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.
If this was a web site for a business pitching their product like this, the FTC would be all over them, issuing cease and desist orders.
No an omission, just a wish, that climate folks would truly use and explain the correlation in sunlight and solar output and how much of the temp increase is accounted for by solar output. As I noted above, one expects and prior to global warming paranoia one found everywhere, a strong correlation between solar output and earth temp. This would be expected, the other change in the IPCC that seems to get less press is the decrease in the amount of temp change accounted for by solar input. As noted above, this correlation can even be found using the data on the Climate.gov. Solar output is also correlated with sunspots, and sunspots with climate/weather as shown here even over single sunspot cycles:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090716113358.htm
Now add that to the fact that sunspot cycles correlate with the short term temp shown on their site:
http://spaceweather.com/glossary/sunspotnumber.html
And that the current warming correlates to the current modern maxima in sunspots:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png
…and you must conclude that the change in the IPCC, lowering solar input as a driver of climate, was … puzzling. This does not mean that anthropogenic global warming is not happening, just that it is likely happening at a lower level than the IPCC claims as at least a portion of the warming is accounted for by the earth’s furnace, namely the sun, and not just the blanket holding in the heat the furnace produces, namely the atmosphere and its constituents.
[posting as multiple identities is prohibited ~ ctm]
Their site has had two different versions of their global average temperature graph, both of which use graphic tricks to make a linear trend look like a recent upswing instead. I deconstructed both versions here:
http://i49.tinypic.com/2mpg0tz.jpg
http://i48.tinypic.com/dy5a3m.jpg
Michael–
Me too. Why did I sell that huge snowblower when I left Chicago for the relatively tropical mid-Atlantic?
So it is OK for US tax dollars to go to advocacy sites these days? Things have changed since I used to live in the US…
Henry:
This is no better than Palin screaming about Obama’s use of a teleprompter while using notes and scribbling answers on her hand
Now ask yourself, Henry, is a teleprompter a hand?
No propaganda by the U.S. Government is permitted without an appropriation for it by Congress. The Democrat led majority appropriated money for the propaganda….
I just emailed ‘thomas.r.karl [at] noaa.gov’ a note requesting a return to objectivism and included:
8 02 2010
noaaprogrammer (19:26:04) :
This is disappointing to me, as I have fond memories of working as a computer programmer for NOAA during the 1970s in Boulder, Colorado … and taking a larger view, all of science has suffered for becoming embroiled in politics. I am a firm believer in the separation of science and state per Eisenhower’s words of wisdom on this topic.
as I could not improve on it.
Please join in.
Jim-
Looks like you are getting pwned alot tonight! Seems scientists agree with my post above, and not your slam on me. Thanks for playing:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/08/sir-david-king-half-right-on-the-ipcc-and-global-warming-policies-despite-bad-logic/
LOL!
J. Peden-
Go ask yourself, would any knowledgeable and well versed politician need a three line note to remember an answer to a question, a question that she she knew in ADVANCE? Seen Obama at those town halls where he has knowledge on every issue? Did you see Obama crush the entire House caucus last week with KNOWLEDGE and FACTS and no teleprompter? I want a President smarter than me, and I am pretty damn smart…
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.
=================================================
Sure there is. The government wants to tax carbon. They need some ‘science’ to do it. Science is data. And as we have learned you can make data say anything. You can even use it to prove that carbon needs to be regulated and taxed.
The Founding Fathers didn’t like tax on tea. Tea is small time compared to carbon. Imagine what the Founding Fathers would think of co2 taxes!
Mark my words, (like I said long ago), under Jane Lubchenco, NOAA will engage in extensive public education, propoganda, in the model she brought from Oregon where every major goverment institution has long established this approach. With the media lapping it up for distribution.
Lubchenco has also recently established this ClimateCentral.org web site for the public to better understand climate.
http://www.climatecentral.org/breaking
And the first piece of help?
Western Australia Drought is ‘Proof of Climate Change.’
Published: February 8th, 2010
AUSTRALIAN AP – The author behind a new study linking 30-year drought in Western Australia with heavy snowfall in Antarctica says it is strong evidence man-made greenhouse gases have provoked dramatic climate change. … Read More
This seems to be a decent NSIDC site for watching the extent of polar ice over real time, with results nearly up to today’s date:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
I can’t say I’m terribly worried at this point! It will be interesting to see what happens in the springtime.
NikFromNYC – nice demonstration – thank you – should be obligatory viewing for politicians.
Henry (21:21:34) : “I want a President smarter than me, and I am pretty damn smart…”
And modesty is one of your finer qualities…
@Henry (21:21:34)
Do take a breath. Politics are still heavily involved, even with a smarter politician. His cabinet is still laden with these advocates that are key issues to this debate. Their advisements will continue to affect this or any administration until they show everyone the charlatans that they are. Keep up the investigations.
Great animation of all Arctic sea ice data:
http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice_animation.html
Off topic, great shuttle launch pic:
http://www.launchphotography.com/STS-130.html
Some might want to freeze frame this NASA polar ice image:
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/326193main_sup1seaicemax_full.jpg
for reference this coming August.
NASA truncates the ice extent data to 2007 on their Climate Kids Web page, which was recently announced on the NASA Global Climate Change web page.
Details here: http://ncwatch.typepad.com/media/2010/02/climate-kids-nasas-eyes-on-the-earth.html
This seem to be concerted effort to distort the data and scare kids and adults alike.
There is an online feedback form “Tell Us What You Think” linked as part of the standard footer on many pages:
http://www.climate.gov/
http://www.climate.gov/about.html
etc
Direct link is to the form is:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/GGVK2C6
Andrew-
There are many alot smarter than me, I am just very sure Palin is not among them.
Intrepid-
I do not disagree that Obama is limited by some left of center cabinet choices, but he is a centrist, and this whole Obama as a radical thing is belied by facts…
Gene Zeien (19:32:50) :
I’m happy to see another commenter that understands the math of statistics, data smoothing, graphs, etc., checking up on things! 🙂
I see on your web site:
Eugene Zeien, BS Applied Physics 1991 18 years experience in data analysis & IT support at the University of Iowa…..”I decided to take the time to find raw, unadjusted data and undertake some simple analyses.”
http://justdata.wordpress.com/
Disclaimer: the following is not legal advice, but is a general discussion of some legal issues. Should anyone require legal advice, he or she should consult an attorney. (mandatory disclaimer for attorneys writing about legal issues on public websites)
The whole truth in a court of law is a rare thing. There are many reasons for this, but among these reasons are 1) the lawyers ask the questions, and the witnesses give the responses; 2) some testimony is inadmissible, even though it is true; and 3) discovery rules prevent full disclosure of some facts.
On point 1, where a witness knows all about the facts, and the particular situation, he cannot just speak out from the witness stand but must answer the attorney’s questions. We have probably all heard on a tv show or in a movie, an attorney asking the witness to “tell us what happened that night.” In an real courtroom, it is not a good idea for the attorney to ask such an open-ended question. Witnesses do much more harm than good when they are allowed such free rein. Witnesses get nervous, they don’t fully understand all the fine points of law and evidence, and can make very damaging statements that sometimes ruins their chance of winning.
On point 2, there are many rules of evidence that keep some testimony or other potential evidence from being heard by the jury. One such rule that is familiar to many people is the hearsay rule. There is also a rule against evidence that is unduly prejudicial, a rule against privileged information, and others. Thus, the truth may be available, may even be known to both parties, but cannot be introduced and presented to the jury.
On point 3, the most telling reason that the whole truth is not generally found in a court of law, is that one side never knew the whole truth. Each party has knowledge of its own data and facts, but discloses to the other party only that which is requested and also required under the rules of discovery. Many things are secret and will not be divulged in discovery. In borderline cases, the judge can see the information and rule on how much of it, if any, to allow to be disclosed to the other side. Cases are won and lost in the discovery stage, so this is very important to attorneys on both sides. Discovery is generally very boring to the clients and even more boring to those not party to the case.
Clever lawyers know about the point made in the article above, that is, one party telling or showing the jury only that part of the truth that is favorable to one’s case. This can backfire, though, when the opposing attorney is knowledgeable and points out the missing data or other facts that are also true. While attorneys cannot be forced to testify (that is almost always the rule in the USA), they can call witnesses to testify to the points they need to make. The jury may wonder why one party withheld crucial information, and then distrust all the other information or testimony given by that party.
The climate change debate, especially any role played by man’s activities and release of greenhouse gases, already has a few cases in the courts. As one example, the State of California was sued recently in Federal court (Fresno) over the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, a law that requires substantial volumes of biofuels be included in gasoline and diesel sold in California. This will be a very interesting case to watch. The Low Carbon Fuel Standard is a part of California’s AB 32, and information on it can be found here:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/lcfs.htm
http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/ab-32-and-low-carbon-fuel-standard.html
Henry (21:43:08) :
Off topic, great shuttle launch pic:
http://www.launchphotography.com/STS-130.html
==================================================
What an awesome piece of machinery!