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.
I think Michon Scott could actually be one of us sceptics, or he is a fool. By making an obvious gaff in his article, he’s actually sending a message to those ‘in the know’ that the whole thing is a load of rubbish.
This was often done by Russian scientists in the bad old Stalin days, to the same end.
? Will Owl Gorey be the secret head of this new agency? And, how long before Mann and Jones become involved? In the wake of the scandal, hoax, whatever, this should make those with common sense, begin to wonder if they should be voting for someone who id like-minded. D.C. has been infiltrated with intellectual elites, but the working class suffers more everyday. These elites continue to spend money that the government doesn’t have, on problems that only exist in their minds.
Henry,
Political expediency doesn’t change Obama’s core belief system.
The complete quote should read more like:
“When you’re in a court of law, you have to swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. …..but when you are selling apocalyptic claptrap and popular delusions like AGW, no holds are barred.”
Any ideas why their solar irradecence chart ends at 2000? I’ve been curious about that since Anthony posted the first link to Climate.gov
Henry (23:32:26) : Folks, you need a little more of the old “Trust noone, question everything” mentality. No party is right, all news is spin. Go watch the real apeeches, listen to the real debates and get the facts.
It is actually frightening you admire this ‘intelligence’ as you put it. This must be ‘intelligent’, babbling, idiocy as usual:
January 2008 Obama, Quote:
“The problem is not technical, the problem is not uh, sufficient mastery of the intracacies of Washington, the problem is uh, can you get the American people to say this is really important and force their representatives to do the right thing. Uh that requires mobilizing a citizenry, that requires them understanding what is at stake, you know, and climate change is a great example, you know when I was asked earlier about uh the issue of coal, uh, you’ll, under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about coal is good or bad, because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal-powered plants natural gas plants, you name it, whatever the industry was, uh, retrofit their operations, that will cost money that will be passed on to consumers. You can already, you can already see what the arguments are going to be, during the general election,people are going to say ‘Obama and Al Gore, these folks are gonna to destroy the economy with this $8 trillion dollars or whatever the number is’, if you can’t persuade the American people that yes there’s going to be an increase in the rates of electricity in the front end, but that over the long term because of the combination of the more efficient energy usage and changing light bulbs,and more efficient appliances, uh, but also technology improving how we can produce clean energy that the economy will benefit, if we can’t make that argue it persuasively enough you, you can uh, you can be Lyndon Johnson, you can be the master of Washington, you’re not gonna get that done.”
As I recall, NOAA explained on their site that the 2007 ice loss was largely due to a combined effect of very extraordinary wind and current patterns. I learned that here, as that was blogged about on WUWT at the time.
This new website is, frankly, very disturbing. I look to my governmental science agencies to be engaged in science, not propaganda.
Henry (04:34:00) :
(…)
From even conservative companies like CAT:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0820717720100208
Wow. Caterpillar, a business, that prefers to make a profit, that sells equipment used in coal extraction, is willing to support “clean” coal energy, the only form of coal energy the greenies in power will support and allow (if any), which will (in theory) lead to more coal plants, more coal extraction, Caterpillar selling more equipment, and Caterpillar, a business, making a large profit.
Isn’t it truly amazing how a conservative company is willing to set aside their firmly-held politics to help save the planet? With money, of course, playing absolutely no part in their decision whatsoever. Absolutely astounding.
And this after Caterpillar so firmly proclaimed their staunch conservatism by taking part in that “Stimulus Bill” photo-op with Obama, where he announced on behalf of the company all the many people they were going to hire back with the stimulus funds. Go figure.
All United States government officials and employees are required to take an oath of office that reads as follows:
I (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
Our government officials fail continuously to discharge their duties.
checking the website at 8:45 CST Tues morning, it appears that they have changed the photo/graphic. It now shows 2009 along with a depiction of the 1979 to 2000 average.
Man…I had my email all fired up and ready to go.
Obama is a CEO. Just because he “O”pines about everything and anything he wants doesn’t mean he’s “doing” anything. If you’re worried about any of his intentions be sure to contact your friends on the Board of Directors and make it clear to them what it is you do and don’t like about what the CEO is muttering from his little teleprompter.
The Board of Directors is very sensitive to your every wish and desire, especially if you make it clear to them that their little rear ends and nice big incomes are at stake and you’re going to back up your words with action between now and the next election.
The biggest problem with the economy and the direction of government is that once the election is over folks ‘a s s u m e’ everything is in good hands. Never assume, it makes an a s s out of u and m e. The biggest problem is not that politicians have gotten worse, it’s that voters have gotten lazy.
Is Obama punishing NASA for getting caught in it’s lies? I wonder who will punish Obama? The voters?
It’s Bush’s Fault!!!
No, really.
Poor GW did a great job as Governor of Texas. The head Democrat in the state legislature, Bob Bullock, would work closely with GW to get things done for the state. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,987009,00.html
When GW went to DC, he tried to be bi-partisan and work with the Democrats. It didn’t work. In that vein, he didn’t remove the liberal Democrat activists that Clinton had appointed. It showed over the eight years of his administration wherein the activists helped the Democrat party undermine his agenda and cause him to fail.
(No? See the video here at about minute 45: http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/stateoftheunion/2006/
Democrats cheering that they caused GW fail in his attempts to save the economic future of these United States.)
Poor GW had a chance to remove these radical activists from the Federal government and he didn’t.
So it IS his fault.
Regards,
Steamboat Jack
As Mark Wagner (06:49:07) mentioned, they updated the photo and description:
“This map shows the median extent of sea ice during September from 1979-2000 (in yellow), and the minimum extent observed in 2009”
So, what’s the point of the map then? Seeing those two sets of data shown together is meaningless. Why are they not showing the median 2009 extent? Or the minimum extent for 1979-2000?
Yes, these questions are all a little bit rhetorical.
Folks the government is NOT an independent entity. It is a political entity. Its scientists are employed to further political or policy relevant agendas, not to engage in a dispassionate examination of the way the natural world works. The only way to guarantee independent science is to free scientists from reliance on politicians for funding and to ban scientists from being employed by the government … otherwise caveat emptor!
Why we ever got to the place where we assume government employees are capable of the dispassionate study of ANYTHING is beyond me.
I (Brian G Valentine), do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
Count me in on that one. I’m a Federal employee and I’ll die before I witness people suffer because of superstition and the apparatus invented to make that superstition appear as reality
[snip] Try again without using “denialist.”
Serious question here about the NSIDC plots above.
Comparing the 2008 and 2009 plots it seems clear that, having reached a minimum in 2007 there was lots of “first year” ice in 2008. By 2009 a lot of that had become “second year ice” – which might suggest some sort of recovery.
What seems odd, though, is that a large part of the “older ice” in 2008 is shown as “second year ice” in 2009.
Now, surely, if the ice in that area was “1 – 2 years old” in 2009 then it must have been there in 2008. In which case it was part of the “older ice” that existed in 2008, so would be “even older” ice in 2009?
I can see how old ice might melt and then be replaced by first year ice in one year but I can’t see how old ice can turn into “1 – 2 year old” ice in the same period???
You need to not work for NOAA to find this imagery.
@ur momisugly Pascvaks:
Further, Obama is the CEO of the United States division of Global, Inc.
As soon as USA’s interests conflict with Global’s, he will sell us down the river. Watch.
@ur momisuglyEric B:
It’s not meaningless; it’s deceptive.
Firing up my email again…
DirkH (04:26:24) : So you deny Roald Amundsen went through the passage in 1903–1906
http://www.athropolis.com/map9.htm
It’s always Marcia, Marcia (21:29:15) :
Marcia, another DOH moment! Sometimes you need a 2×4 to hit you upside the head to see the obvious! Yes, now we know that NOAA and NASA (and all their children) have been retasked for one thing only under this administration – increase tax revenue.
Why is this Michon Scott writing policy pieces when it appears that her (maybe his?) background is in website design ???
I have contacted NOAA and asked for her professional and educational background.
Text from my e-mail to NOAA regarding its new web site,
In looking through your agency’s new ClimateWatch magazine, all I can feel is sadness. A once proud science organization, NOAA appears now to officially be in the climate advocacy business? As a working geologist, American citizen, and tax payer, I am offended on several levels by the website, and in particular with the article: “What the Future May Hold”, by Mr. Michon Scott (December 31, 2009). Is this really what NOAA is calling science reporting these days?
I hope you would agree that working in the physical sciences is often a humbling experience. The condescending and disrespectful tone of Mr. Scott’s science/advocacy article is therefore disappointing, and I would have hoped, below a supposedly world renown scientific organization such as NOAA. Honestly, Mr. Scott’s article seemed much more like something one would find on a Green Peace, WWF, or RealClimate.com website. If advocacy organizations such as Green Peace, WWF, and RealClimate wish to promote only one side of the climate issue on their websites, this is America and that is their prerogative, at least I’m not forced to pay for it. However,
I am really disheartened to see that a government-funded organization like NOAA has apparently chosen to behave like just another one-sided, agenda-driven, science advocacy group.
If NOAA is truly a scientific organization, why is it apparently so eager to “protect” the public from various “non-mainstream” hypotheses regarding variations in climate? Why in the world would an apparently scientific organization feel such a strong need to take sides on such a contentious issue? Has NOAA totally forgotten how to successfully utilize the time-honored concept of multiple working hypotheses? Regardless of ones’ current view point on the climate issue, one-sided, agenda-based science
has never worked well, and never will.
I very much resent my tax dollars being used to support this type of one-sided advocacy website, a website that looks, to me, an awful lot like a “government-run” version of RealClimate.com. I am therefore, respectfully requesting that NOAA please stop its semi-scientific advocacy activities, we have Green Peace, WWF, and RealClimate.com for that; such behavior should be beneath you.
Thank you for your consideration,
Sincerely,
Pray tell, how do notes written on the palm differ from 3×5 cards?
NFL Quarterbacks are also in Palin’s league, only much worse!
Just coincidentally I saw on the tv news the Mayor of Washington, D.C., kind of awkwardly reading a statement about the snow there from notes extended at arm’s length downward, so that he had to keep looking way down to his left in order to read a rather simple statement, and he wasn’t trying to hide it. But who cares? I’m not going to judge this guy on that criterion. Obama on the other hand is hoisted on his own petard, or at least what others have made his only saving grace by now, his alleged ability to “give a great speech”. Oops!