From an AP story interview, we have a what I’ll call a “Lubchencoism”.
“There is a well-orchestrated and fairly successful effort under way to confuse and sometimes cherry-pick information,” Lubchenco said.
Heh. Apparently she’s never reviewed how USHCN and GHCN came to have their station lists.
But here’s the quote that had me ROTFL
“I don’t view our role as trying to convince people of something,” she said. “Our role is to inform people.”
Apparently she’s never read the NOAA CCSP synthesis report. See this:
NCDC: Photoshopping the climate change report for better impact
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Listen to the tone of voice in this article entitled, “NOAA director urges better explanations of climate”. Words such as “climate change is happening NOW… seriously UNDERESTIMATED the importance…MELTING of Arctic sea ice…THREATS to birds and forests… spread of DISEASE … 2000 – 2009 WARMEST decade on record…STOLEN e-mails from climate scientists…FEW errors (in the IPCC report)… confuse and sometimes CHEERY-PICK information… TRUSTED sources such as NOAA.
This article is planting the seed in people’s mind that climate change is manmade and bad. I just shook my head when I read the Director of NOAA final quote, “I don’t view our role as trying to convince people of something, our role is to inform people”.
Let’s start by sharing all the information on climate change, such as 1) Indeed climate change is happening now because since 2002, the Earth has cooled not warmed as predicted by the IPCC. Inform the people that climate change has had more natural extreme temperature changes in the past than what occurred during the modern times, 2) that we underestimated our understanding of climatology. What has become obvious is that there are strong natural variations that are not yet understood, nor adequately accounted for in the computer global climate models. The current global computer models have over-estimated global warming. There has been lots of speculation about what is causing the present pattern – changes in solar activity, changes in ocean circulation, or changes in clouds and wind and dust patterns, 3) exactly which birds are forests are threatened by purely climate change and not other manmade stresses like deforestation and hunting. Please do not tell me it was the Golden Toad of Costa Rica, 4) exactly which diseases are spreading more due to climate changes only?, 5) 2000 – 2009 as the warmest decade on record, but according to which data? Do you trust Jim Hansen in that his temperature data is unbiased, or did he delete the thermometers from cold locations to argue his extreme global warming political belief? 6) Stolen e-mails, reads more like a whistle-blower with the inside connection as the e-mails released were not just random one but very important insights like “hide the decline” in both words and computer code. Findings within these documents indicate that the scientific method was not followed, specifically when it comes to the self-correction clause. This important component of the scientific method states that if valid data is found to be in conflict with the current theory, the theory gets modified not the valid data, 6) only a few errors in the IPCC reports? How about the smoking gun that Earth’s atmosphere is actually cooling down exactly the same location where all IPCC projections state they should show the greatest slope increase. The temperature data from weather balloons and satellites give this result: no increasing warming, but rather a slight cooling with altitude over the equator. Many scientists are now second guessing the entire premise that CO2 is the cause of a two decade warming, 7) Who is cheery-picking the data? Just recently Professor Phil Jones at CRU stated that there is a tendency in the IPCC reports to leave out inconvenient findings, especially in the parts most likely to be read by policy makers, and 8) Trusted sources such as NOAA, for what precise land temperature data? Strong evidence shows that the urban heat island skews the temperatures being recorded with a warm bias.
I do agree with one statement in this article in that we need a better explanation of climate.
“There is a well-orchestrated and fairly successful effort under way to confuse and sometimes cherry-pick information,” Lubchenco said.
That comment of hers actually describes what NOAA does as demonstrated in the Draft report ‘Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States’. It shows that she is still ‘at it’ as she speaks. The article reminds me of the Old Testament prophets to keep the ‘children if Israel under their thumb.
Doug
Mikael Lönnroth (08:15:54) said
‘Personally I don’t see any problem with that statement.‘
Michael I take it that you believe that everything she said in the article is supported by facts. That’s alright then.
Mikael Lönnroth (08:15:54) :
“but rather they are trying to inform the people of the (maybe convincing) facts so that the people can make up their own minds about the issues.”
Lubchenco is among the worst for playing loose with the facts by making up her own.
What does it take for someone like you grasp what institutional fabrication is?
Lubchenco, while at OSU, used a $9million NAS grant for a 5 year study of Oregon’s Ocean dead zones.
The end result was her OSU research team “cautioned they were unable to establish the extent of the link, IF ANY to AGE.”
Lubchenco moved forward with suggestions of a link where none was found.
She embellished her fabrication by suggesting these seasonal dead zones were new, larger and lasting longer.
She piled on photos of dead crabs on the ocean floor and blew the AGW alarm siren.
Her despicable conduct has paid off like none other.
She has arrived as the new head of NOAA, Her husband is on the gravey train, OSU has raked in many millions in new grant money, and the NOAA fleet is scheduled to move from Puget Sound to the Oregon State University research unit at Newport Oregon.
She’s living in some delusional world of makey-nicey . . . wonder if she still believes in too fairies?
Probably thinks Avatar is a documentary . . . .
Thanks for mentioning climatecentral. Shiny site.
Bargaining, next stage: Arctic ice extent might not be shrinking but its getting thinner!
http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/skating_on_thin_arctic_ice_winter/
LOL! Sure, Lubchenco, whatever you say. By all means, keep the propaganda machine primed and pumping the usual CAGW/CC bilge. We dare ya.
IQ Test
Which Statement Is True?
A. Psyentists on AGW Message: “The psyence is settled, it is not in dispute! Or data is rock solid. We know everything there is to know about everything regarding the weather and what climate will be like for the next 2,000 years.”
B. Hathaway on the solar conveyor belt and deep solar minimum: “Ooops! I guess I got it wrong.”
“Climate change is happening now and it’s happening in people’s back yards.” — Calamity Jane Lysenko.
OMG. In my backyard? Quick, call the exterminators. If only we could all pay higher taxes and shut down our economy at the same time. That’ll fix it.
Perhaps y’all would enjoy my exploratory essay called Carbon Dioxide and IR Radiation…A Kinky Affair?
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978101390
Steve Oregon (09:58:18) :
As a fellow Orygunian and follower of the career of Commissar Lubchenco
I agree 100%. She does not like they who make their living from the sea.
I was at a Greenpeace meeting, with a few old South Coast fishermen,
and some OSU (guess who was there) drones. One old fisherman stood up pointed at the assembled horde and said” They are not your friends.””We are
being used by them and then when they are done, you will be next.”
This was an issue of offshore mining and drilling. He was right..
I suppose if someone thought that skeptical observations of CAGW claims all seemed similar, it might mean the comments had been “orchestrated” or the commenters somehow were “orchestrated” to make these observations.
On the other hand, one could be seeing similar observations because they are accurate.
Has anyone ever identified with names and places, how skeptics are being orchestrated?
Or is it another unsubstantiated claim from the people who seem to be in the business of making unsubstantiated claims?
Pursuant to my earlier missive, I would defy any of the Enlightened to take on a skeptic such as Lubos Motl, who thoroughly destroys Tamino’s attempts at mathematics in a Reference Frame post from Friday 3/12:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/03/tamino-vs-random-walk.html
Reading Motl, it becomes clear that the AGW argument is premised on the attempted assignment of linear trends to nonlinear data. This tells me the Enlightened are so ignorant of math that they read rubbish like Tamino and assume it’s correct because it looks complicated. (Surely many of these must be the same people who think they can use their sophisticated palates to distinguish $5 from $35 wines? Expensive = better, right?)
Unfortunately it’s difficult to argue mathematics alone when the Enlightened aren’t conversant. Ironically what we have here is a situation where skeptics are bemoaning the vapidity of the Enlightened (the logical obverse of Lubchenco!) However, at least we’re all aware that the task at hand isn’t merely polishing the skeptic image.
So I put it to you all — what is the best course of action here? Continue exposing chinks in the armor (bottom up)? Unleash skeptic hell by working to arrange a national debate between Motl and Tamino (e.g.) and squashing the AGW assumptions from the top down?
At 27 comments into this session we still haven’t had a reference to
George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. So I’ll nominate Jane Lubchenco as the Minister of Truth.
Can someone explain this graph to me, please?
http://www.msc-smc.ec.gc.ca/ccrm/bulletin/figmapt_e.html?season=Winter&date=2010
G L Alston (10:10:03):
You’re spot-on in your analysis of junk science being defended now as merely a “communication” problem. As to why the Enlightened assume they’re smarter than everyone else, it’s because they’re academics, largely unacquainted with the actual workings of the real world. And they’re unaccustomed to their ex cathedra pronouncements from the ivory tower being challenged by anyone.
Global Warming Alarmism is a Grave Threat to our Liberty.
Speech by Václav Klaus, 2010 Club for Growth Economic Winter Conference, Palm Beach, Florida, March 5, 2010. Václav Klaus is President of the Czech Republic.
http://www.klaus.cz/clanky/2529
For Science Through The Looking Glass there is this motto on The Society of Environmental Journalists website: http://www.sej.org/
“The first essence of journalism is to know what you want to know; the second, is to find out who will tell you. ”
— John Gunther
Beware the open mind!
Ric Werme:
For the purpose of visualising something that is projected to happen in the future I really don’t see the big issue with using altered photographs. It’s like talking about a lake drying out and then showing the (altered) picture of that dry lake to demonstrate what it would look like. If the presented picture is supported by the scientific projections (height of water etc), of course, otherwise it’s obviously wrong to use it.
DirkH:
No, I’m not saying that doing it like some news organizations (most?) do it, illustrating events by showing completely unrelated stock material, is something that should be accepted in information material about scientific conclusions. I’m just saying that when trying to visualise future projections, it’s should be ok to use altered images. The report was a bit ambigous in that respect as it also talked about historical events (floods), but the overall objective, I felt, was to convey information about future projections. Do you see my point here? No? Of course they could respond to these concerns by clearly marking all altered pictures as such.
Robert Austin:
No, but I had to look up that word on the Googles 🙂
Jaye:
No, I’m just looking at what is presented without (overly) tinted glasses. But I guess I’m not the right person to make convincing statements about my own group think? 🙂
“There is a well-orchestrated and fairly successful effort under way to confuse and sometimes cherry-pick information,” Lubchenco said.
Who knew that she would admit to her dastardly deeds?
Climate changes. We know that. That man’s recent perturbation of the climate system will lead to doom and gloom is based on only one basic thing – an average of computer climate model “realizations.”
I see very little effort by those “trusted sources” on informing people of that. Probably because they have little evidence that shows climate models are any good.
Keep playing the music oh ye humble orchestra.
It must really frustrate the CAGW cabal that they have been completely unsuccessful in identifying the leaders of these “well orchestrated efforts”, since there aren’t any.
Someone needs to assemble the financial numbers for support of the CAGW fraud by the big bad oil and coal companies, and compare that number to the one they try to use against the sceptics. This would, of course, include the money laundered through various governmental entities and NGOs.
G.L. Alston (10:10:03)
Great post! Might I add from the Tao Te Ching:
He who recognizes his limitations is healthy;
He who ignores his limitations is sick.
I’ve always felt that the more you know, the more you should know you don’t know… and that to pretend otherwise is either deceit or insanity.
I think I still have a collection of Einstein’s non-scientific writings – there was a guy who understood the importance of humility even when he would have been well justified to walk around like the cock of the walk.
“Mikael Lönnroth (12:45:09) :
[…]
objective, I felt, was to convey information about future projections. Do you see my point here? No? Of course they could respond to these concerns by clearly marking all altered pictures as such.”
I see your point. Or they could resist the urge to use altered images. As Anthony said, there are enough real pictures of flooded houses available.
By using manipulated material when not necessary they lose trust.
Doug in Dunedin:
I didn’t read the whole article so I have no idea, sorry. Floods will become more common if sea level rises as projected, hence I accepted the manipulated picture of a flooded house which in the original article was presented as the evidence against the sincerity/validity of the quoted statement.
Steve Oregon:
Valid evidence of fabrication that I believe, I would say (I’m not saying that there isn’t any). The original message quoted what I think is a sensible statement along with a link to the manipulated picture story as evidence of insincerity– this is what I commented on, not anything else. As always, I’m very open to the fact that people in power may abuse the truth in pursuing their own goals.
DirkH:
It made me happy! And I agree, they could have used a real picture instead.