NOAA launches new website: climate.gov

While still carrying the label “Development Prototype”, the website looks mostly functional. www.climate.gov

It is the effort of the new NOAA Climate Services division – your tax dollars at work.  They write:

At this time, the NCS Portal prototype only scratches the surface of the many climate datasets, products, and services available across NOAA. This effort will gradually transition from a prototype to an operational status over the next year. Our plan is to actively gather user feedback through focus groups, usability studies, and informal communications. Over the next several years, we will expand the NCS Portal’s scope and functionality in a user-driven manner to greatly enhance the accessibility and usefulness of NOAA’s climate resources. As this effort continues to expand in future years, partners from outside of NOAA will become involved in this effort. The NCS Portal will be a central component of NOAA’s commitment to enhancing the access to and extensibility of climate data and services, timely articles and information, education resources, and tools for engagement and decision-making.

Here’s the main page, which is not fully shown because it is so tall:

They do have an interesting, but mostly eye-candy interactive dashboard, which lets users diddle around with a slider control to change the date range.
Even though NOAA manages a satellite program, satellite data is not included, as they seem to still prefer the dodgy surface temperature record. Old habits die hard I suppose. It seems rather petty that they would include the satellite derived Arctic sea ice,  but not the satellite derived temperature.

They do have a feedback “Tell us what you think” link on the about page, should anyone wish to comment.
h/t to Jan Null
Advertisements

93 thoughts on “NOAA launches new website: climate.gov

  1. “The NCS Portal will be a central component of NOAA’s commitment to enhancing the access to and extensibility of climate data and services, timely articles and information, education resources, and tools for engagement and decision-making.”
    Someone needs to teach these folks how to write a basic English sentence.
    I know – this is the standard language found in business, education, and government nowadays. They think it makes them sound smarter, but it is just a heaping helping of convoluted gobbledy-gook.

  2. Does anyone else notice that if you drag the little slider bar to 2009, all of the graphs but one go to 2009. Sunlight %, whatever that is stops at 1999. Any particular reason for this?

  3. John Egan (21:52:21) : “…Someone needs to teach these folks how to write a basic English sentence. I know – this is the standard language found in business, education, and government nowadays. They think it makes them sound smarter, but it is just a heaping helping of convoluted gobbledy-gook.”
    No matter how thin they slice it, it’s still baloney.

  4. Interesting that Arctic sea ice is included in the dashboard, yet Antarctic is not. I can’t help but speculate as to why…

  5. No need for sarcasm. This is what you want isn’t it. Greater transparency and access to data. Use the opportunity.

  6. Why does the September Arctic ice extent end in 2008?
    IIRC, the September 2009 level was roughly that of 2005!

  7. Re: Michael R (21:56:08)
    “Any particular reason for this?”
    Easy.. it’s NASA.
    A bloated bureaucratic government entity that has to spend as much money as possible in order to ensure funding for the next cycle. Never mind that former NASA head Michael Griffith (also ex CEO of the CIA’s In-Q-tel) was lambasted by Hansen for having a less than AGW compliant position.
    “In particular, James Hansen, NASA’s top official on climate change, said Griffin’s comments showed “arrogance and ignorance”, as millions will likely be harmed by global warming.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Griffin
    Published on October 16, 2004
    The Genesis space capsule that crashed into the Utah desert last month failed because four pencil-stub-sized gravity switches designed to trigger release of the spacecraft’s parachutes were installed backwards, NASA officials said Friday.
    http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=MN&p_theme=mn&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=1064E9A0F38C39E8&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM
    09 October 1999
    NASA lost its $125 million Mars Climate Orbiter spacecraft as a result of a mistake that would shame a first-year physics student—failing to convert Imperial units to metric. The problem arose from a culture clash between spacecraft engineers and navigation specialists, says Mary Hardin, a spokeswoman for NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena.
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16422070.900-schoolkid-blunder-brought-down-mars-probe.html

  8. On the left side:
    Carbon Dioxide: Earth’s Hottest Topic.
    They got that one right.
    Translates to Hotly Debated. now that the squelchers are going away.
    I will be impressed when they start including the data pre-1900, as far back as possible.
    Lay it all out on the table.

  9. The intellectual and prestigious nature of The Wall Street Journal is not compromised in reporting on Climategate.
    “The East Anglians’ mistreatment of scientists who challenged global warming’s claims—plotting to shut them up and shut down their ability to publish—evokes the attempt to silence Galileo. The exchanges between Penn State’s Michael Mann and East Anglia CRU director Phil Jones sound like Father Firenzuola, the Commissary-General of the Inquisition.
    For three centuries Galileo has symbolized dissent in science. In our time, most scientists outside this circle have kept silent as their climatologist fellows, helped by the cardinals of the press, mocked and ostracized scientists who questioned this grand theory of global doom. Even a doubter as eminent as Princeton’s Freeman Dyson was dismissed as an aging crank.”
    Climategate: Science Is Dying
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704107104574572091993737848.html

  10. It looks like the shown warming trend is directly related to increased sunlight, albeit in a lagging fashion as one would expect from a huge heatsink like planet earth. Still, I want to see the medieval warming period for comparison. As it is, the dashboard page was doubtlessly designed with a warmist bias.

  11. As you know the Copenhagen global warming summit will start soon. Ironically, Copenhagen has just recorded its coldest November ever since records began!

  12. HR (22:08:25) :
    No need for sarcasm. This is what you want isn’t it. Greater transparency and access to data. Use the opportunity.
    Funny that the old practice of only including data that proves AGW still survives.. everything that disproves it is noticeably absent..

  13. Kirk W. Hanneman (22:04:23) :
    “Interesting that Arctic sea ice is included in the dashboard, yet Antarctic is not. I can’t help but speculate as to why…”
    Yes, Antarctic Sea Ice charts don’t fit well in the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming narrative so NOAA chooses to suppress them:
    Antarctic Sea Ice Extent from NSIDC:
    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_timeseries.png
    Antarctic Sea Ice Extent from Cryoshoere Today:
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg
    Global Sea Ice Area from Cryoshpere Today:
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

  14. Re: Kirk W. Hanneman (22:04:23) :
    Interesting that Arctic sea ice is included in the dashboard, yet Antarctic is not. I can’t help but speculate as to why…
    Yeah, I’m guessing it’s because Antarctic sea ice is actually increasing, and has been doing so at a statistically significant rate since 1970. Can’t have any seeds of global warming doubt sown, can we now?

  15. rbateman (22:11:38) :
    “On the left side:
    Carbon Dioxide: Earth’s Hottest Topic.”

    It is not NOT Earth’s hottest topic. If the powers that be would pay attention to REAL pollution problems and start focusing back on real science, we would be OK.
    But, NOOOOO……public servant James Hansen goes on record about Copenhagen.
    We appreciate that, but……
    Stick to asteroids and Carrington, Mr. (Dr.?) Hansen, and we won’t have a problem.
    The problem is they have been diverted by the “hottest topic” while the real scientific woes have been staring us in the face all along.
    Start paying attention to the REAL threats to our existence…and learn how to adapt thereto.
    Simple solution.
    NOAA…are you paying attention??? I did not think so.
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  16. NOAA Climate Services Portal Dashboard results:
    – Temps: leveling/declining;
    – CO2: rising increasingly;
    – Sunlight %: level;
    – Sea level: leveling;
    – Arcitc ice: ticking up;
    Summary: CO2 non-correlation to any other above data sets. And this proves what?
    – Antarctic ice: not included;
    – Solar flux: not included;
    – Sunspots: not included;
    – ENSO: not included.

  17. Well balanced perspectives presented on that site.
    “The increase of co2 we see is 100% due to the human activity, give or take a few percent”… “no competing theory”… Less than 1% chance this is caused from something else…
    Really there is “no competing theory”? None?

  18. We shall see what we shall see.
    So far, it looks like the start of a PR orchestrated campaign with homogenized [and sterilized] data and stories.
    There’s safety and security in dogma.

  19. Nice to see everyone pointing out things like the lack of antarctic ice graphs.
    Also, the designers of the website had better hope that nobody clicks on the sunlight graph – the one it pops up is more indicative of the sun’s power. For that matter, they’d better hope that we don’t click on the temp. graph – it doesn’t look as scary without all the red and blue lines.

  20. Doesn’t increased CO2 availability allow for increases in vegitation growth?
    i.e. The trees in the rain forest have virtually nothing in the soil, from which to grow. Long term, all their building blocks come from the atmosphere + the sun.
    Maybe the next “sky is falling” Gore issue will be “Oh no, we’re removing all the lubricant (petrolium) from the earth. It’s going to stop spinning!

  21. Note the default year of the end-handle in the graph section, 2000. Choosen to give the maximum impression of increase. If focus period would be set to the last ten years , that ought be of more interest, a different picuture emerges…

  22. NOAA also manages the Argos-which-must-not-be-named fleet. Whaddya suppose the odds are of that inconvenient data being included on that website?
    p.s., user driven via focus groups? how quaint. good to see our government is keeping abreast of the most modern techniques from last century.

  23. John Egan (21:52:21): … it is just a heaping helping of convoluted gobbledy-gook.
    John, you need to learn Newspeak. It is the verbal equivalent of Opposite Day. What a Newspeaker says and what they mean are the opposite.
    For instance, when they say, “… access to and extensibility of climate data and services, timely articles and information, education resources, and tools for engagement and decision-making,” they mean just the opposite — hide the data, obstruct publications, deny resources to education, and provide no useful tools.
    Like any government agency, NOAA acts in exact contravention of their stated missions.
    However, they work for us, and we are their bosses because we pay their salaries, and we have ways of reminding them of that, and this new NOAA/NCS website is going to be interactive whether they like it or not.

  24. The dashboard on NOAA’s website shows the Arctic ocean at it’s 3rd lowest record min. since 1979 but fails to mention the Amundsen Expedition that sailed the Northwest passage in a sailing boat (with no engine) in 1906. That’s the kind of omission that makes us mistrust them. BTW; The ship is in Vancouver Canada on display in a museum. I took a tour of it for a geology class in 1986.

  25. Actually, it’s hilarious! Can someone grabs a screenshot of the main page, with all the graphs on it, and then click on the ‘Incoming Sunlight’ graph and take a screenshot of that page, too? ( https://www.climate.gov/climate_dashboard/Sun.html )
    ..before they notice and alter the second one!! 🙂
    The 2nd view of the solar graph shows an increase in solar radiation that matches the temperature graph. Hmm isn’t that interesting?

  26. HR
    You must be extremely naive if you believe this represents greater transparency.
    The only thing transparent is the intent to spin the debate – for example, just a cursory look throws up this with respect to claimed increasing acidity of the ocean “This change in ocean chemistry interferes with the ability of marine plants and animals to build their shells”. I refer you to yesterday’s “Oh Snap” post which reveals that at least some (note no claim for universality here) can cope admirably.

  27. In the wake of Climategate, they sure aren’t making much of a statement in terms of transparency, reguritating the same warming bias. Doesn’t say a whole lot for what they think about public support for funding.

  28. The first thought that came to my mind was that this web site is a direct response to the phenomenal success of blogs like WUWT and CA in getting out the truth.
    Take it as a compliment Anthony. It’s as close as they are going to get to giving you one.

  29. The NOAA does need to fix their website.
    They have hundreds of databases and much of it has been presented by individual scientists in relevant useful ways.
    Its just that you can’t find it. The really good material one has to find by accident almost.
    And it is essentially impossible to get any raw temperature data (even though Jones is now saying that all/most of the raw data he threw away is held at the NOAA/NCDC – there is a file where it might be but good luck getting anything useful out of it).

  30. Michael R (21:56:08) : Does anyone else notice that if you drag the little slider bar to 2009, all of the graphs but one go to 2009. Sunlight %, whatever that is stops at 1999. Any particular reason for this?

    They’ve been in the dark since 1999.

  31. A little ot, but I notice that CNN.com has a front page story about a small Alaskan village that they claim is being destroyed by AGW. Note that tucked away in the emotional appeals to save them from AGW, these folks were forced to stop being nomads about 100 years ago.
    Quote: “Shishmaref’s people were nomadic, following seals and caribou, until the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs built a school on the island in the early 1900s and forced Inupiat children to attend.”
    Endquote
    So it seems to me that blame for their current predicament can be placed squarely on some government do-gooder, rather than modern society and all that nasty old CO2 (sarc) that is largely the result of natural processes anyway and is the stuff of life.

  32. I left them a suggestion, pointing out they call it a global dashboard. To avoid confusing the public they should included an Antarctic sea ice panel or combine with the Arctic panel to show true global sea ice.

  33. I have a great and obvious idea for this web-site!!!
    Do the same dashboard thing but make it truely useful. Add in the missing datasets this leaves out like solar flux and antartic ice. Add in a separate sat temp graph with the separate lines for lower and upper. Extend the temp graph to the end of the last ice age color coding which proxy is used. Keep the slider.
    Only with the long view of temps is our current rise out of the last ‘little ice age’ in context.
    I have to wonder about their temp graph since many of the reconstrutions out there show the 30’s were the warmest of the last century and not the 90s. I would put in the most accurate overall temp graph with the best data possible.
    This web site could be the ‘truth site’ and take the best of the publically available data and dashboard all of the data with the slider. The skeptics sites have never been about skepticism as a bias, but skepticism as in scientific skepticism. Prove it or lose it!
    The more easy to access truth the better.
    Other useful charts on the super dashboard could be cloud cover, radiation budget over time.
    A true and correct and complete dashboard instead of the biased joke Noaa just put up could be are real educational tool for the less informed public to start asking real questions.

  34. Bad Request
    Your browser sent a request that this server could not understand.
    Reason: You’re speaking plain HTTP to an SSL-enabled server port.
    Instead use the HTTPS scheme to access this URL, please.
    Hint: https://ncs.ncdc.noaa.gov/
    lol

  35. Double lol
    Secure Connection Failed
    ncs.ncdc.noaa.gov uses an invalid security certificate.
    The certificate is only valid for http://www.climate.gov
    (Error code: ssl_error_bad_cert_domain)
    * This could be a problem with the server’s configuration, or it could be someone trying to impersonate the server.
    * If you have connected to this server successfully in the past, the error may be temporary, and you can try again later.

  36. Look your bad vibes made it go away. All I see is a <
    I enjoyed setting the slider to 1930-1970 and thinking nothing was happening. I assumed from the press release you could go beyond the front page interactive nonsense to get some real data. I'm happy to be corrected.

  37. Not working at the moment:
    “Bad Request
    Your browser sent a request that this server could not understand.
    Reason: You’re speaking plain HTTP to an SSL-enabled server port.
    Instead use the HTTPS scheme to access this URL, please.
    Hint: https://ncs.ncdc.noaa.gov/
    and when click on the secured linked, Firefox tells me I should not trust that connection, and gives me the button : “get me out of there!”
    but you have to trust them to access the site which sounds like real climate science, isn’t it (“trust me… trust me…”)

  38. Leif Svalgaard (21:53:15) :
    The ‘incoming sunlight’ graph is using an obsolete TSI-reconstruction.
    welcome back Leif.
    I noticed under the “News” they included Sept was hot story, but seemed to have missed the Oct was cold story.

  39. There is a farmer in NE Oregon that absolutely believes in this tripe and continues to plant spring wheat. Crop gets destroyed by cold every year. So he sends in his insurance claim complete with NOAA predictions of perfect weather for Spring Wheat. And he gets his check. Every year.
    Hey! I think I have figured this out! Eureka! NOAA is providing a much needed service so that we can pump the wallets of tax payers! Gotta get me some a’ dat spring wheat!

  40. Clearly, the site is a “work in progress”.
    It also doesn’t appear to be something thrown together over the weekend, either, so they’ve probably been working on it for some time.
    The problem, as has been noted, is that the are selecting the information to be shown and the method in which it will be portrayed. This gives “believers” what they want, but does nothing regarding providing information to climate scientists which would allow verification of the information being provided.

  41. The temperature graph. It seems routine that NOAA, GISS, et al adjust *blips* in the 30’s and 40’s downwards, and uptrend the last 40 years in line with the manmade warming hypothesis.
    Has anyone plotted a graph from John Daly’s station page and formed a global average? Afterall, it claims to be raw data from NASA and CRU

  42. The “Climate Dashboard” idea is just wonderful. Simplify it down to a set of “idiot lights” that tell you nothing other than the lights are on — just like that check engine indicator on your car that’s been on for the last three years because of a malfunctioning sensor.

  43. @AdderW Saudi Arabia should be expected to “talk its own book”. While I agree that AGW is a pile of steaming cow patty, they would say the same even if was not.

  44. Myopic doesn’t even begin to describe the “Global Climate Dashboard.”
    Where is the data on cloud cover? Humidity? Ocean heat content? Overall albedo of the earth as seen from space?
    (Queue crickets chirping.)

  45. Timing of the NOAA is uncanny. And the selection of graphs and pictures is utterly astounding – could there be a more blatant attempt to shape public perception than with flat out distortions and lies – Someone should be investigated for putting erroneous data up on a government run website.
    This is the CRU model of information dissemination.

  46. And, as always, if the dashboard doesn’t let you drill down to the actual, factual, raw data, you’ve got to be very careful making conclusions. Without the raw data, and an understanding of how the individual points were collected, you’ve just got a bunch of pretty charts that may, or may not, be meaningful.

  47. I guess they are doing this in response to Sen. Inhofe’s move to get their data released: “There’s no need for us to release data Senator, its all there on our website.”
    BTW, the article states that they are using station temperature data. Lord Monckton recently wrote that satellite data is calibrated against the station data, so if the latter are biased, so must be the former. Is this true, does anyone know? If so, then it doesn’t seem to make much sense to even have satellite data.

  48. Somebody mentioned NASA earlier….NASA, NASA…where have I heard that before….oh yeah…..they are the same guys who said that foam couldn’t damage the leading edge of the Space Shuttle wing.

  49. Regarding the dashboard.
    Did the sunlight quit 10 years ago?
    If the sun didn’t stop 10 years ago, are they still Mannipulating the data?
    Based on the last 2 weeks, I really don’t believe this climate report service either.

  50. I’m starting to wonder if space exploration is too important to be left to NASA, entangled as it is in Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy.
    Perhaps give manned space to Space Command, space telescopes to the USNO, and orbiters and landers to the USGS.

  51. Michael R (21:56:08) : You asked, “Does anyone else notice that if you drag the little slider bar to 2009, all of the graphs but one go to 2009. Sunlight %, whatever that is stops at 1999. Any particular reason for this?”
    I believe the Incoming Sunlight % graph is based on the Lean (2000) Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) reconstruction. That reconstruction is obsolete. The current understanding of TSI is that the minimum levels do not vary. See the red curve in the graph courtesy of Leif Svalgaard:
    http://s5.tinypic.com/mmuclk.jpg
    Climate scientists use outdated TSI reconstructions to help explain the rise in surface temperatures in the first half of the 20th century. It was discussed in my post that ran here back in March. My original version is here:
    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/03/ipcc-20th-century-simulations-get-boost.html
    Regards

  52. Well it’s a place to go. Looks a lot political rather than scientific. One of their featured seven second movies clips about the failed oyster harvest wonders if ocean acidification may be the cause. OOoops ! seems that those chaps haven’t yet read about that experiment that showed that some snail shells grew very nicely in a less alkaline (more acidic ?) water, compared to the normal sea alkalinity.
    Well they might try going to some place where there are oysters to fish for them; rather than trying where there aren’t any. Any fisherman knows that 10% of the water contains 90% of the fish.
    Last time I checked, the New Zealand Green Shell Mussels were doing just fine in the cool waters of Cook Straight; well in the Marlborough sounds off the strait if you want to be nit picky.
    Cooler waters of course should be less alakline, if you believe that CO2 dissolves more readily in colder water.
    But as I said; it’s a place to go; we shall see how it develops .

  53. Bah. The NOAA site weather.gov regularly misrepresents the temperature. They’re regularly off by 5 to 10 degrees, TO THE WARM of course. Example:
    The other night (Nov 30) at 10:53pm the temperature in my area was reported as 43F degrees. An hour prior to that there was frost on my wife’s car. I specifically remember taking out the trash around 9:30pm and noting frost on my wife’s car. Then checked the temp later at 11:00 (NOAA updated at 10:53pm). Get that? That’s easily 10 degrees off to the warm. Unless it got warmer in that one hour? NOT! It progressively got colder all night long. My wife’s car (onboard) reported 27F around 2:00AM (she works graveyard shift). Guess what NOAA reported the low for that evening? 33. I’m serious. I went back and checked their 3 day history which shows an hourly reporting. No freezing temps recorded in that entire 12 hour period.
    Now, you get that, don’t you? According to NOAA it never got cold enough to frost, but there was frost “on the ground” for a solid 10 hours. Think this is a fluke? It ain’t. This is regularly the case. I’ve been watching for about a year now, and weather.gov is always (ALWAYS) warmer than the actual temperature.
    I know, I know, it’s all explainable and quite the norm. I live on a hill, or down in a valley, or this and that. I don’t buy it. There’s something rotten and the foul stench is becoming unavoidable. Unless… maybe I live in some weird vortex where it’s always 5 or 10 degrees cooler than anywhere else… wow… maybe I should contact Al Gore… my property could hold the key to ending AGW…

  54. I also noticed in their featured articles that they seem to confuse weather events like monsoons and floods with climate. I would think that global warming would enhance the monsoons. See Frank Wentz, et al SCIENCE July-7 2007. “How Much more Rain will Global Warming bring ?”
    One deg C rise in mean global surface temperature gives a 7% increase in total global evaporation, total atmospheric moisture , and total global precipitation. Fancy that; they are all the same. Might give one the idea that the total atmospheric moisture might be simply the integral of the total global evaportion, less the integral of the total global precipitation, so they all change at the same rate (over time).
    Well that can’t be true of course even though they observed that, because the GCMs say the evap and precip are 3 to 7 times lower than is actually measured; and the observed data has to be made to conform to the GCMs.
    I’m sure the monsoons are doing just fine; and the people who happen to be in their path are happy with that. If you aren’t one of those people, then I’m sure you believe the sky is falling also. We experience that same effect here in Califonia; sometimes it rains, and some times it doesn’t.

  55. Hey, when I open the new NOAA page, the Climate Change Dashboard shows the temperature graph up to 2000 — not to 2009.
    Duh….thus it looks like it is going up, but (I hate to use this corny line….) ‘hides the decline’ of the last few years.
    Anyone else get this view on the first opening of the page?
    Kip

  56. RE: KipHansen (10:14:13) :
    You can drag the date bar to make it to current, but why it would default like that is odd
    What gets me is that the Sea Level report showing right next to the Arctic Sea Ice Extent report seems to indicate a causal relationship between the two… which is specious, because the sea ice floats

  57. just left this comment on their site
    Why have you selected the time range of 1974 to 1999 as the default range? 1999 was 10 years ago! The average Joe is not going to know to change the date range.
    People are coming to this site for up to date info. Please change the default date range to end at 2009.
    Plus, in the light of your current Climategate debacle, it looks like you are trying to hide something.

  58. I just went back to look at the other comments and at the site and it seems they are as creative with numbers as the recovery.gov folks. Imagine that!

  59. thanks, anthony!
    you prompted my following response to NOAA:
    “I appreciate the graphic representation of this data, however, as presented, it necessarily displays such a statistically narrow range of values that it is, technically speaking, not representative of any relevant geologic or human time scale.
    It would be much better, when speaking of “climate change” to present the data of a thousand years or so, which is far more appropriate from any serious scientific and statistical point of view, but STILL is representative of only .000025% of earth’s history or 25% of recorded history for which man could be argued to have played any significant climate role.
    Furthermore, as you are well aware, 1934 was a warmer year than 1998, and that information should be plainly evident – it is not, and your chart is innacurate. The potential consequences and inferred conclusions of your decision to inherently, and errantly, present such a narrow slice of data is inappropriate and skews the implications of the data.
    As scientists, professionals, and arbiters of data being referenced and cited in so many aspects of our culture for legislative, tax, and judicial purposes you owe the public – and your own reputations – adherence to the most stringent standards of professionalism and scientific representation of data.
    Live up to it a higher standard; or step aside and leave it to those who know better and have more respect for the heralded halls of science.

Comments are closed.