Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
The Guardian, that endless source of climate activism, expoundeth as follows:
15,000 sq km of coral reef could be lost in current mass bleaching, say scientists
Noaa predicts third-ever global bleaching event could cause a 6% global reduction in coral reefs in less than two years.
A massive coral bleaching event currently ravaging coral reefs across the globe could destroy thousands of square kilometres of coral cover forever, US government scientists have said.
In figures exclusively released to the Guardian, scientists from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) said about 12% of the world’s reefs have suffered bleaching in the last year. Just under half of these, an area of 12,000 sq km of coral, may be lost forever.
Say what? NOAA is releasing secret results exclusively to the Guardian? What’s wrong with this picture?
So I have emailed the NOAA folks as follows:
Dear NOAA Folk, and Dr. Mark Eakin:
In the British magazine The Guardian, I noticed the following:
15,000 sq km of coral reef could be lost in current mass bleaching, say scientists
Noaa predicts third-ever global bleaching event could cause a 6% global reduction in coral reefs in less than two years.
A massive coral bleaching event currently ravaging coral reefs across the globe could destroy thousands of square kilometres of coral cover forever, US government scientists have said.
In figures exclusively released to the Guardian, scientists from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) said about 12% of the world’s reefs have suffered bleaching in the last year. Just under half of these, an area of 12,000 sq km of coral, may be lost forever.
Is the Guardian is telling the truth? Is NOAA secretly giving exclusive results to a foreign newspaper before releasing them to the taxpayers who paid for them? The “Coral Reef Watch” section of NOAA is credited with being the ones responsible for this underhanded action. Is this true?
And if so … what on earth are you people thinking of? That would be a blatant misuse of your authority, knowledge and power.
In any case, I call on you to immediately release whatever secret exclusive results the Guardian is referring to. They are using it to alarm the populace WITHOUT ALLOWING US TO INSPECT THE DATA, and you are complicit in their action.
I request that you send me by immediate email a copy of the exact results the article is referring to, and I call on you to publicly declare an end to such underhanded secret release of data. The Guardian is noted for its fire-brand alarmist climate rhetoric. And that’s fine for them, but you, on the other hand, are alleged to be scientists.
So I ask you to act as scientists, to permanently eschew such “exclusively released” figures, and to state publicly that in future your results will be available to all, rather than secretly given to your favored journalists.
My regards to you,
w.
PS—Please be aware that I have raised the issue publicly [with link to this post].
Should be interesting to see how this one plays out. I’ll report back when there are developments.
My best to all,
w.
As Always: If you disagree with something that I’ve written, please quote the exact words you disagree with so we can all understand exactly what you are objecting to.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Well played Sir. The Guardian: The home of “Climate Bollocks”.
Not just climate bollocks, but bollocks in general. For our American friends, this week’s article in the Spectator will give you a good idea:
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/steerpike/2015/07/is-your-barbecue-racist-the-guardian-would-like-to-know/
The Guardian
Wrong on everything. All the time.
It may surprise you to know that it was once considered a great newspaper.
It will not surprise you to know that its circulation is a mere 175,000 (one tenth that of The Sun) having fallen by 9.5% over the past year.
It is sad that this rag calls itself a “News”paper and that it is English owned. Used to be respected when named “The Manchester Guardian”. Started going downhill when it called itself the Grauniad.
That barbecue diatribe is total unmitigated B/S. Caucasoids have been having summer cooking festivities since at least the time of the Windmill Hill culture in southern England. To this day we still have cookouts and show the same rise in conception rates as the people get together and mingle. The US shows a spike in conception rates in June-July with it’s largest spike in November. The Åland Islands, being quit Nordic and really keen on celebrating Midsomer, has it’s peak in June. One other item we share with Windmill Hill culture is the propensity of hanging trophy heads in our places of residence.
Definitely well played!
You think THAT’S bad? Try this.
Aliens may destroy humanity to protect other civilisations, say scientists
Rising greenhouse emissions could tip off aliens that we are a rapidly expanding threat, warns a report
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/aug/18/aliens-destroy-humanity-protect-civilisations
Wow they’ve really streamlined the alarmist propaganda pipeline, they now bypass all other media outlets and go straight to the Communist Chairman of lefty lie rags ‘the Guardian’.
Is the Guardian telling the truth?
The Guardian wouldn’t recognise ‘the truth’ if if came up and bit them on the arse!
It’s hilarious…they STILL can’t bring themselves to admit that they were wrong about the Euro!
Yes. The Guardian=The BBC at prayer.
+1
But But But………..You’ll just want to find something wrong with our data. Good try Willis, hopefully there will be a reply
What is next course of action if NOAA doesn’t respond?
I am soooooo worried that an Asteroid COULD impact the earth in two years. Our only chance to save the earth is to instill almighty fear into the public psyche to beg the governments to save us, thus enabling world governments to enact totalitarian polices – for our children’s future.
As CAGW appears to be more religious than scientific, perhaps there has been a typo and they meant ‘Noah’ rather than ‘Noaa’ with their use of lower-case for the abbreviation rather than the usual upper-case ‘NOAA’.
Yes Noaa and their pronouncements of a great flood 🙂
Well it was true. But it was a flood of bs imo
Members of the Executive Branch of our federal government no longer consider themselves “servants of the people”. Better guard that lip, Willis. Antagonizing your masters is rift with onerous consequences. With AGW having been declared “a national security issue”, lose lips could sink ships (of State).
The highest court in my State has ruled that (to put it politely) misrepresentation is acceptable exercise of free speech in politics. I am thinking that it is equally possible that the Guardian just made the NOAA release up. These people are ideologues, they know that the truth in politics is what the people believe and has no necessary linkage to reality. That game plan is why these people are so creative and effective..
That’s the first thing I thought as well, the very moment I saw “In figures exclusively released to the Guardian..” my BS-O’meter registered a 9.0. They need to be held to account on their statement.
Ummmmm…how?
We’ve lost most means to hold anyone accountable for anything these days. Politicians, federal employees, media outlets…
Just in time for the Climate Summit of the Americas starting today and going on through Friday in Toronto, Ont. Canada (oh the shame). Rehearsal Dinner for COP 15.
http://10times.com/climate-summit-americas
Of course “deny, deny, deny” comes to mind along with the “blind leading the blind”. Another nice freebee for bureaucrats and a chance for industry to follow the money – money sniffing blood hounds will abound. Politicians are falling all over themselves to be seen as “Green” leaders. Course a lot of other people see them as “Green” leaders too – the folding kind you put in your pocket or under your mattress.
Nice catch Willis. With many countries like Canada in recession, the gravy train is ramping up.
The rhetoric is already deafening in our national media – all versions of it. Sock puppets everywhere.
Well, I gotta go get ready for my colonoscopy so I wish the folks at the Climate Summit of the Americas all the downstream effects of what I am about to accomplish ….
Wayne: I think that Paris is considered to be COP21 (not 15) – which, as I have previously said stands for ‘Continuation Of Pause [in the] 21st Century’
(with apologies to those bored with this ‘joke’)
Of course they are holding this summit at one of the most expensive hotels in Toronto.
Not their money.
NOAA seems to be going down the same road as a certain hero of the Battle of Saratoga who decided to betray his country by giving the British an exclusive on some sensitive information. He was the original Benedict Arnold. Perhaps NOAA envies his infamy. /sarc
Yup. He was the last true American patriot, true to his oath of allegiance to the Crown. 🙂
I was just reading about him in the best-seller, America’s Hidden History. On page 177, Washington’s biographer JT Flexner wrote of him, “A genius at leading men and at fighting, Benedict Arnold was, in fact, the greatest combat general in the war on either side.”
And betrayed by the Congress critters, on all sides, especially the Adams wing. Long before his own betrayal.
Not just destroyed.
Destroyed forevah!
The Guardian claims it got exclusive data from NOAA, but given its history of miniscule acquaintance with the truth, how do you know IT isn’t making this up too? I hope you sent a similar letter to the Guardian asking for clarification.
Thanks, Gary. I did not write to the Guardian. I figure once NOAA answers, I’ll be in a much clearer position. If they deny giving any exclusive data to the Guardian, then I can write to the Guardian and have NOAA’s denial in my pocket.
The game is afoot …
w.
How can that work?
NOAA have to ask every single one of their employees if they were the source of the exclusive information.
But some will be on holiday, some will be busy on other things and some won’t recall who they were talking to about El Ninos.
So they may well say “We didn’t give an official press release but cannot disclose all our communications”. Indeed, it’s hard to see what else they could say.
And without asking the Guardian to name their source… that’s the end of that
@ur momisugly M Courtney: All NOAA has to do is search its email database for the past month for emails sent to the Guardian in the past week, and/or for certain keywords.
Might want to consider immediately filing a FOI request to back up your email request, seeing’s how there’s historically been a complete lack of willingness to release any data.
Below is the link to the Coral Reef Watch page. However, I believe article in The Guardian is related to the recent paper in science comparing two CO2 scenarios.
http://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/satellite/analyses_guidance/global_bleaching_update_20150602.php
Thanks, Felix Martinez. The CRW website does not even try to explain how corals, that like living in tropical waters, would die from an El Niño, nor how they have survived El Niños from the beginning.
Here is the link to the Science paper:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/349/6243/aac4722.abstract
From the structured abstract
“Warming and acidification of surface ocean waters will increase proportionately with cumulative CO2 emissions (see figure).”
Oh ya? That’s the assumption most alarmist make. I’m not sure what evidence these people have been privy to but if I’m not mistaken, that’s the crux of the debate.
Seems sensitivity is much lower that the modellers have assumed.
Just read the article in the Guardian. The claim the data comes from a Nature paper from folks at James Cook U. The abstract for that article states that 12 of 21 reefs severely bleached recovered. The factors? Being in deeper, cleaner waters with a pristine fish fauna. Well, duh! Systems in “healthy” states can and do rebound from what really are natural perturbations. Overfish them and dump all kinds of crap on them and they will not. Unfortunately, the obsession with the CO2 boogeyman has stolen valuable resources that would have been better spent addressing the real impacts on coral reefs!
Felix Martinez July 7, 2015 at 9:14 pm
Thanks, Felix, but nope. They claim they have “exclusive” data from NOAA, and Nature is not exclusive, so they must be talking about something else.
Indeed, and well said. Healthy reefs are what are needed. The problem is not bleaching, that’s been going on since forever. The problem is located elsewhere, in things like coral mining, effluent pollution, overfishing, dynamiting, killing of parrotfish … the number of ways to damage a reef is large.
All the best,
w.
Noaa predicts third-ever global bleaching event
=========================
“third-ever” implies that there have been only 3 global bleaching events since the beginning of time. “Noaa predicts” implies that it hasn’t happened, rather it may happen in the future.
Predicting harm from bleaching is like saying bird are going extinct in the Northern Hemisphere in September, because they migrate south for the winter.
Coral reef bleaching events are a completely normal, especially in staghorn coral as pictured above. The Red Sea has some of the warmest waters on earth, and some of the most fantastic corals. If warm water was harmful to corals, why do most of the hard corals on earth life only in the tropics?
Clearly corals prefer warm water, as there are very few coral reefs outside the tropics.
Another danger is from sunscreen:
Even WWF puts CO2 and “acidification” at the bottom of their list of threats to coral reefs. Pretty much proof activists know they are pushing a line of bs.
The Best of British Luck sir! (And I look forward to the response, but I may be looking forward for quite a while…)
Yes, the ‘exclusive data release’ to the Guardian leapt off the page at me as well. I doubt NOAA would be as inept as that. I suspect the Guardian is just ‘making stuff up’ as usual and you can call them out on that until the cows come home but nobody on the alarmist side, or even governments, will give a toss
Perhaps … we’ll see how it plays out.
As to whether anyone will give a toss, I give a toss, and I’m unwilling to sit quiet and let the foes of transparency win out without at least registering my strong objections. Call me quixotic, but there it is …
Regards,
w.
Willis
At least if you tilt at a wind turbine on a horse you won’t be hurt.
However with your record I wouldn’t back the wind turbine
Willis
It only takes one voice to start a revolution
Well done
I wish I could share your optimism, Willis.
Nothing is “forever”. Seems like I’ve seen this story before.
Thank you, Willis!
Any data generated by NOAA is for the sole benefit of the taxpayers that paid for it, providing such data disclosure doesn’t jeopardizes national security, which I can’t possibly see being an issue with such innocuous coral reef data…
Having many friends that have worked, or still do work for the government, I’ve heard it’s quite common practice for government agencies to codify documents as “classified” as a means of CYA, when such codification is very difficult to justify. Depending on the code given to a document, the data is stored on designated servers which require individuals to have a certain security clearance level before they can gain access to the information.
Such security protocols make perfect sense if they are used judiciously, but if they’re used capriciously for CYA or to hide potentially embarrassing unclassified information, then obviously it’s blatant fraud, and is an actionable offense.
NOAA classifying coral reef data as “Secret” certainly seems to be an example of fraud, as it is in violation of FOIA regulations, which is an illegal and actionable offense.
It will be very interesting to see how NOAA responds to Willis’ e-mail.
You da man, Willis!
P.S. I just hope Willis doesn’t mysteriously get a letter from the IRS saying they’re going to conduct an audit on him…. The US government hates irritating protruding nails and have ways to pound them down…
providing such data disclosure doesn’t jeopardizes national security
============================
according to POTUS climate change is the greatest threat facing the United States. thus, all information regarding climate change will be classified top secret. after their self-declared wars on poverty and drugs, expect the US to declare war on climate.
http://www.jimandnancyforest.com/wp-content/uploads/2005/04/Pogo.jpg
“We have met the enemy and he is us”.
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve quoted this in the past 30 years – it should be the mantra of modern civilzation.
Walt Kelly’s Pogo lived out in the Okefenokee Swamp, where the possums don’t always speak good English, but Howland Owl might have put it this way:
We have met the enemy, and we are it.
You might even call it the tragedy of the swamp.
As coral reef bleaching is a response to changes in temperature and other factors and is usually temporary as the corals adjust their symbiotic zooanthellae, I wonder where they get the completely unfounded idea it would be permanent. Or are they planning a huge chemical spill somewhere. More sheer fabrication from nothing.
As increasing CO2 has been enriching the world’s corals, with them growing faster over the last 50 years, and warming water makes a larger portion of the oceans amenable to corals, there is no downside to the global warming they are predicting.
It’s ocean cooling that is the major danger to coral reefs, as calcium carbonate is more soluble in cold water than warm. Cold water and, for humans, cold air are killers.
During the great majority of the last 600 million years, both CO2 and global temperature was much higher than they are now. And the Cliffs of Dover were NOT laid down during low CO2 periods. Corals clearly thrived back then, when it was warmer and CO2 much higher.
NOAA issued a press release about this July 6. When the Guardian says it has exclusive information it means that, rather than simply following its usual practice of regurgitating climate communist handouts it has telephoned the NOAA press office for a quote. This is then labeled ‘exclusive’.
Maps at NIAA’s coral-reef watch page show that the El Niño of the past couple of years is the culprit.
Lord Monckton,
But do you mean the 2014-2015 El Nino that NOAA/NCDC “Karl-ized” out of the history books?
It didn’t happen. Down the memory hole.
Monckton of Brenchley July 7, 2015 at 10:04 pm
As usual, Lord M., your insights are likely correct. If so, I want to highlight the practice.
Thanks,
w.
Thank you Lord Monckton. I’d still say that by describing a telephone response from the press office of NOAA as “… figures exclusively released to the Guardian”, “figures” given they imply by “… scientists from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) …”, the “Grauniad” is guilty of misrepresentation. I hope Willis keeps the heat on them.
I’m sure the switchboard operator at NOAA confirms that it’s worse than we thought.
it could be lost…it depends on the if…that s not science
Even though I agree that releasing information exclusively to one news outlet before “going global” (no pun intended) is not very appropriate behaviour from a research institute, I assume NOAA has intellectual property rights on the information they produce and therefore have the liberty to do this and the liberty to ignore anyone demanding they share their results. So I do not expect them to meet your demands and don’t think there is any grounds for them to do so. Scientific research can be very competitive, which is why I would expect it is up to NOAA when they share and with whom. Demanding a research institute to make their results “available to all” could very much damage their competitive position.
Aran July 7, 2015 at 10:36 pm
Thanks, Aran. First, NOAA is not a “research institute”. It is a branch of the US Government. So all your claims about what a “research institute” might or might not do are not relevant.
Next, I haven’t a clue what you mean by their “competitive position”. You seem to think they are a private organization or an NGO. Who is NOAA in competition with, the British Met Office?
Finally, no, they are not free to do whatever they wish with their findings. Like all government agencies, they are covered by a complex web of rules and regulations.
So … if indeed they exclusively passed such information to a foreign newspaper, is it illegal for them to do what they did? Heck, I don’t know, and if you asked three lawyers you might get four answers.
On the other hand, is it ethical for them to feed their results exclusively to their pet alarmists?
Absolutely not.
w.
Willis
The Guardian was signed up to the climate science rapid response team
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2010/11/10/climate-scientists-form-rapid-response-media-team-to-counter-denialist-claims/
Amongst the luminaries are John Abraham and Scott Mandia.
Assuming this group and the Guardian still have a relationship they might be the place to go to get a rapid response to your question. Scott used to post here on a regular basis of course.
Tonyb
Willis: great answer. Ultimately the US taxapayer owns (or should own) the information, and the NOAA should be accountable to the US taxpayers for its use of it. If it does sloppy work; if it fails to keep good records; if it fails to share those records properly; if it shares them first/only with certain parties, espcecially foreign for-profit parties.
These are serious questions. I will be interested in NOAA’s answers, but I won’t; be holding my breath.
Tony,
“Amongst the luminaries are John Abraham and Scott Mandia.”
In other words a dim bulb and a cape wearing clown.
I am not familiar with the exact way science is organised in the USA, so I can not comment on that. But yes, in general research agencies or institutes or whatever you want to call them (I basically mean anybody producing scientific output) are in competition with each other. For funding, prestige (which may lead to funding), intelligent people (who may again lead to funding) etc. The place I work for at the moment gets part of their funds from government and the rest from cooperation with commercial partners. The latter often obviously don’t want to give all their internal information to their competitors, so non-disclosure agreements and the such are quite common. My previous employer, on a different continent, was exactly the same. By demanding scientific research organisations to give away their findings to anybody who asks for is, is basically weakening them enormously.
@Aran
You seem to be stuck on this “research institute” idea. NOAA is not like Pfizer or Merck or any other private entity conducting research on drugs or whatever, and it is NOAA that’s the topic of this post. NOAA’s work product is the property of those who paid for it, ie, the people of the United States. There are no intellectual property rights conferred on NOAA separately from the people of the United States that can exclude public access to their work product. Likewise, they are not free to divulge their work to some and not to others, publication in the usual scientific journals not withstanding.
I am talking about any entity producing scientific research. Not just private institutes. The most stringent intellectual Property regulations I have seen so far were actually within a government-funded organisation. Again, I don’t know the American situation, but I would be very very very surprised if NOAA’s output really would be considered property of all American people. That would be an extremely socialist policy. Not even Cuba would go that far
Is NOAA supposed to have a ‘competitive position’ and, if so, with whom?
Aren’t they a government funded institution whose remit is to undertake research for the benefit of the populace that fund them?
Every creature can be destroyed, with enough bleach!
http://m.liveleak.com/view?i=ee0_1349946618