientific Method
    A method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested.”

    The redefining of “Scientific Method here is astounding. Read the first sentence and think of CAGW. So first you define something as a problem!!
    Then you follow a shortcut version of the scientific method, after you have already defined something as a “problem” .

  16. John Marshall, Hansen is NASA – incredible tough it may seem. That venerable organization is also in need of some integrity or purpose; currently it is just a political

  17. As early as the 2nd sentence

    “The policy incorporates the principles of scientific integrity contained in guidance from the White House,…”

    and they lost me. The last thing anyone needs is politicians advising them on ethics.

  18. From the working draft
    “All NOAA employees and contractors identified in Section 2.01, will to the best of their ability exhibit

    Accountability in the conduct of research and interpretation of research results through:
    • Using resources entrusted to them responsibly, including equipment, funds, and employees’ time.

    “• Disclosing all research methods used, available data, and final reports and publications consistent with applicable scientific standards, laws, and policy.”

    Overall the document is vague, and a loop hole like “to the best of their ability…” Is unacceptable. The reality is that any research which involves political policy must allow complete open source access to all data and meta data, including notes and other unpublished results. All e-mail, on employer equipment and or time, must be available for FOI request. Finally, equal FUNDING must be given to skeptical qualified scientists to publicly peer review the scientific papers that involve policy, and further produce papers of their own. The skeptical community is now developed so that it is capable of selecting its own, publicly funded scientist to produce such work. This must be done before a paper can be used in policy issues.

  19. I sarcastically posted in a thread on the solar news that government regulation of science would be the result of such contradictory news. The sarcasm included the observation that science was too inconsistent to for “the government planning that science exists to support.” Note: The draft states that the key role of science is to inform policy. Sounds like the NOAA is going to be another IPCC whether it means to or not.

    The government should discipline and regulate its activities. Ownership (de facto or de jure) of science by the government makes science impossible. Not to encourage them, but would there be a ban on activism where scientists cannot be both scientist and activist. (Yes, I’m thinking of Hansen, the Offender.)

    I also sarcastically referred to the government having a website so that the public could comment on what “scientific justice” (ala the EPA’s environmental justice) meant to them. Criminy!

    Looks like a well-greased slope to me, girls and boys.

  20. Damn, my irony meter pegged and then sprung apart like a cartoon pocketwatch. You should have warned us up front that there was going to be a quote from Lubchenco on integrity. At least my laptop seems to be OK.

    Turd polishing indeed.

  21. Integrity as defined by the White House? Yeah right! Here’s something that may please some people here:

    Riches to rags as Guardian bleeds £33m in a year

    The Guardian, propped up by a car magazine, faces going out of print after warning of a cash crisis and the threat of more redundancies… …Andrew Miller, the chief executive of GNM’s parent company, Guardian Media Group (GMG), warned staff in a series of meetings this week that the group could run out of cash in three to five years if he does not make radical changes, which could include up to 175 redundancies.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/media/8583220/Riches-to-rags-as-Guardian-bleeds-33m-in-a-year.html

  22. Being that we have a President pushing the AGW political agenda, and all his administration is firmly behind or driving that agenda; one has to ask what kind of science are they talking? Real science that ignores political tampering, or the one that created AGW?

  23. Has the NOAA been getting guidance from the political community all along and if so has compliance with that guidance been rewarding?
    The draft policy reads like an inflated performance report or maybe a confession. The first move if they have an integrity problem is to remove the problem or the standards will be meaningless.

  24. It’s hard to read that list of what this policy includes without considering the fact that NOAA policy was missing these features before.

  25. Roy UK says:
    June 18, 2011 at 2:04 am

    I wonder if we get to see what people suggest. I am sure a few people here will make some good suggestions, and will probably post them here, but a few other sites will have commenters who will not make their suggestions public.

    Public comments for proposed rules/regs are posted here:

    http://www.regulations.gov/#!searchResults;cmd=06|15|11-08|15|11;rpp=10;po=0;s=noaa

    Normally, the agency requests a docket number, and it’s posted at the above link where the public can read/write comments online. When the final rule (or draft, in this case) is finished, the agency addresses the credible comments and gives a reason why or why not the suggestion was followed. Sort of like public peer review.

    Since all of the comments are going to an agency email address (integrity.noaa@noaa.gov), I suspect that the comments they don’t like won’t see the light of day.

  26. If NOAA employs Hansen then I for one will not find any credibility in their publications.

  27. Scientific Research Policy

    1) All scientific inquiry shall be made based on scientific method and procedures that are disclosed to the public PRIOR to applying for funding wherein public funds will be used.

    2) All Scientific Investigators will sign a legally binding OATH whereupon violating their OATH they submit to censure. Censure will include termination of present research involvement, inhibition to engage in further research, and repayment of public funds.

    The signed oath with require:
    That the investigator not lie,
    That the investigator not conceal data,
    That the investigator disclose political affiliations
    That the investigator disclose POTENTIAL areas of conflict of interest
    That the investigator archive ALL correspondences during an investigation and post them to public
    Please suggest others

    3) All data will be presented (including graphs) to boldly highlight calculated error and uncertainty.

    4) All investigations will be based on falsifiable hypothesis.

    5) Scientific Investigators NEVER communicate directly with News and Opinion broadcasting entities.

    6) Scientific Investigators acknowledge that they are human and subject to all the foibles of being human and make specific efforts to avoid corruption of the Scientific Method due to their inherent weaknesses.

    This would be a good start in my book. It also should not be necessary but based on the behavior of scientists (so-called) and politicians and news outlets who use their work, this kind of policy is necessary.

    The milk-toast policy the NOAA proposes is pathetic.

  28. One wonders why they feel the need to create this policy after decades of going without. Shouldn’t this have always been required?

    The term smoke-screen comes to mind.

  29. I asked them to change the following:

    Replace:
    “A method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested.”

    With:
    “A method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a *falsifiable* hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested.”

    You can empirically “test” non-falsifiable hypotheses all day long and not get anywhere.

  30. Scientific integrity? At NOAA? How about this lack of integrity – For example, Canada’s reporting stations dropped from 496 in 1989 to 44 in 1991, with the percentage of stations at lower elevations tripling while the numbers of those at higher elevations dropped to one. That’s right: they left “one thermometer for everything north of LAT 65.” And that one resides in a place called Eureka, which has been described as “The Garden Spot of the Arctic” due to its unusually moderate summers.

    That’s right NOAA you guys dropped Canada’s far north data sets from the North West Territories – all of the NWT is as large a land mass as all of the EU and parts of the middle east combined and we’ve only represented that land mass with ONE temperature reading? That’s not the kind of mistake that would be tolerated in a non government job – here in my work world the people who has that sloppy or deliberate work ethic would be fired on the spot. And you guys claim you want integrity? Then there’s the Russian weather data equally as messed up as the Canadian data – there is no integrity when the two largest and coldest land masses on planet earth in favor of more tropical temperatures are deliberately rigged directly because NOAA itself is corrupted by the pro AGW culprits besmirching a once respected institution.

  31. This smells like science managed by politicians. It is amazing. Science does not prove anything it creates and falsifies hypothesis. Because of the short career and time relevancy horizon of politicians, scientific hypothesis are often taken as the truth.

  32. The first thing NOAA needs to do is eliminate the position of chief propagandist, political scientist, and head salesman.

    ( in case you’re wondering, all three positions are currently held by James Hansen )

  33. AlanG says:
    June 18, 2011 at 6:03 am

    The Guardian going down the economic tubes? Could not happen to a more deserving tribe of people. They truly earned all the suffering that is coming to them.

  34. Hey guys. Your cynicism would rise beyond the level of rant if you actually submitted thoughtful comments and shared them with us.

  35. “The policy contains the principles articulated in President Obama’s March 9, 2009, memorandum ..”

    Would that be the same President Obama who fought the release of his birth certificate for two years, and then released one that seems to have been doctored? Is that the same President who claims to have killed Bin Laden, but disposed of the body before the identlty could be ascertained by independent sources. The same Obama who might not reveal his golf scores? Is that the kind of openess and transparency we should expect?

  36. Smokey

    That’s an amazing video Smokey. Even I didn’t realize how corrupted NOAA had become BUT after viewing your video I’m stunned North America itself (plus the entire northern hemisphere) is so poorly represented. Moreover this video also shows how NOAA and East Anglia has gotten Global Warming and their hottest temperatures they post regularly to frighten the masses.

  37. This is PR. Smoke and mirrors. NOAA gets it funding from money stolen at the point of a gun and doled out by corrupt politicians. It will continue to corrupt science to meet the agenda of its political masters.

  38. kim says:
    June 18, 2011 at 1:13 am

    er, uh Mooney. Though I often hesitate to correct slips like that.

    With Holdren and Chu as his picks, we need to worry about scientific integrity after integrity in general.
    =============================================================

    Spot on Kim!! Holdren and Chu? If they are the ones to define integrity……then NOAA is doomed.

    Further,
    “in guidance from the White House, and addresses how NOAA ensures quality science in its practices and policies and promotes a culture of transparency, integrity and ethical behavior.” <——— Is that the same White House that received an award for trasparency behind locked doors with no press allowed? Uhumm yeh…..transparency….that’s the ticket!

    Also, “States the key role of science in informing policy” Now, it isn’t entirely clear what this means, but I take it to mean they are to advise policy makers. If that is what the statement means, then they are wrong. I don’t want these people advising anybody that don’t know the difference between “could not reconcile” and “vindication”.

    I want scientists to present facts, nothing else. If I wanted their opinion, I would have…….. :)…(lol, you guys can fill in the blank.) Their role is not advisory. Nor should it be. When a person spends their lives studying zebras, when they hear hoof beats, they will assume it is zebras. Its horses you loons!!

  39. Some here wish there were better policing in this document. That would result in the fox guarding the hen house. The public’s job is to be ever vigilant. Don’t wish that job was taken from you.

  40. Omission of data is considered falsification! That doesn’t leave much on the Pro-AGW shelf does it?

  41. My corresondence to NOAA:

    This document about NOAA’s commitment to scientific integrity is strange, surreal, a sort of icing on a dried up, moldy, stinking cake.

    More than ignoring scientific integrity, NOAA eschews it.

    Your family of websites are a melange of pr all having the goal of inciting public hysteria. I was especially disappointed in your newest: Climate.gov

    Your attempts to undermine Anthony Watts and his army of SurfaceStation.org monitors, to ignore the thoughtful insights of Judith Curry and so much more speak to your denial of genuine science. One day in the not too distant future, NOAA will be the centerpiece of scientific shame.

    It’s not too late to change, however, to fight and reject your tendencies to a Dr. Strangelovian reflex. The agency has a lot of clean-up to do, however, as I’m sure that most of your “scientists” steeped in the tea of AGW have really come to believe it: they are beyond hope. Lock them in a closet and recruit some genuine thinking scientists – in an array of disciplines – committed to the highest standards in research. Avoid everyone with a degree in “climate science.” What is that, “climate science?” It’s a nouveau pseudo-science committed to intimidating the intellectually vulnerable, a discipline on a par with an advanced degree in education, with a specialty in basket weaving.

    I offered to assist with the evolution of Climate.gov to an interactive website of genuine value (as I had done for NOAA many years earlier). Of all the people with whom I spoke, their united focus was a hatred of Anthony Watts; over and over I heard about his intrusion into “their” world and the indigestion he causes.

    I just looked at Climate.gov; it hasn’t gotten any better.

    In NOAA’s defense, it is not the only agency screaming, in effect, for the creation of a new “commodity” to enrich Al Gore, his minions, and GoldmanSachs with billions of new-found wealth. In NOAA’s non-defense, it is the leader of the pack.

    Please share my correspondence with members of Congress. Feel free to contact me for further information and know that I, and many others, would be pleased to help NOAA turn over a new leaf.

  42. Well I guess science can guild policy, but that is a dangerous place to tread. There are far too many ways that can turn into policy driving science. One of the easiest ways is in the selection of what to study. The mere decision study one thing and not something else can be political. Stating that science can drive policy can give the impression that policy ought to be a consideration of science, it shouldn’t be. I can’t help thinking that policy might have been behind the NOAA model of the BP oil spill that showed it going all the way to North Carolina and beyond.

  43. NOAA’s eventual Scientific Integrity Policy will be meaningless, so long as the same top-level management is in place at NOAA that allowed the past and current non-Integrity to occur and continue. For NOAA to achieve Integrity will require a change in management, and follow-on purge of subordinates.

    Not to pick on NOAA …
    NASA’s (yet to be proposed) Integrity Policy will be meaningless, so long as the same top-level management is in place at NASA that allowed the past and current non-Integrity to occur and continue. For NASA to achieve Integrity will require a change in management, and follow-on purge of subordinates.

  44. There is no governmental agency, regulatory or other, that has not been completely compromised from the top down. Use this video, a well sourced documentary about Dr. Burzinski, MD, PhD and you will gain insight the widespread abuse of power. It’s too bad A.W. didn’t have this information to educate himself and his spouse. This movie will be up on the internet until June 20th as it was held over due to intense interest.
    “Proof yet again that the lunatics have definitely taken over the asylum.”

    (Give this documentary 10 minutes and then decide if it’s worth a watch.)

  45. Really…
    Ethics guidance from the current white house regime? They can’t be serious…That’s just too funny…
    Obama giving guidance on ethics is like getting instructions on how to build a henhouse from the weasel…
    Virginity lessons from a prostitute….Diet tips from the world’s fattest man….Lessons on Jewish history and culture from Adolf himself…
    Or Deficit and Debt reduction guidance from….well…the current pResident, the one who has run up bigger deficits faster than all other Presidents combined.

    Too rich.

  46. Doug Allen says:
    June 18, 2011 at 8:19 am

    Hey guys. Your cynicism would rise beyond the level of rant if you actually submitted thoughtful comments and shared them with us.
    ==============================================================

    The cynicism is justified. The ranting is what you’d expect from people that money was taken from to finance a political ideology. People that don’t know the difference between the words, “can not reconcile” and “vindication” are probably not the best people to start blathering about “first-rate science and guarding against attempts to undermine, discredit or change it” And, it doesn’t pass notice how that statement may be interpreted.

    It could be that many there had an epiphany, prompted by Chu and Holdren……… but then that implies an epiphanatic event by those two. So, yes, some may be a bit skeptical about the sincerity of this. As LIR state, their website screams political advocacy. Now, that’s not to say all NOAA employees are of the same ilk, there are some very sincere researchers there. So, I propose this. The NOAA that exists today, should remain in existence, only as a NGO, on par with Green Peace, the Sierra Club and what not. (Hey, its partially working for the IPCC!) That way, they don’t have to be ashamed or attempt to dismiss their advocacy. The people there, that actually wish to conduct science should stay and we can name it something like the Real Scientific NOAA.

  47. Smokey says: “Doug Allen’s comment gets my vote for the most content-free post of the week.”

    Unfortunately, Smokey, Doug is 100% correct. Ill-informed (“Hansen must go…”), knee-jerk (“…smoke-screen comes to mind”) rants here aren’t worth diddley squat. If anyone wants to have an effect, respond politely in the manner indicated. There is plenty of scope for good, honest suggestions. For example, I see nothing in the draft policy addressing evasion of FOI requests.

    For another example: “Neither unfairly hindering the scientific activities of others nor engaging in dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, coercive manipulation, or other scientific or research misconduct.” This implies that fairly hindering others is perfectly okay. Is this a veiled reference to peer review?

  48. It is very interesting in the draft you linked above to look up the definition of “science” (middle of page 4) and then “scientific method” (top of page 5). Here they are below:

    Science- Knowledge obtained and tested through use of the scientific method. Science may also include the observation and classification of facts with the goal of establishing verifiable knowledge derived through induction and hypothesis.

    Scientific Method- A method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested.

    From these definitions I think it is safe to conclude that most “climate science” is not science at all, or at least won’t be in the NOAA’s eyes if this section of the draft makes it into the final version unrevised. Essentially any part of climate science that does not empirically test a hypothesis but instead uses models for verification would not be considered “science”. It makes you wonder who is really “anti-science” around here.

  49. “guard against” … “undermine, discredit or change it”

    This is not science. It is policy version of their previous behaviour.

  50. Science is at risk.

    Science as a human invention needs to be protected from abuse by people in the “Scientific Community” who use the word “science” as if it were a religion and they were the sole guardian priests who appoint themselves as the arbiters of what is “science”.

    The abuse by members of the scientific community in order to service their social/political/religious agenda has turned the word “science” into a word like “Alchemy” or “wizardry”.

    They abuse is deep and the abusers won’t admit it.

    Time to cut off money and prosecute the abusers.

  51. The first impression of the draft document is that it serves as a sham. It appears to impose a bureaucratic and labyrinthine procedure designed to make it virtually impossible for any allegations of misconduct and complaint to succeed until and unless those allegations serve the political purpose of the NOAA Administrators. The document has an uncanny resemblence to the procedures used by academic departments to derail legitimate investigations into academic corruption at the universities.

  52. I like to see them add something like:

    “It shall be in contravention of such rules or policies as NOAA shall prescribe as necessary and appropriate in the public interest, for any NOAA employee, or any other person acting under the direction thereof, to take any action to fraudulently influence, coerce, manipulate, or mislead the peer review process or any internal or independent body engaged in the performance of an audit of any scientific paper, testimony or public statement, for the purpose of rendering such papers, testimony or statements materially misleading.”

  53. Am I daft for thinking their new scientific integrity policy may be heading a bit sideways if it
    “Encourages scientists to publish data and findings to advance their careers ?

    Lubchenco must have slipped that one in there. That’s her specialty.

    http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110616_scientificintegrity.html

    NOAA’s draft policy:

    Lays out formal guidance with a “Code of Conduct”
    Creates the conditions for enabling first-rate science and guarding against attempts to undermine, discredit or change it
    States the key role of science in informing policy
    Encourages scientists to publish data and findings to advance science, their careers and NOAA’s reputation for reliable science
    Encourages NOAA scientists to be leaders in the scientific community
    Provides whistle-blower protection
    Applies to all NOAA employees and provides applicable policies for contractors and grantees who conduct, supervise, assess and/or interpret scientific information for the use of NOAA, the Department of Commerce and the nation
    Includes a training component.

  54. Hansen isn’t with NOAA……you can’t google that before you post? No wonder many are ignorant about this topic.

    charles nelson

    Way to use one year. So you are saying that there hasn’t been any melting in the last ~30 years?

  55. Get the government carrot and strings out of NOAA, and the respect will return.
    May I suggest a thorough house-cleaning?
    Public trust cannot be engineered through application of whitewash and/or rewording.

  56. David says:
    June 18, 2011 at 5:11 am
    From NOAA working draft.
    “Scientific Method
    A method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested.”

    “The redefining of “Scientific Method here is astounding. Read the first sentence and think of CAGW. So first you define something as a problem!!
    Then you follow a shortcut version of the scientific method, after you have already defined something as a “problem” .”

    David,

    I think you have identified the core deception embedded by one of the NOAA post-modern science advocates. I encourage all of the good folks at WUWT to address this in their responses to NOAA, highlighting the original/historical definition of The Scientific Method as the only solid foundation for scientific integrity! These skunks are attempting another ‘bait and switch’ game of deceit. Don’t let them get away with it!

    Thank You Very Much, for pointing that out, David!

  57. Scientific integrity; did you actually try to prove your theory wrong? Did you allow politics and your own funding to influence the outcome of your experiments? Idakno, maybe because people with no scientific background at all are more correct with their opinions than you are with your “Political Science” has finally reared it’s head.

    When the next “cold spell” completely annihilates this many named influence humanity is supposed to have over the climate happens, you will realize that the average idiot isn’t an idiot after all.

  58. I’m too busy at the moment to actually read through the proposed NOAA policy. Is anyone else interested to know if the proposed policy has an retroactive provisions? Or is it just limited to future publications? I would imagine there is some housecleaning to do if they are trying to raise their ethical standards.

  59. “The policy incorporates the principles of scientific integrity contained in guidance from the White House, …”

    Boy, if that don’t say it all. And I found a typo -

    “Encourages scientists to publish data and findings TO advance science, their careers and NOAA’s reputation for reliable science”
    should be
    “Encourages scientists to publish data and findings THAT advance science, their careers, and NOAA’s reputation for reliable science”

    Subtle point, but they’ve been doing that for years.

  60. I made a wishful amendment:

    NOAA’s draft policy:

    Encourages scientists to publish data and findings to advance science, their careers and NOAA’s reputation for reliable science.

    Requires scientists to publish data and findings because it’s the right thing to do.

  61. John W. Garrett says:
    June 18, 2011 at 7:50 am

    The first thing NOAA needs to do is eliminate the position of chief propagandist, political scientist, and head salesman.

    ( in case you’re wondering, all three positions are currently held by James Hansen )

    Earth to commentators!
    Earth to commentators!
    You are wrong wrong and wrong John W.
    James Hansen is employed by NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
    What he does is not part of the mission of NASA.

    Now your three bears are Janey, Tommy, and Tommy P. Yes they should be fired.

  62. jafo says:
    June 18, 2011 at 11:36 am

    Hansen isn’t with NOAA……you can’t google that before you post? No wonder many are ignorant about this topic.

    charles nelson

    Way to use one year. So you are saying that there hasn’t been any melting in the last ~30 years?
    ======================================================================

    Hmm, melting or taken away by the winds and current. That’s a distinction that should probably be made. And then, there’s some of us here that would say……so……an ice free Arctic would be much more beneficial to mankind than detrimental. But, alas, it is only a pipe-dream. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2010GL045698.shtml

    But you’re correct, Hansen is on the other side of the same coin……….. govt. funded ideological advocacy.

  63. wow, the NOAA is going to get guidance on “promoting a culture of transparency, integrity and ethical behavior” from the liar-in-chief, this oughta be great….i think everyone saw enough of obama’s (lack of)”transparency, integrity and ethical behavior” during the health care shove down….“We gotta pass the bill so you can find out what’s in it”

  64. btw, it seems like they trying to ramp up the AGW fraud again thru the media – i heard some clown on the John Bachelor radio show saying that the flows of the Colorado River are dwindling and will be expected to further decrease with “onset of global warming” and of course he makes no mention of the huge snowfall we’ve had in the Sierra Nevada range…they just pick and choose their “facts” as it suits their needs…seems to be a concerted effort…

    and then i heard on some radio news, prob CNN or ABC, someone claiming that there has been a huge upturn in extreme weather(hurricanes, tornados, blizzards(?)) the last 5 years or so and that this is attributable to AGW….this was radio news…i guess they don’t need to check facts…

  65. kim says:
    June 18, 2011 at 1:13 am

    er, uh Mooney. Though I often hesitate to correct slips like that.

    With Holdren and Chu as his picks, we need to worry about scientific integrity after integrity in general.

    kim, I generally agree with you, typing errors can creep in quite easily. However, I couldn’t help wondering if you’d made a minor spelling error here. There seems to be a letter missing.

Comments are closed.