Today NOAA officially announced www.climate.gov It didn’t take skeptics long to find a sin of omission. WUWT reader Dave N. pointed this one out to me.
Let’s start with the lecture to skeptics in the Dec 31st 2009 story “What the future may hold” which is an article about sea ice extent. The climate.gov website has been in “beta” for a couple of months. It was announced first on WUWT on December 2nd, 2009. There has been plenty of time to correct this story. The story states:
“When you’re in a court of law, you have to swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The people who have been focusing on the ‘cooling’ have not been telling the whole truth,”
It appears right below this graphic:
This NOAA.gov story for their new “ClimateWatch magazine”, is written by Michon Scott. It leaves out some important data that is obvious to everyone, skeptical or not.
The sea ice data, cited from NSIDC, stops in 2007. 2008 and 2009 sea ice data and imagery, available to even the simplest of curiosity seekers at the publicly available NSIDC or even Cryosphere Today websites, is not included in the graphic. Mr. Scott chooses the historical satellite record minimum of 2007 as the endpoint for comparison. This leaves a reader who is “not in the know”, with the false impression that sea ice has not recovered in any way.
Sometimes I wonder if these government types have any idea of just how blazingly stupid they look when they lecture skeptics, but purposely dig their own obvious data omission hole in the same article.
Here’s the 2008 and 2009 imagery. It took me all of about a minute of work to find it.
Above: Average, 2007, 2008 and 2009 Arctic sea ice extent. From NSIDC
Or how about Cryosphere Today, showing the 2008 and 2009 minimum days side by side?
You don’t need to work for NOAA to find this sea ice extent imagery.
There’s no excuse for NOAA not showing the 2008 and 2009 sea ice data or imagery in this story. None, zilch, zero, zip, nada.
Suffice it to say, this piece on www.climate.gov is propaganda with a lie of omission. It is not science because it omits a portion of the data that disagrees with the article’s premise.
So to Tom Karl, the new director of this machine, I use the again words written by your employee, Michon Scott with a single substitution.
“When you’re in a court of law, you have to swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The people who have been focusing on the ‘warming’ have not been telling the whole truth,”
Rather than lecture us about “truth” while at the same time omitting data not in line with the premise of the article, I suggest that if NOAA is to have any credibility with this website, you should fix this omission and present the true and complete history of the sea ice record. The sooner the better.
For those that agree and wish to complain, a review of NOAA’s “Information Quality” policy might prove useful:
See it here: http://www.cio.noaa.gov/Policy_Programs/info_quality.html
For those who want to make the issue known to the newly appointed man in charge:
thomas.r.karl [at] noaa.gov
He might need a reminder that he works for us, not the other way around.
Impossible! It came from a Gov’t website!
They also left out 2006, 2004, and 2003.
What is significant about these years? These are years just like 2008 and 2009 where sea ice temporarily recovered for a year or two, and then was followed by a larger drop afterwards.
All in all there are about 30 years of satellite data available. They showed 3, omitting 27, and you complained about the omission of two of these 27 years, but not the other 25 years that were ommitted.
REPLY: Technically that’s true, but I specifically complain about the one sided presentation, giving the impression that sea ice has never recovered from the 2007 all time minimum. 2007 has been used a poster boy for many stories like this.. -A
As an attorney and a Ph.D. I am terribly offended that they would lump all skeptics in as liars, and then lie. This is no better than Palin screaming about Obama’s use of a teleprompter while using notes and scribbling answers on her hand, NASA should be ashamed.
Many warmers are using simplistic lies and analysis to create a meme, there are many coolers doing the same, this is far too important an issue for either side to lie or obfuscate…
References:
Andronova, N.G., Schlesinger, M.E., (2000). Causes of global temperature changes during the 19th and 20th centuries. Geophysical Research Letters. 27(14), 2137-2140.
Black, R. (2009, December 2). Climate science, from Bali to Copenhagen. BBC. Accessed December 10, 2009.
Black, R. (2009, December 8). This decade “warmest on record.” BBC. Accessed December 10, 2009.
Borenstein, S. (2009, October 27). Global cooling claim not supported. Associated Press. Accessed December 10, 2009.
Carter, B. (2006, April 9). There IS a problem with global warming . . . it stopped in 1998. Telegraph.co.uk. Accessed December 10, 2009.
Earth System Research Laboratory, Physical Sciences Division. Time Series: AMO (Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation) Index. Accessed December 20, 2009.
Easterling, D.R., Wehner, M.F. (2009). Is the climate warming or cooling? Geophysical Research Letters. 36, L08706, doi:10.1029/2009GL037810.
GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies) Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP). Accessed December 10, 2009.
Investor’s Business Daily. Article reproduced at RealClearMarkets (November 8, 2008). Accessed December 10, 2009.
Keenlyside, N.S., Latif, M., Jungclaus, J., Kornblueh, L., Roeckner E. (2008). Advancing decadal-scale climate prediction in the North Atlantic sector. Nature. 453, 84-88, doi:10.1038/nature06921.
Met Office Hadley Centre Observations Datasets. HadCRUT3 dataset. Accessed December 10, 2009.
National Climatic Data Center, Global Surface Temperature Anomalies. Accessed December 22, 2009.
National Snow and Ice Data Center. State of the Cryosphere. Accessed December 10, 2009.
NOAA Response to Congressional Questions Regarding Climate Change, The Honorable Joe Barton and the Honorable Fred Upton. Updated November 2009. Accessed December 10, 2009.
RealClimate. (2009, October 6). A warming pause? Accessed December 10, 2009.
Schlesinger, M.E., Ramankutty, N. (1994). An oscillation in the global climate system of period 65-70 years. Nature. 367, 723-726.
That Sorenstein B. must be a peer reviewed publication… LOL
Polititians AND scientists… you expect honesty and integrity?
Yeah. And rabid pit bulls are sweet little lap dogs.
P.S.: I apoligize to any pit bulls who were insulted by my comparing them to either polititians OR scientists.
This is standard practice in climate science. The big pre-Copenhagen story about “increased Greenland melt” was dated 2003-2007. The entire global warming industry is based on half-truths (or less.)
Sometimes I wonder if these government types have any idea of just how blazingly stupid they look when they lecture skeptics, but purposely dig their own obvious data omission hole in the same article.
Tut tut, I’m quite sure their Arctic ice story was peer reviewed to “gold standard” quality. So everyone just lie back and enjoy the Fantasyland with them, or else Karl might start threatening to commit suicide or something.
Lie of omission 2:
Why does their timeline begin in 1959? Maybe because their sunlight input, which their graph implies is constant, is only constant from 19569 onwards. Slide the date back to 1880 and it sure looks to me like sunlight and temp might correlate….
Oliver K. Manuel (19:42:25) :
“Scientists who refuse to do so, are soon unemployed. That is how the unholy alliance of politicians, publishers and news media have transformed science into a tool of propaganda.”
Isn’t this how it was done in the 1930’s – in Germany?
Has history taught us nothing?
Globe & Mail: Eric Reguly: The fear and farce of climate-change science
One embattled scientist admits suicidal thoughts as another pens sex-laden novel
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/the-fear-and-farce-of-climate-change-science/article1459355/
Kind of blending the immutable spheres of politics and science aren’t we Henry?
Please, Henry, when people do this they usually show their naivety in one field or the other …
.
.
The IRI was established as a cooperative agreement between NOAA’s Climate Program Office and Columbia University.
It is part of The Earth Institute at Columbia University, and is located at the Lamont Campus.
Esther Conrad writer
Francesco Fiondella writer…
Activism!
Jim-
LOL! You idiocy precedes you, many patent lawyers today have both degrees. My job is litigating patents for one of the best science companies in the world. Patent litigation is one of the hardest areas of law and science as the money at stake requires excellence in both, or will get pwned, kinda like you just did. Grossly overbroad characterizations lead to incredibly stupid comments, congrats on yours.
Lie of omission 3:
Why use only Arctic sea ice extent and not Antarctic sea ice extent as well? Well, maybe because Anatartic sea ice extent is rising over the same period and it does not fit the Climate.gov meme. Scroll down, here:
http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html
Omissions – An Inconvenient Truth
I’ll write the script, but someone else needs to produce and direct the film.
Nobel is waiting.
Not sure this lie of omission is as large as my prior two, but the short term focus of the site ignores long term sea level change and ignores data, some of which has recently been posted here such as the Israeli sea level change paper and this data, also recently posted here showing long term sea level change:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png
About NOAA’s Climate Program Office
NOAA is a leading provider of weather, water, and climate information and services to the nation and the world. Established in October 2005, NOAA’s Climate Program Office (CPO) provides strategic guidance and oversight for the agency’s climate science and services programs. Designed to build knowledge of climate variability and change—and how they affect our health, our economy, and our future—the CPO’s programs have three main objectives:
Describe and understand the state of the climate system through integrated observations, monitoring, and data management;
Understand and predict climate variability and change from weeks to decades to a century into the future; and
Improve society’s ability to plan and respond to climate variability and change.
The CPO funds high-priority climate research to advance understanding of atmospheric and oceanic processes as well as climate impacts resulting from drought and other stresses. This research is conducted in most regions of the United States and at national and international scales, including in the Arctic. Recognizing that climate science literacy is a prerequisite for putting this new knowledge into action at all levels of society, the CPO also helps to lead NOAA’s climate communication, education, and professional development and training activities.
Kennedy, Caitlyn Science Writer
Taxpayer’s money hard at work for Solomon’s agitprop…
I also notice on Climate.gov that they somehow lost the ability to measure solar irradiance after the year 2000 even though they managed to reconstruct it back to 1880.
two pages….read it and weep!
NYT: ELISABETH ROSENTHAL: U.N. Climate Panel and Chief Face Credibility Siege
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/09/science/earth/09climate.html
“For those that agree and wish to complain, a review of NOAA’s “Information Quality” policy might prove useful:
See it here: http://www.cio.noaa.gov/Policy_Programs/info_quality.html
For those who want to make the issue known to the newly appointed man in charge:
thomas.r.karl [at] noaa.gov
He might need a reminder that he works for us, not the other way around.”
Naming names and their e-mail addresses is ballsy.
REPLY: His email address is all over the web, a matter of public record. Google it and you’ll find many places where it resides. The press release today from NOAA also names him as director of this new climate service to be. http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100208_climate.html
I figure if he’s put his name and email out there and is a public employee, we can post it here. -A
Taking an average of the last 30 years and calling it a meaningful trend is like saying “because it’s rained 3 out of the last 5 days, I declare a flooding trend for the future”. Unless we know with any certainty what sea ice has done over the last 10000 years, the last 30 is totally meaningless.
read it and weep … again….
Guardian: Ian Katz: The case for climate action must be remade from the ground upwards
With the science under siege and the politics in disarray, it may fall to civil society to keep this still crucial fight alive
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2010/feb/08/case-for-climate-change-science
They are too invested in this line of thinking to back out. All they can do is double down on every hand until their chips run out.
I here they ran out of rock salt up north and what with another noreaster coming, oh my.
“I figure if he’s put his name and email out there and is a public employee, we can post it here. -A”
A,
That’s cute. You know exactly how many people see you’re site with His e-mail address on it.
REPLY: Not intended to be cute. Like I said, anybody can get his email address in a few seconds of Googling. – A
And A,
With this topic like no other place on the web laid out this well, reading yours should make peoples heads explode as well.